Huckabee's Foreign Policy Miscues

Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) has had a tough time of it when it comes to his foreign policy comments. Following the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Huckabee said

"In light of what happened in Pakistan yesterday, it's interesting that there are more Pakistanis who have illegally crossed the border than of any other nationality except for those immediately south of our border."

While he attributed his source on the number of illegal Pakistani immigrants to the "CIA and immigration numbers," CNN reported that "the number of illegal immigrants from Pakistan deported or apprehended is not mentioned in the latest report from the Department of Homeland Security/Office of Immigration Statistics. In 2005, the nation did not make the list of the top 10 sources of illegal immigrants. The previous year, Pakistan was the last country listed, but no specific numbers were given."
He compounded his error by referring to Pakistan's "continued" state of martial law despite Musharraf's lifting of it roughly two weeks earlier.
He also referred to Musharraf not having "enough control of those eastern borders near Afghanistan to be able go after the terrorists," despite the fact that Pakistan's eastern border is with India.
Earlier, Huckabee admitted not being aware of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran and faced criticism for his response to questions on it.

****

The Republican Party establishment doesn't like Huckabee. They don't like his foreign policy gaffes but, perhaps more importantly for them, they don't like his position on taxes. The Weekly Standard poked fun at Huckabee's article in Foreign Affairs where he wrote of the need to "keep your friends close and your enemies closer," and attributed the quote to Sun-tzu. Wrote the Standard's Dean Barnett, "the only problem with citing this ancient piece of wisdom is that it comes not from Sun Tzu, but Michael Corleone. Unfortunately, the rest of Huckabee's essay was silent as to what America should do about Hyman Roth and his Sicilian message boy, Johnny Ola."
Attribution aside (and was Barnett's tongue-in-cheek?), Barnett's comment clearly indicates the low regard Republican economic conservatives have for Huckabee (here, here,
and here). One commentator even said nominating Huckabee would be "suicide" for the Republican Party given, among other things, "his tax-raising history in Arkansas."

****

Yet despite it all, Huckabee remains in a strong position in Iowa. An LA Times/Bloomberg News poll from earlier in the week has him ahead of Romney 37% to 23% (plus or minus 6%).
Based on this, at least, potential voters don't seem too distressed by his lack of foreign policy knowledge. Perhaps their support of him is similar to that of then-candidate Bush who, in 2000, reportedly said to Saudi Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, "I don’t have the foggiest idea about what I think about foreign policy."
If so, given what we've lived through these past seven years, they really ought to think again.

Candidate Biden's Plan for Iraq

Following the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, several presidential candidates moved quickly to cite their knowledge and experience as evidence of their abilities to handle such a foreign policy crisis. Among them was presidential candidate and Senator Joe Biden (D-DE). The NY Times reported on how he underlined "his foresight by noting that he had long called Pakistan 'the most dangerous nation on the planet.'" He also mentioned a letter he and other senators had sent to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in October, "urg[ing] President Musharraf to provide better security for Ms. Bhutto and other political leaders – I wrote him before her return and after the first assassination attempt in October. The failure to protect Ms. Bhutto raises a lot of hard questions for the government and security services that must be answered."
Prior to this, however, Biden co-authored with Senator Brownback (R-KS) an amendment calling for "a political settlement in Iraq based upon the principles of federalism."
Although some termed the amendment as a proposal to partition Iraq (including the Administration via the U.S. embassy in Baghdad), Biden strongly disputed that characterization, writing
"the Biden-Brownback amendment does not call for the partition of Iraq. To the contrary, it calls for keeping Iraq together by bringing to life the federal system enshrined in its Constitution. Partition, or the complete break-up of Iraq, is something wholly different than federalism. A federal Iraq is a united Iraq, but one in which power is devolved to regional governments with a limited central government responsible for protecting Iraq's borders and oil distribution. It leaves the door open for stronger unity if and when passions cool, as we're seeing in the Balkans. Nor does the amendment call for dividing Iraq along sectarian lines. Rather, it calls for helping Iraqis implement their own Constitution, which provides for any of Iraq's 18 provinces to form regions and sets out the extensive powers of those regions and the limited powers of the central government. The result could be three regions, or four or five or more. It will be up to the Iraqi people."
****
Despite his efforts to control the interpretation, "partition" was exactly how many viewed the amendment's outcome, were it to be adopted by Iraqis (Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution: "it is time to do what Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and a majority of his fellow senators have been pushing of late: Build on . . . local progress by advising Iraqis to consider a form of federalism or, as we call it more bluntly, a soft partition of Iraq.").
But why would Biden and others attempt to intervene in what should be an internal Iraqi decision on its governmental structure? As Michigan University professor Juan Cole sees it, "first they messed up Iraq by authorizing Terrible George to blow it up, now they want to further mess it up by dividing it. It makes no sense to me; the US Senate doesn't even have the authority to divide Iraq. Wouldn't that be for the Iraqi parliament?"
From Biden's perspective, while the decision "will be up to the Iraqis. . . the idea that the United States -- with 160,000 troops in Iraq, 3,804 dead and nearly 28,000 wounded -- does not have a right and responsibility to voice its views and to push for a political settlement is absurd."
Yet others have termed the amendment as "cynical and dangerous." Stephen Zunes, of Foreign Policy in Focus, said "[w]hereas most Iraqis calling for a federal system advocate a bottom-up process based on geography as a means to counter the threat of a return to dictatorship in Baghdad, the Senate plan constitutes a top-down solution from the outside based on ethnicity and religion."
Or, as Reidar Visser of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs argued, "where the senators made their big mistake was in focusing on federalism instead of constitutional revision. This is where there is room for the 'grand settlement' (including features related to federalism) which the senators so clearly want. This is also where such 'settlement' can be sought without violating the Iraqi constitution, because the process of revision itself is constitutionally mandated."
He added, "the procedures for implementing federalism in Iraq, consisting of the Iraqi constitution and the detailed legislation adopted in October 2006, unequivocally assert that (1) no federalization can start before April 1, 2008; (2) any new federal regions should come as the result of popular grassroots initiatives in the existing governorates; and (3) there is no imperative for every governorate in Iraq to opt for a federal status (theoretically, the number of new federal regions may be anywhere from zero to 15).
Biden's plan either violates all three of these aspects of the Iraqi legal framework or it has no meaning it all."
****
The Biden amendment seems to assume that sectarian "cleansing" has accelerated the movement toward de-facto partition and he's simply acknowledging that development: "the amendment will not produce 'bloodshed and suffering' in Iraq. It is hard to imagine more bloodshed and suffering than we've already seen, which has been exacerbated by the failure of Iraq's leaders to stop sectarian violence and produce a durable, widely accepted political settlement. More than 4 million Iraqis have already fled their homes for fear of sectarian violence, at a rate now of 100,000 every month. The whole purpose of my amendment is to end that bloodshed and suffering by promoting a power sharing arrangement that meets the interests of all Iraqis and gives them more local control over their daily lives."
But, apart from violating Iraq's constitution and ignoring its citizens in attempting to impose a political settlement from both above and outside, Biden's plan for Iraq would essentially legitimize militias and criminal enterprise. Roger Owen, Harvard professor of Middle East history, likens the situation to that "of Lebanon during its own civil war, there were enough economic resources scattered around the country for local warlords who controlled them to maintain their own loyal militias and civilian constituencies without having to reply on the leadership's financial support."
Or perhaps, as Gen. Petraeus said, of the situation in southern Iraq, "occasionally folks have said that this is -- I don't know -- a little like the Italian city-states in Machiavelli's day or something like that. But there's an awful lot of to-ing and fro-ing."
The forces arrayed against a unified Iraq are, of course, many: Kurdish autonomy, Shia militias, Sunni tribes, and any number of criminal enterprises, not to mention external state influences, all struggling for influence and power over others. Clearly, there is no one, simple solution that will tidy up and bring near-term resolution to a murky and multi-faceted problem.
As the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, put it, "Iraq is a federal state. The constitution says so. One of the challenges the Iraqis face right now is trying to work out what that actually means translated beyond the constitution into law and into practice. . . It's a work in progress."
Does Biden's proposal reflect his deep understanding of foreign affairs? Certainly, that is his claim as a candidate for the presidency. But his plan is driven by a desire, first and foremost, "to bring our troops home without leaving chaos behind." Yet it is unlikely, given the issues discussed above, that "federalizing" Iraq would provide stability. It more likely would intensify and exacerbate the power struggles already inflaming the country.

