"Fashionable"
Via digby ("Hullabaloo"), here's the New Haven Independent's Melissa Bailey on the Joe Lieberman exchange with a college student on torture:

Student Kevin Miner, who said he'd voted for Lieberman twice in 2000, said one question had been eating him up for a long time: "I want to know what the moral reasoning is from a man who went from being a freedom rider to a torture apologist. I want to know what happened."

The crowd — dozens of students joined by a lot of faculty and staff — applauded the question.

"I'm not a torture apologist," said Lieberman, citing "outrage" at absence of due process for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Then he went on to explain why he was one of only 12 Democratic senators to support a recent detainee bill. The bill prohibits some of the worst abuses of detainees, but many Democrats say it gives the president too much room to decide which other interrogation techniques are permissible and allow inhumane treatment of suspects.

Echoing Republican arguments, Lieberman told the student: "We're at war. It's hard for a lot of people to understand this, because it's a different kind of war." The people we are capturing are "enemy combatants," and in many countries are given fewer rights than prisoners of war. "We are now giving them more rights than prisoners of war get in most countries of war."

"I know it's fasionable to say what you're saying," Lieberman told the student. But "these are people who people working for us suspect of wanting to kill us. All of us! Any one of us! And it doesn't mean that they aren't human beings ... But they don't deserve the same rights that citizens of the United States do." The comment garnered a smattering of applause.

So let me get this straight. If someone working for me -- not me, mind you, I'm delegating that chore -- suspects you want to kill us (all of us! any one of us!) then I say let's declare you an unlawful enemy combatant, lock you up, throw away the key, deny you due process, and let the president flip a coin whether he'll have you waterboarded.

OK, not you, just some brown guy from Whateverstan. As digby writes,

He knows exactly what he's saying and that's more unforgiveable than some wingnut rube who says outright that all the people in Guantanamo are terrorists. Joe's not actually making the decision to torture and imprison potentially innocent people, you see. "Somebody who works for us" is.

Lieberman's voice is worse than fingernails on a chalkboard to me, but hearing it say "...wanting to kill us. All of us! Any one of us!" would have been unbearable. I think there's a real whiff of self doubt in all this squeaky tough guy posturing he engages in. It's clearest when he tries to scare his audience into agreeing with him, and when he whines how people like that student are just being "fashionable," how they don't understand how serious things are.

In effect, Joe is so scared of terrorists he condones locking up and tormenting hundreds of innocents on the off chance there are a few bad guys among them. In effect, this country is. But in his own scared mind, he's long since gladly let his Big Tough Brother make the call that they're really all bad guys -- because why else would they be in jail?

Boy, do I hope Lamont wins. This country could use a break. We can follow Joe and continue to cringe and skulk and fear , or we can decide not to -- without any guarantee of perfect safety, but with the ability to look at ourselves in the mirror again.



=====
CROSSPOSTED to Never In Our Names, a