Bhutto Dead, Pakistan Dying

The assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto marks a dark day in an increasingly darker Pakistani future. Her death comes 12 days before national parliamentary elections in what the Washington Post described as an environment "already marked by enormous political turmoil."
A few days earlier, Bhutto, leader of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), had accused the government of engineering terrorist acts to keep people from participating in the upcoming elections. "The government is manipulating all this in order to force people stay away from the election rallies. The ongoing wave of terrorist activities in the country is part of a conspiracy to terrorize people from attending political meetings."
Bhutto's death comes days after Pakistan's election commission rejected former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's appeal on his eligibility to stand for election. Of the lost appeal, a party spokesman for Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League party said, "This also shows that they are still afraid of his popularity and cannot face him . . . [and] that there is no level playing field in these elections."
As the BBC said of Bhutto's assassination and where it occurred, "Rawalpindi, a garrison city, is seen as one of the country's most secure cities, making the attack even more embarrassing for the military authorities."
But, then again, maybe not. That she was killed in Rawalpindi merely makes Musharraf seem to be the one likely responsible. Musharraf's actions, from his initial coup in 1999 to his manipulation of Pakistan's Supreme Court and the organs of governance since, have been designed (if clumsily) to retain power at any cost.
Now, Pakistan's future, already uncertain if not bleak, grows more so. The United States bears no small responsibility in this debacle. American funding of Pakistan's disordered tyranny, well beyond $10 billion thus far, has merely funded the Pakistani military which is Musharraf's key support structure in is bid to hold onto power.
So what now? While President Bush extended his "deepest condolences to the family of Benazir Bhutto, to her friends, to her supporters," those supporters need much more than condolences. They need, at the very least, the US to start linking any aid program with specific and concrete demands that Musharraf restore the civil institutions he has determinedly weakened. This includes the restoration of Pakistan's Supreme Court.

The 9/11 Commission in 2004 made the following recommendation regarding Pakistan:

If Musharraf stands for enlightened moderation in a fight for his life and for the life of his country, the United States should be willing to make hard choices too, and make the difficult long-term commitment to the future of Pakistan. Sustaining the current scale of aid to Pakistan, the United States should support Pakistan’s government in its struggle against extremists with a comprehensive effort that extends from military aid to support for better education, so long as Pakistan’s leaders remain willing to make difficult choices of their own."

Of course, that didn't happen. The US made no fundamental, long-term commitment to strengthen the educational and institutional foundations of Pakistan. We merely looked away, useless rhetoric aside, and let Musharraf run roughshod over a nuclear-armed nation numbering 160 million.
We're witnessing merely the beginning of what our policy has wrought.

Hoover's Ghost

A recently declassified letter from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to the White House in 1950, following the onset of the Korean conflict, revealed his plans to imprison "approximately twelve thousand individuals, of which approximately ninety-seven per cent are citizens of the United States." They, Hoover claimed, were "individuals who are potentially dangerous to the internal security." Apart from the complete lack of reference to any evidence for this claim, and the remarkable contempt he displayed for Constitutional rights, there are several interesting features in the letter that demonstrate Hoover's police-state mentality.
Consider these nuggets:
--"It should be pointed out that the plan does not distinguish between aliens and citizens and both are included in its purview.";
--"The plan calls for a statement of charges to be served on each detainee and a hearing be afforded the individual within a specified period. The Hearing Board will consist of three members to be appointed by the Attorney General composed of one Judge of the United States or State Court and two citizens. The hearing procedure will give the detainee an opportunity to know why he is being detained and permit him to introduce material in the nature of evidence in his own behalf. The hearing procedure will not be bound by the rules of evidence."
Imagine. Judge, jury and executioner.

And it gets better. Not only does Hoover propose rounding up and imprisoning some 12,000 people but his plan essentially wrote legislation for Congress and an executive order for the president:

--"The plan contains a prepared document which should be referred to the President immediately upon the existence of one of the emergency situations for the President’s signature. Briefly, this proclamation recites the existence of the emergency situation and that in order to immediately protect the country against treason, espionage and sabotage the Attorney General is instructed to apprehend all individuals potentially dangerous to the internal security. In order to make effective these apprehensions, the proclamation suspends the Writ of Habeas Corpus for apprehensions made pursuant to it.
The plan also contains a prepared joint resolution to be passed by Congress and an Executive Order for the President which too will validate the previous Presidential proclamation."
****

Of course, one might shrug and consign the letter to the dustbin of history. Then again, one might consider Hoover's undefined assumptions of what constitutes a threat in his plan to arrest thousands. A difference between now and 1950 is Congressional and judicial involvement. As Ronald Kessler, who's written about the FBI, argues "[t]he court has allowed . . . measures that the Bush administration has used to find terrorists to continue. Congress has allowed [them] to continue as well."
Yet recent legislative history doesn't shine so brightly, in light of the flaws in the Patriot Act, the Protect America Act, or pending Senate legislation on FISA and telecom immunity.
****
Now, consider House bill, HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Co-sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) who chairs the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, the legislation calls for the establishment of a commission to "examine and report" on homegrown terrorism.
Sidling dangerously close to thought-police territory, the bill "finds", among other things, that "[t]he Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."
Caroline Fredrickson of the ACLU, in objecting to the bill, notes that "[l]aw enforcement should focus on action, not thought. We need to worry about the people who are committing crimes rather than those who harbor beliefs that the government may consider to be extreme."
Rep. Harman responded in a letter to Fredrickson, writing "ideologically based violence is not a protected act – it is a crime. Our bill would establish a diverse, well-qualified, nonpartisan, short-term commission to make recommendations to Congress so it can better understand and hopefully take responsible steps to prevent ideologically based violence. This is not the 'thought police' and surely it is not censorship." (Apparently, there was sufficient anger over HR 1955 among constituents that Harman's committee felt compelled to publish a "fact sheet" to address concerns.)
****
Of course, Fredrickson didn't dispute that "ideologically-based violence is not a protected act." Why? Because violence (of the non-state sort) is not a protected act. But Harman's claim to have Congress "better understand" ideologically-based violence by focusing on the internet is confusing at best and threatening to speech at worst. What will be learned that we do not know already about "ideologically-based violence"? Violence advocacy websites abound on the internet. This is not an unknown. But thought can be combated only by thought. The only long-term goal of any Congressionally-authorized commission would be, inevitably, to limit speech. Those outside the US understand this.
Hoover may be dead now but with HR 1955 passed overwhelming by a vote of 404-6, it's clear his legacy haunts Washington D.C.

The Pakistan Aid Abyss

From the not-surprising-in-the-least category comes a NY Times article on the lack of oversight of US aid to Pakistan. In a nice understatement, an anonymous "senior American military official" said, "I personally believe there is exaggeration and inflation. Then, I point back to the United States and say we didn’t have to give them money this way."
So how seriously can anyone take the statement of Assistant Secretary Of State For South And Central Asian Affairs, Richard Boucher, who testified before the Senate on December 6 that "all of our assistance programs are directed toward helping Pakistan achieve" objectives including "its transition to an elected civilian-led democracy, to become a moderate, democratic, Muslim nation committed to human rights and the rule of law"?
One problem is what "directed" can possibly mean in the absence of oversight and accountability. Recent Congressional efforts to require accountability from Pakistan and the Bush Administration can't be seen as serious. As the Times puts it, "lawmakers in Washington voted Thursday to put restrictions on the $300 million in military financing, and withheld $50 million of that money until Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice certifies that Islamabad has been restoring democratic rights since Mr. Musharraf lifted a state of emergency on Dec. 16. The measure ha(s) little effect on the far larger Coalition Support Funds reimbursements."
No kidding. These "Coalition Support Funds" (CSF) are where the real money is. CSF is described by the Center for Public Integrity as "a program controlled by the Defense Department to reimburse key allies in the global war on terror." In May the center reported the results of an investigation by its International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). They found, among other things, that "Pakistan's increase in U.S. military aid in the three years after 9/11 is a stunning 50,000 percent, growing from just $9 million in the three years before the attacks to nearly $4.7 billion in the three years after."
According to Larry Korb of the Center for American Progress, since 2001 the US has given more than $10 billion to Pakistan, of which 60% has gone toward CSF and is "considered by the U.S. administration to be a repayment rather than assistance. However, since there has been little accountability or transparency of this funding, it is uncertain if in fact these funds are being used to fight the GWOT (Global War on Terror)."
The remainder goes to "security assistance" efforts (involving major weapons like F-16s) and efforts aimed at "macroeconomic stability and to free up funds for social spending [although] few transparent accountability mechanisms are built in."
And the remainder of US aid to Pakistan? K. Alan Kronstadt of the Congressional Research Service says "only about 10% of the more than $10 billion provided to Pakistan since 2001 (including coalition support) has been specifically devoted to development and humanitarian programs."
As Robert Hathaway of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars put it, "the administration has justified virtually all U.S. assistance to Pakistan in terms of counterterrorism. To the extent that the Pakistani security apparatus has been employed since November 3 in rounding up lawyers, opposition politicians, journalists, and human rights activists, it is difficult to argue that unconditional backing for Pakistan’s military supports the war against terrorism."
No wonder the administration doesn't seem unduly concerned about the relatively weak restrictions established by Congress last week in its $300 million funding for Pakistan. When you have vast amounts, numbering in the billions, of Coalition Support Funds tucked into defense spending, a little $300 million slice of aid lets Congress have its oversight public relations coup.
Meanwhile, the real coup in Pakistan is effectively met with indifference.

Romney's "Anti-Endorsement"

When was the last time a candidate was explicitly rather than implicitly rejected by a newspaper's editorial board? The usual practice is to select a candidate for endorsement from the available list, but New Hampshire's Concord Monitor veered from that path to non-endorse Mitt Romney:
"if you followed only his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, you might imagine Romney as a pragmatic moderate with liberal positions on numerous social issues and an ability to work well with Democrats. If you followed only his campaign for president, you'd swear he was a red-meat conservative, pandering to the religious right, whatever the cost. Pay attention to both, and you're left to wonder if there's anything at all at his core."
His political makeover is certainly notable but far more so are his answers to questions on the limits of executive power posed by the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage. As Savage reminded readers, "in 2000, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were not asked about presidential power, and they volunteered nothing about their attitude toward the issue to voters. Yet once in office, they immediately began seeking out ways to concentrate more unchecked power in the White House - not just for themselves, but also for their successors."
Here are Romney's responses to the first two of 12 questions on executive authority:
1. "Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?"
Romney: "Intelligence and surveillance have proven to be some of the most effective national security tools we have to protect our nation. Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive and the President should not hesitate to use every legal tool at his disposal to keep America safe."
This "right to be kept alive" has become a useful cover to violate legal statues such as FISA. The "legal tool(s)" Romney refers to are related to Savage's fourth question on "signing statements" which President Bush has used to disregard Congressional statutes.
Walter Dellinger, former head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel from 1993 to 1996, wrote of this issue that, "the Bush administration’s frequent and seemingly cavalier refusal to enforce laws, which is aggravated by its avoidance of judicial review and even public disclosure of its actions, places it at odds with these principles and with predecessors of both parties" (this complicated matter is discussed in detail here).

What about the so-called "Bush Doctrine of pre-emption," which permits attacks on other nations who might, at some point (but not imminently), pose a threat to the United States?
2. "In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)"
Romney: "A President must always act in the best interests of the United States to protect us against a potential threat, including a nuclear Iran. Naturally, it is always preferable to seek agreement of all – leadership of our government as well as our friends around the world – where those circumstances are available."
Naturally, one ought to seek agreement of, among others, "leadership of our government" (read Congress) "where those circumstances are available." A better response, if he'd actually intended clarity in his answer, would have been to say that in the absence of imminent threat the president has no inherent war-making authority and must seek "a use-of-force authorization from Congress." Or, as Sen. Biden answered it, "our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens."
Romney deserves credit for responding to the Globe's questions on executive authority (Huckabee, Giuliani and Thompson refused to participate). His answers though are, arguably, beyond the pale of how a president ought to conceive of the office. But when combined with his easy shifts on policy positions (whether on abortion or gay rights), he merits not only the rejection by the Concord Monitor but by any reasonable person.

Speakeasy No More

Paul Krugman at the NY Times ends his column about the subprime mess with a bit of friendly advice that, in a world other than the bizarro one occupied by Democrats, could fairly be described as a shout: "Given the role of conservative ideology in the mortgage disaster, it’s puzzling that Democrats haven’t been more aggressive about making the disaster an issue for the 2008 election. They should be: It’s hard to imagine a more graphic demonstration of what’s wrong with their opponents’ economic beliefs."
Puzzling, yes. But after a year of Congressional Democratic weakness, the temperate suggestions of many are likely to rise in volume from a whisper to a scream, so great is their frustration.

Former Democratic Congresswoman (and House Judiciary Committee member during Watergate) Elizabeth Holtzman, made a reasonable effort on Tuesday (despite the "enormous political resistance and cynical indifference from the media" with regard to impeaching VP Cheney) to remind the Democratic majority of what the administration's done: "wiretapping without court approval (violating the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act), authorizing and facilitating mistreatment of detainees (violating U.S. treaties and criminal laws), starting the Iraq war on a basis of lies, exaggerations and misstatements (an abuse of power)."

The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) also has made the effort (h/t Glenn Greenwald) and provided a reminder of the issues, titled "The Telecoms Knowingly and Intentionally Violated at Least 4 Statutes That Require Telecoms To Protect Consumer Privacy." Yet telecom immunity remains in the Senate Intelligence Committee bill and on the table.

The ACLU has tried, too, reporting events here, and here and here on a number of administration abuses.

Then there's Atty. Gen. Mukasey's former law partner, Scott Horton (a second h/t to Glenn Greenwald) writing this in Harper's, where he said among other things, "at this point, it’s clear that breaking the law is the Justice Department’s number one, two and three priority. And law enforcement? That’s disappeared from the scene."

And, it's worth noting, there was Sen. Dodd's email reference to supporters of some 506,000 emails sent to the Senate by those objecting to telecom immunity tucked into the FISA legislation.

But did I mention Rep. Robert Wexler's (and fellow House Judiciary Committee members Luis Gutierrez' and Tammy Baldwin's) efforts to bring articles of impeachment against Cheney? Their collective effort produced more than 100,000 signatures in support in no less than five days.

Meanwhile, this is how the MSM reports Democrat-"led" Congressional efforts:

From the LA Times, this headline: "Democrats' agenda in ruins despite taking Hill."

And the Washington Post, which has: "Spending Bills Still Stuffed With Earmarks" followed by "despite Democrats' vow to slash the number of such pet projects."

Or the NY Times, which has "Republican Unity Trumps Democratic Momentum."

Democrats certainly don't seem to have many friends in the mainstream media.
Now compare all this with Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi's website which, despite a raft of failures, has the following "Next on the Agenda" item: "Demand accountability and end the “rubber stamp” approach to Congressional oversight of the war in Iraq, the fight against terrorism, and homeland security."

Or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's website, which includes this gem under the heading "Reid: Democrats Have Led The Way For Change In 2007": "And this Congress has also supported our courageous troops with more than words, but action." What follows is a list of accomplishments, such as 3.5% pay raises for the troops, "despite the President's opposition."

Clearly, many have tried repeatedly to remind Democrats what the issues are, as well as their obligations to their constituents. Yet all is for naught. Pelosi says that its a "waste of time" for the great unwashed citizenry who, despite their "passion," are merely "advocates" and not "leaders" like she and her colleagues (h/t Digby via Glenn Greenwald).
The big, substantial issues remain unresolved. Withdrawing troops from Iraq, ending the budget hemorrhage caused by that war, passing a well-designed FISA rewrite that excludes telecom immunity and corrects the flaws of the Protect America Act, revisiting the disproportionate Bush tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, conducting hearings on impeachment of--at least--the Vice President and the former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez for abuse of power, and violations of federal and international law on torture. And these are just to name a few.
The least that can be asked of this Congress is to actually fight--and not just rhetorically--for what its Democratic leadership says it stands for. Otherwise, what difference between them and the majority they replaced?

Articles of (and On) Impeachment

The manner in which the MSM has treated the issue of impeachment (of, particularly, Vice President Cheney) is one of casual, if not embarrassed, dismissal. A quick search of the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times and Boston Globe provided scant results. Here are some:
The effort by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) in November to bring his bill to the House floor calling for the impeachment of Cheney was described by the NY Times editorial board thusly:

"It is hard to know which effort has longer odds, the bid by Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, to become president of the United States, or his bid to unseat Vice President Dick Cheney by impeaching him."

At the Wapo on Tuesday, during their "Post Politics Hour" where White House and Congressional reporters take questions from readers, one reader (and from Canada, no less) wondered why the issue gets short shrift: "Can you explain why the move by three members of the judiciary committee for impeachment hearings against the Vice President has not received much media attention? I didn't see anything in the online Washington Post, for instance. Rep. Wexler apparently has gathered 80,000 signatures supporting his position on his Web site. This appears to be big news to me.

Michael Abramowitz:
To be quite honest, I am not aware of whether we have written about this. We have gotten these questions in one form or another for several years: Impeachment is not going to be happening under this Congress, even if there are some law-makers who think it is a good idea. So the media moves on to other things.

Over at the LA Times, a search turned up an article by a neuropsychiatrist on the need for assessments on the brain health of presidential condidates (probably not a bad idea), and an obituary on the death of Henry Hyde, former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and, ironically, the one "who presided over impeachment proceedings against President Clinton."

At the Boston Globe, meanwhile, a search there produced an editorial that made passing reference to Kucinich's "no-hoper effort to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney" in a piece on President Bush's veto of the SCHIP legislation.

And if you find this a bit peculiar, it'll strike you even more so in light of the failed efforts by three House Judiciary Committee members, Robert Wexler (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez )D-IL, and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) to have their editorial printed by these same newspapers cited above, calling for impeachment. Said Wexler,

"We laid out precisely why the House Judiciary Committee should open up hearings. … And we set out in an op-ed why we should do it, and none of the major newspapers in the country — the New York Times or the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the LA Times — they chose not to run it.
I thought it was a fairly significant statement by the mainstream media that when members of the House Judiciary Committee lay out a credible claim for why impeachment hearings should begin regarding the Vice President of the United States, and they refuse to run it, then we decided well we would start this website…and see what the feeling was in terms of mainstream America."

Here's a succinct rundown of reasons for impeachment by former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman (who also sat on the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate):

"There is little serious debate about whether Bush administration actions -- wiretapping without court approval (violating the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act), authorizing and facilitating mistreatment of detainees (violating U.S. treaties and criminal laws), starting the Iraq war on a basis of lies, exaggerations and misstatements (an abuse of power) -- meet the Constitutional standard."

Not a bad summation of the facts. Too bad they can't be found, along with the Wexler and colleagues editorial, in any MSM newspapers.

Brave Legal Eagles, All

Here's a surprise:

From the NY Times, "at least four top White House lawyers took part in discussions with the Central Intelligence Agency between 2003 and 2005 about whether to destroy videotapes showing the secret interrogations of two operatives from Al Qaeda, according to current and former administration and intelligence officials."
The vague, lawyerly suggestions and advice came from the unlamented former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, former star White House counsel Harriet Miers, Dick Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, and former senior lawyer at the National Security Council, John Bellinger.
As Marty Lederman points out,

"countless government officials 'advised' the CIA not to destroy the tapes . . . but no one actually instructed the CIA not to do so, nor, presumably, did anyone go so far as to tell the CIA that it would be unlawful to destroy the tapes."

Perfect, illuminating legal behavior. No one says anything directly, concretely. The parties merely "advise," express "vigorous sentiment" that the tapes be destroyed and, wink-wink, the message is clear to all and sundry. It certainly seemed clear to Jose Rodriguez, the former CIA deputy director of operations. He authorized the destruction.
So why would the White House seek the destruction of evidence that illuminated its brave stand on "agressive interrogation"? John Bellinger, in a Guardian interview in November, tells us

"With respect to interrogation techniques, there has been change in that area as well. The interrogations that may be done today are not the same techniques that may have been used a number of years back."

Ah, yes. A "change in that area" has taken place. Or has it? In response to a question about waterboarding specifically, Bellinger said

"we've decided that we just don't want to get engaged in hypotheticals and applying the law to the facts of these particular cases."

He cited the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits, among other things, waterboarding. Then he added,

"critics will say, well, what about the CIA? But remember as far as the change - and I think we've been talking about change in tone and change in policy - where we were a few years ago was that there were not clear rules that anybody could point to and that they might have been applied differently in different places. And now there are clear rules applicable to all of our military in any place in the world and you can just go and read them."

Having brought up the CIA's exclusion from the manual's restrictions, he behaves as if prohibitions apply to them as well, but declines to specifically say so.
To sum it all up, although the CIA apparently hasn't altered its interrogation methods, it almost certainly doesn't tape them any longer.
Again, Marty Lederman:

"a slew of people evidently advised the CIA that it would be unwise or even illegal to destroy the tapes. Thereafter, most or all of those officials, in the CIA, in the White House, in Congress, etc., eventually found out that the CIA did destroy the tapes -- and not a single one of them did a thing about it. Why not? Well, perhaps it's because this entire group finally issued a collective sigh of relief that, finally, the CIA had failed to heed their 'advice.'

Addendum to FCC Post

I should have made clear the relaxation of ownership restrictions referred to the so-called "newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership."

The FCC's Gift to Corporate Media

Just in time for Christmas, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman, Kevin Martin, tied the bow on a nice, big shiny present for corporate media.
Despite bipartisan opposition from the Senate Commerce Committee, and despite their warning that they would "move legislation to revoke the rule and nullify the vote" if the FCC voted to "relax" ownership restrictions in the 20 largest U.S. media markets, Martin and two other Republican members (with the two Democrats on the five member commission voting against) ignored opposition and voted 3-2 for the change in ownership rules.
So, why would Martin and friends do this in the face of such obvious disagreement? One need look no further than the White House for the answer. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on December 4, saying the Bush Administration rejected any effort to delay the vote "or any attempt to delay or overturn these revised (FCC) rules by legislative means. The administration has long supported modernization of media ownership regulations to more accurately reflect the changing media landscape."
Of course, by "modernization" read "consolidation." And consolidation means one thing: A louder corporate voice shilling for its view of reality at the expense of local voices covering essential stories, such as local zoning issues, environment concerns or labor disputes.
Gutierrez' letter also says that "the FCC has crafted changes that appropriately take into account the myriad of news and information outlets that exist today." But this is a mirage. The number of media outlets isn't an indicator of media diversity. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) analyzed this very issue. In a letter to Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, the GAO found, for example, that

"in Wilkes Barre/Scranton, we identified eight television stations. However, one owner of two stations participated in an agreement with a third station and the remaining four television stations participated in two separate agreements—each agreement covering two stations. Thus, while there are eight television stations and seven owners in Wilkes Barre/Scranton, there are three loose commercial groupings in the market. This example suggests that the number of independently owned media outlets in a given market is not always a good indicator of how many independently produced local news or other programs are available in a market."

The report also found (drawing its data from Free Press after stating that the federal government has, itself, no reliable statistics on the matter) that woman and minority-owned full-power television and radio stations were limited to 5% and 3% respectively (for television) and 6% and 8% for radio stations.
As FCC member Michael Copps noted, "racial and ethnic minorities make up 33 percent of our population but they own a scant 3 percent of all full-power commercial TV stations. And that number is plummeting."
And these are just ethnic minorities--the report doesn't determine what percentage can be assigned to reflect political/social minority viewpoints.

The long and short of it is that Martin engaged in the appearance of openness in listening to public concerns regarding this continued drive toward media consolidation. He cited the number of public hearings the commission held to gather citizens' input. Yet despite that public input, he and his colleagues went ahead and voted for continued consolidation.
As the NY Times has it,

"opponents of the ban say in the past decade there has been an explosion of news outlets thanks to cable television and the Internet and that such restrictions are no longer necessary. Ban supporters say there may be additional outlets, but there has been no corresponding increase in news gatherers and producers, especially at the local level."

And that's really what this comes down to. We live in an increasingly unstable and insecure world. This we know. But we do not know, without a great deal of independent effort, how and by whom decisions that affect us are made by a behind-the-scenes, small, and much-too-powerful elite. This shouldn't be the case in a democracy. And such decisions are simply not properly or throughly reported sufficiently by media. And why should they be? They're wholly owned subsidiaries of, yes, corporations.

Religion & Government at Home and Abroad

Last week, Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) announced the government would seek to ease restrictions on headscarves worn by women in government offices and universities.
The Turkish Daily News writes that any attempt at changing the policy would upset the "secular elite, which includes powerful army generals, top judges and university rectors. The secularists view the headscarf as a symbol of political Islam and, therefore, as a direct challenge to Turkey's separation of religion and state."
Interestingly, despite reelecting the AKP (a party with Islamist roots) to a second five year term, "Turks' attitudes regarding Sharia (Islamic religious law) are different from those in many other predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East," according to a recent Gallup Poll.
Only 7% of Turks believe Sharia should be the only source of legislation while 26% say it should be one (but not the sole) source.
In another Gallup Poll, "Majorities See Religion and Democracy as Compatible," 14% of Iranians believe Sharia should be the sole source of law while more than 66% believe it should play some role.
Yet in the same poll, 9% of Americans thought the Bible should be the sole source of legislation while 46% believed it should be one (but not the sole) source.
To illustrate the similarities between, especially, Iranians and Americans when it comes to religion's importance in public (and legislative) life, here is a sample from the recent speech by Republican candidate Mitt Romney on religion, where he said

"the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

Or former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee who said, in a speech to the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit, "I come today as one not who comes to you but as one who comes from you. You are my roots." He said that same-sex marriage contravened "the holy word of God." He termed abortion a "holocaust."
And, referring to his background as a Baptist minister, said, "I think it's important that the language of Zion is a mother tongue and not a recently acquired second language."

To put it another way, twice as many Americans as Turks believe religion should inform legislation, while a solid majority (57%) of Turks believe it should play no role. Compare that with a mere plurality (44%) of Americans who believe so.

Conclusions? Only one. Any threat to "our way of life" is more likely to come from among us than from abroad.

Omnipotence, Omniscience, Spying and the Loss of Liberty

The Bush Administration recently dispatched Attorney General Michael Mukasey and the Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell to publicly defend its warrantless and illegal surveillance of Americans. However, despite these attempts at justification, this remains unconstitutional and intrusive, and is a clear abandonment of the principles of democratic government.
This isn't a new story. The spying began prior to 9/11 and efforts to justify it on that basis clearly fails based simply on the chronology, if nothing else. As the NY Times reported, "in December 2000, agency officials wrote a transition report to the incoming Bush administration, saying the agency must become a 'powerful, permanent presence' on the commercial communications network, a goal that they acknowledged would raise legal and privacy issues."
McConnell implicitly endorsed this position recently when he wrote in the NY Times, in arguing for a renewal of the Protect America Act, that

"the intelligence community needs a law that does not require a court order for surveillance directed at a foreign intelligence target reasonably believed to be outside the United States, regardless of where the communications are found." (By "where the communications are found," read the United States, and note that the phrase "foreign intelligence target" doesn't necessarily exclude American citizens)

Attorney General Mukasey wrote similarly that

"the House of Representatives recently passed a version that would significantly weaken the Protect America Act by, among other things, requiring individual court orders to target people overseas in order to acquire certain types of foreign intelligence information. Similarly, the Senate Judiciary Committee made significant amendments to the Senate Intelligence Committee's bill that would have the collective effect of weakening the government's ability to effectively surveil intelligence targets abroad." (Again, "target people oversees" and "effectively surveil intelligence targets abroad" doesn't necessarily exclude American citizens)

Yet Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) wrote (in defense of the House Restore Act Mukasey referred to which reinstated court oversight protection excluded in the Protect America Act) that the legislation:

"provides exactly what the Director of National Intelligence asked for earlier this year: it explicitly states that no court order is required to listen to the conversations of foreigners that happen to pass through the U.S. telecommunications system. It does not grant Constitutional rights to foreign terrorists."

So what, exactly, is the disconnection here? Simply, the administration wants the power--on principle--to engage in warrantless wiretapping of not only foreigners overseas (which it is already legally entitled to do), but potentially on American citizens abroad (and, potentially, at home since communication hubs are located in the US), and do so without legal or congressional oversight. They want, unchecked, the power to turn the United States--a nation of laws--into a lawless state.
McConnell, Mukasey and others want the public to think that the FISA safeguard requiring a warrant makes impossible sucessful monitoring of terrorists' communications. Yet, as Holt says,

"if federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies want to read the email or listen to the phone call of an American citizen, they have to get - except in emergencies - a judge to issue a warrant allowing them do so, as the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires. Such a court order would be easy to get if there is cause to believe that the American's communications are important intelligence for the protection of our security. And in such 'emergencies' there would be quick after-the-fact review by the courts. These are not 'unimportant, obscure technical details' - this is the heart of the bill."

There is nothing that prevents intelligence agencies from monitoring terrorist communications. The sole, proper requirement is that the government obtain a court order to monitor communications of people within the United States and American citizens abroad. And even this can be obtained after the fact, in the event of exigent circumstances.

Yet none of the proper, legally and constitutionally required safeguards have been employed by the government. The starkest evidence for this is the complicity of telecommunications companies. Constitutional legal expert Glenn Greenwald has written extensively about this, and telecom immunity from prosecution comprises a significant element of McConnel's and Mukasey's "arguments."
Mukasey, in defending telecom companies' complicity, wrote that pending legal action against them ought to be dismissed if

"the attorney general certified to the court either that a company did not provide assistance to the government or that a company had received a written request indicating that the activity was authorized by the president and determined to be lawful."

Not "determined to be lawful" by a court (a necessary branch of government in accordance with our separation of powers) but by the attorney general and the president (for whom he works).

McConnell asserted that:

"those in the private sector who stand by us in times of national security emergencies deserve thanks, not lawsuits. I share the view of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which, after a year of study, concluded that 'without retroactive immunity, the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful government requests in the future,' and warned that 'the possible reduction in intelligence that might result from this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety of our nation.'"

But the issue isn't (and never has been ) cooperation "with lawful government requests." In fact, according to the NY Times,

"N.S.A. [National Security Agency] officials met with the Qwest executives in February 2001 and asked for more access to their phone system for surveillance operations, according to people familiar with the episode. The company declined, expressing concerns that the request was illegal without a court order."

Not only did the request precede the attacks of 9/11 by several months (and right after the Administration took office), but Qwest's legal staff objected to the absence of a court order. Clearly, the company objected not to the request for assistance but that it didn't meet legal safeguards.

The blatant disregard for the Constitution, couched in the language of patriotism, has rendered the United States a lawless place where no one is safe. This isn't mere hyperbole. It's exactly what's being determined right now in Congress. Our Bill of Rights is slowly but determinedly being neutered and our proud history and tradition of the rule of law, for which so many have died defending, is about to be buried by seekers of raw power.
Edward Lazarus, a Constitutional lawyer, observed in 2005 that

"I might even accept, for the purposes of argument, that, in the panicky aftermath of 9/11, it was understandable for the President to act unilaterally to protect against a potential second-wave attack, regardless of constitutional limits.
But . . . there has been copious time for deliberation and, if necessary, Congressional action. In this context, it simply cannot be that the President, acting alone, has the permanent authority he now claims to override a carefully-wrought congressional scheme for fighting terrorism, and enact his own set of secret rules."

Or, as U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor noted in August 2006, ruling that the NSA surveillance program was unconstitutional, "there are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all ’inherent powers’ must derive from that Constitution. The public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution."

A Weak-Kneed Congress

As Congress readies itself for the holidays, its Democratic members will return to their districts and states bearing meager evidence of their shallow triumphs. This year, as Terence Samuel of The American Prospect puts it, the story is that

"for what seems like the gazillionth time, they have capitulated to the White House on important priorities: They voted more money for the Iraq War this week; they allowed Michael Mukasey to be confirmed as attorney general even though he was ambivalent on the issue of torture; the illegal warrantless wiretapping continues, and nothing they have done has had any perceptible impact on ending the war in Iraq. They have lost dozens of votes on Iraq from cutting funding to lengthening leave time for soldiers. So despite the tough political climate in which President Bush finds himself?he has a 28 percent approval rating in some public polls he has consistently been portrayed as the winner while Democrats continue to wear the loser tag."

But one need look no further than the Wall Street Journal's editorial page to take in their smirking pleasure at the Democrats' failures. The Journal believes, of course, that

"the dysfunction amply shows that Democrats are attempting to govern with an agenda that is too far left even for many in their own party, never mind the country."

So what does "too far left" (and therefore, presumably, "crazy") mean? How about ending the Iraq war. A Rasmussen Reports poll found "that 57% of Americans would like to see U.S. troops brought home from Iraq within a year." Those are hardly crazy, wild-eyed, far-left numbers. (Polling data in Iraq reveals an even stronger view on US troop withdrawal: nearly half [47%] want an immediate withdrawal.)

Yet the Democratic-led Congress has given in again and again. They gave in by confirming Michael Mukasey as Attorney General, and now get to taste the first fruit of that tough and uncompromising vote.
And illegal wiretapping? As Samuel says, that continues unabated. It is but another in the laundry list that is Democratic capitulation.

All in all, a remarkably strong showing by the congressional majority.

Mukasey to Congress: Do Not Interfere

If Attorney General Michael Mukasey's response to Congress (rejecting calls for information on the destruction of CIA interrogation video tapes) is a sign of his independence, as he says, he has an obstructionist's way of going about it. Indeed, if by independence he means from congressional oversight rather than from the administration, then we can brace ourselves for continued official ethical and moral degradation.
Mukasey's letter to Senate and House committee leaders said, in part,:

"The department has a long-standing policy of declining to provide nonpublic information about pending matters. This policy is based in part on our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence."

Not a promising statement (and was it presented with a straight face?) given that law enforcement decisions have been subject to political influence. Indeed, that's entirely the point. Congressional oversight is essential because of political interference at the Justice Department. Yet even more disturbing was his comment, in rejecting calls for a special prosecutor, that he was "aware of no facts at present" that would justify such a need. Apparently, the fact that the CIA interrogation tapes were destroyed doesn't constitute a "fact" that would justify such a move.

Another indication, should one be needed, that Mukasey's assertion of independence is questionable, was the White House threat to veto House legislation outlawing waterboarding. The administration objects to "the interrogation provision and other sections that would increase congressional oversight," says McClatchy reporter Renee Schoof. It's striking that the executive branch objects to the interrogation restriction since "the legislation would require the CIA and other intelligence agencies to use only interrogation techniques authorized for the military in the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations." It seems that's not sufficient for an administration that, despite a growing mountain of evidence (at least that which hasn't been destroyed) to the contrary, repeatedly insists "the United States does not torture."

It would be useful to look at the army manual and its prohibitions:

If used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations, prohibited actions include, but are not limited to—
•
Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner.
•
Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes.
•
Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain.
•
“Waterboarding.”
•
Using military working dogs.
•
Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
•
Conducting mock executions.
• Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.


And yet the Justice Department, with astonishing, mind-bending arrogance, calls on Congress to delay its investigations into the destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes, arguing that the House Intelligence Committee's investigation created unidentified "significant risks" to the department's investigation. Mukasey, it seems, doesn't want Congressional "meddling."
House members Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) responded by saying "there is no basis upon which the attorney general can stand in the way of our work." It remains to be seen whether they'll succumb to his suggestion that they sit quietly and await his unbiased and objective report.

As Senate Republicans obediently move to strip out the language in the House legislation related to waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" (in the words of the White House), it's likely the House bill won't retain the appropriate restrictions against such abuse. God forbid, the last thing we need is a clutch of Republican senators exercising even a scintilla of independence from the administration.
The question now before Congress is, again, will it stand tall and pursue its oversight duties as required by the Constitution? Or will it, again, stand silent and passive in the face of a monstrous and lawless administration?

US Senate: Condition Critical

Revealed, in a nutshell, is the problem with the Senate as a governing institution: "I think we are being consistent here against higher taxes, consistently against greater regulation, consistently against creating new causes of action in bill after bill after bill. It's a positive image of our vision of America. We have a pretty good sense that the public has figured out they are not too happy with this new Congress." (Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell [R-KY])
Really?
Senate Republican obstruction isn't in the least a "positive message" for America. And "the public" McConnell represents (read the monied class) is but a small slice of of the vast human landscape that comprises the nation's body politic.
A Pew Research Center analysis in September found that "the number of Americans who see themselves among the 'have-nots' of society has doubled over the past two decades, from 17% in 1988 to 34% today. In 1988, far more Americans said that, if they had to choose, they probably were among the 'haves' (59%) than the 'have-nots' (17%). Today, this gap is far narrower (45% 'haves' vs. 34% 'have-nots')."
McConnell's America is shrinking even as the real-world America grows, and grows impatient and unrepresented.
****
Gallup, meanwhile, has similar poll results assessing that the Democrats are "winning on issues." Among Gallup's findings: "Gallup finds the Democrats holding a considerable advantage over the Republicans in public perceptions of which party can handle a variety of national issues." On the following issues, Democrats lead Republicans by these percentages:
Economy: Dems. 50% Reps. 38%
Iraq: Dems: 48% Reps. 38%
Corruption in Government: Dems. 42% Reps. 29%
Protecting civil liberties: Dems 49% Reps. 36%
Senate rules have long allowed obstruction as a parliamentary tool to thwart the majority's legislative efforts. The Democrats did it. The Republicans do it. Theoretically, such obstruction induces both sides to compromise on legislation but the effect, in policy terms, is to bring to a halt attempts to shift policy (whether on Iraq, taxes or anything else).
Currently, Democrats have the slimmest of majorities in the Senate (51% to 49%) and since Republicans insist "[Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid . . . round up 60 votes -- to prevent a filibuster -- on everything from a contentious immigration bill to popular ethics legislation," little of importance to the public (such as a effort to wind down the Iraq war) will be accomplished.
****
So how long will this stalemate continue? As long as too many Americans believe the Republican Party is the sole, reliable standard bearer on moral issues (when campaign slogans against the scapegoated pass for "compassionate conservatism"), on immigration (where the party rains down contempt on immigrants even as it looks the other way when its business interests hire immigrants as a source of cheap labor), or on taxes (when "families in the middle fifth of the income distribution realized only a modest $6,600 increase in annual income between 1988 and 2004, while the top 1% of families saw their incomes rise from $839,100 to an average $1,259,700") while median household inflation-adjusted incomes are lower than they were in 1999.
This bondage will come to an end only when enough people realize they've trapped themselves by casting votes according to party affiliation rather than voting on the real, genuine and authentic merits of each candidate. But that's easily remedied come November.

FISA Court & Transparency: Never the Twain Shall Meet

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) yesterday refused to make public documents related to the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program.
In August the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sought the release of records related to "the scope of the government's authority to engage in the secret wiretapping of Americans," following the passage of the Protect America Act.
According to the ACLU's website, in an effort to secure passage of the act, "the president and members of Congress publicly made repeated veiled references to orders issued by the FISC earlier this year" as justification for the legislation.
At the time of the act's passage in August,
Ryan Singel of Wired.com, wrote that the act for the first time "removes the prohibition on warrantless spying on Americans abroad and gives the government wide powers to order communication service providers such as cell phone companies and ISPs to make their networks available to government eavesdroppers."
The act employs vague, easily manipulated language: it refers to "the acquisition of foreign intelligence information" even though this could allow the monitoring of American citizens abroad; it seeks to monitor people only "reasonably believed" to be outside the US, and permits the FISC to dismiss only "clearly erroneous" justifications provided by the Justice Department in its pursuit of intelligence targets. As the Washington Post phrased it at the time, the act "has been criticized as being too broad and lacking effective court oversight."

Among the many changes to FISA there are two of significance embodied in the Protect America Act: it allows spy agencies such as the National Security Agency (NSA) to compel US-based ISPs and cell phone companies to open their networks to American intelligence (although they can challenge an order in FISC--but the entire process is secret); it also excludes oversight by the Inspector General who, as Singel notes, "uncovered abuses of the Patriot Act by the FBI after being ordered by Congress to audit the use of powerful self-issued subpoenas"; instead, oversight is to be monitored by the Attorney General who, of course, works for the administration.
The act also prohibits legal challenges such as the ones currently being litigated that have spurred calls for retroactive telecom immunity: "notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under this section.

The Director of the ACLU National Security Project, Jameel Jaffer, responded to the FISC decision by saying it was disappointing "both in its reasoning and its result. A federal court's interpretation of federal law should not be kept secret from the American public. The Bush administration is seeking expanded surveillance powers from Congress because of the rulings issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court earlier this year. Under this decision, those rulings may remain secret forever."

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) spoke on the Senate floor on Friday and said:

"We will shortly consider making right the things that are wrong with the so-called Protect America Act, a second-rate piece of legislation passed in a stampede in August at the behest of the Bush Administration. It is worth for a moment considering why making this right is so important.
President Bush pressed this legislation not only to establish how our government can spy on foreign agents, but how his administration can spy on Americans. Make no mistake, the legislation we passed in August is significantly about spying on Americans – a business this administration should not be allowed to get into except under the closest supervision. We have a plain and tested device for keeping tabs on the government when it’s keeping tabs on Americans. It is our Constitution."

The challenge that lies before us is to determine whether our Constitution is still our Constitution.

Huckabee's Murky Foreign Policy Positions

Former governor Mike Huckabee talks quite a bit about his faith which, he says on his website, "defines me. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives." If that is so, then how does his faith inform his views on foreign policy? He calls for "a real sense of cooperation" between the US and other nations and adds, "I would like us to restore relationships and rebuild the kind of positive attitudes people have historically had toward our nation and do that by showing the kind of respect that other nations would want and deserve."
He doesn't say how this restoration and rebuilding would take place but cited as an example the recent visit to the US by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The president, he said, "showed a friendly face to us."
But this is reaction rather than a proactive expression of corrective policy (and, in any case, the burden here is on the foreign leader to demonstrate a change in attitude). If Huckabee feels the current administration has bungled foreign relations, and that's the implication, then he needs to define the contours of his policy prescription.
He cites several points on his site regarding his national security concerns, including this: "We don't have a dog in the fight between Sunnis and Shiites - our enemy is Islamic extremism in all its guises." If so, it is important to ask why he wasn't aware of the recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) regarding Iran (surely a prime state expression of "Islamic extremism").
At the time of the report's release, Huckabee revealed this lack of awareness but, upon being informed of it, said "I don't know where the intelligence is coming from that says that they suspended the program and how credible that is versus the news that they actually are expanding it," he said. "And then I've heard the last two weeks supposed reports that say that they are accelerating and could be having a reactor in a much shorter period of time than originally they thought." (He offered no evidence on those reports that Iran is expanding its weapons program).
It's clear why Huckabee resonates with some in the Republican Party, but he needs to speak with something approximating depth and insight about his foreign policy positions. Saying "I will fight this war hard, but I will also fight it smart, using all our political, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence weapons as well as our military might," just isn't sufficient.

A Veritable Book of Revelation(s)

The revelations just keep coming and coming.
The Washington Post today reports that the congressional acquiescence to administration policy dates to at least 2002. In this particular instance, the issue involved the CIA's interrogation program. The bipartisan group of four members (one of whom is current Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi), according to the paper, did not object to what they learned in the briefing. Two (whom the Post doesn't name) of the four "asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said. 'The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,' said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange."
Far from objecting to the questionable legality and ethics of what they witnessed, we have--again--an early indication of congressional complicity with administration policies:

"Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. 'Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,' said [Porter] Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. 'And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.'

One of the defenses members of Congress offers on matters like this is that they're sworn to rules of secrecy that prohibit "them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs."
And this is surely one of the issues that constrains effective oversight. Who determines--and why and when--the contours of these secrecy obligations? What if, as with the issues regarding waterboarding and FISA violations, members of Congress witness or secretly learn of such violations? Are they then prohibited from exercising their oversight responsibilities? Whom, exactly, do they serve? The executive branch or the Constitution?

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, spoke on the Senate floor on Friday about FISA violations, illegal wiretapping of Americans, and "the so-called Protect America Act, a second-rate piece of legislation passed in a stampede in August at the behest of the Bush Administration." The critical thrust of the speech, however, was that the Bush Administration's belief in its prerogative to decide what powers it possesses and what laws it might or might not obey (thus, ironically or otherwise, encroaching on the powers and obligations of the legislative and judicial branches).

There is much legal debate about the powers of the presidency and what might constitute presidential overreach. The questions, however, go beyond the parameters of executive authority. Are those powers so vast that the other branches of government must concede them and thus abdicate their own responsibilities? What we're witnessing by Congress is a history of malfeasance, of frank disregard for the obligations and duties required of that branch of government by the Constitution.

Not Oversight but Complicity

Not so long ago, the Church Committee investigated the executive branch rot generated by a long-standing lack of congressional oversight. It was this committee that gave us among other things FISA, serially ignored by the Bush Administration.
That the committee's work brought about the existence of the current Senate Intelligence Committee makes it doubly shameful to witness the silent complicity by the likes of current committee chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).
The revelation that the CIA in 2005 destroyed interrogation tapes and that Rockefeller, among others, knew not only of the existence of the tapes as early as 2003, but the intention to destroy them, has shown us how utterly irresponsible (if not complicitly criminal) and ineffectual the Intelligence Committee has become.

Law Professor Jonathan Turley: "Democratic members appear to have had knowledge of both the official use of torture (which is a crime) and the stated intention to destroy evidence (which is also a crime). Yet, again, they remained totally silent and passive."

Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman: "Jay Rockefeller claims that the Intel Committees were not ‘consulted’ on the use of the tapes ‘nor the decision to destroy the tapes.’ But he does not deny that he was informed of the agency’s intent to dispose of the tapes, and he acknowledges that he learned of the destruction one year ago, in November 2006. And this is the first time he has said anything about it. Jay Rockefeller is constantly learning of legally dubious (at best) C.I.A. intelligence activities, and then saying nothing about them publicly until they are leaked to the press, at which point he expresses outrage and incredulity — but reveals nothing. Really, isn’t it about time the Democrats select an effective Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, one who will treat this scandal with the seriousness it deserves, and who will shed much-needed light on the C.I.A. program of torture, cruel treatment and obstruction of evidence?"

And to think this post isn't even about illegal wiretapping or telecom immunity. That congressional oversight is this non-existent ought to be a crime in and of itself.

Sen. Feinstein's Definition of Transparency

Se. Feinstein (D-CA) has further (un)distinguished herself with the NY Times revelation that the CIA destroyed in 2005 "at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody." The Times adds, "the tapes were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that video showing harsh interrogation methods could expose agency officials to legal risks, several officials said."
****
As a member of both the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, Feinstein must have known about the tapes (along with fellow Intelligence Committee member Sen. Rockefeller who said, "we were provided with very limited information about the existence of the tapes"), yet not a word about them was uttered--or any other substantial, tough questioning with sufficient followup during Michael Mukasey's confirmation hearing.
On this issue, silence.
****
Mukasey said (during the hearing) regarding torture:
"I was asked at the hearing and in your letter questions about the hypothetical use of certain coercive interrogation techniques. As described in your letter, these techniques seem over the line or, on a personal basis, repugnant to me, and would probably seem the same to many Americans. But hypotheticals are different from real life, and in any legal opinion the actual facts and circumstances are critical."
Hypotheticals. The CIA tapes contain no hypotheticals. The show interrogation/torture (why else destroy them?).
****
So what to make of her remarkable statement in support of Mukasey's nomination, that voting against him would allow "the Administration to avoid the transparency that confirmation hearings provide and diminish effective oversight by Congress"?

Transparency and oversight. Hallmarks both of Feinstein's career.

Romney's Religious Test

Mitt Romney's widely anticipated speech on his LDS faith proved to be a monologue on religion's supposed indivisible role in American government and society. Among others are these nuggets:

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
Oh? There are a multitude of non-religious people out there who seek freedom with a passion equal to, at least, that of any religious person. In fact, many such non-religious folk can be more passionate about guaranteeing those freedoms to others of minority faiths or no faith at all.

"I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law."
But he will, apparently, put the doctrine of religiosity above those "plain duties."

And this,
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

And what is the "original meaning" to which he refers? Article VI of the Constitution says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Now Romney, I'm guessing, must subscribe to the "original intent" camp. Article VI is clear enough. What, then, is this about "the religion of secularism"?
This falsehood which has permeated the land is not a "religion" by negation but a reflection of that original intent. Romney says, as if it's an affront, "religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life."
By public life, I take his meaning to be regarding public policy. If so, then yes. Unqualifiedly, yes. He (and so many others) ought to consider the words of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
As a newly-minted staunch conservative, Romney ought to consider that a successful government is one that doesn't impose religious belief (no matter how benign) on its citizens. It's also one that doesn't drive to the margins those whose beliefs fall well outside the majority.
It would be remarkable that anyone could not see the danger implicit in Romney's speech. This is particularly so given the current global environment. Romney hasn't been excluded as a participant in public life because of his belief. The shame of it is that by seeking to prove his Republican credentials, he rhetorically excludes others not like himself.
That's a fine way to demonstrate fitness for office.

A Real (Subprime) Mess

With the growing problem of interest rate resets on subprime mortgages looming darkly on the horizon, the Bush Administration announced today a plan that would freeze rates for certain borrowers . The plan covers only those who live in their homes and fall within certain parameters (they must be current on their payments, actually live in the home [intended to exclude speculators] and must have taken out the mortgage between January 1, 2005 and July 31, 2007, among other exclusions).
So is this an exercise in compassionate conservatism? Probably not. Given the restrictions, the plan would apply to only about 12% of all subprime borrowers (about 240,000 homeowners).
But when Citigroup (with "large losses related to subprime mortgages and the credit market turmoil"), Merrill Lynch (the bruised but "once-proud Wall Street firm battered by losses from the mortgage debacle"), Countrywide Financial and Wall Street, generally, suffer substantial losses with the specter of greater losses yet to come, well, that clearly demands government involvement.
Of course, it strikes a lot of people as bizarre, even hypocritical, that a Republican administration would intrude into the market in this way and prescribe the dreaded bailout that's not a bailout. But the drying up of market liquidity (since no one knows who owes what, given the extraordinary complexity of the problem, everyone is wary of lending to the wrong party) is apparently significant enough to generate this response. Besides, better half a loaf than none in the face of the growing number of defaults.
That some homeowners will benefit from this is largely incidental (except for that 12%, of course). The particular purpose of this intrusion is to stem the bleeding from the financial sector's self-inflicted wound and, of course, desperately stave off the threat of recession in an upcoming election year.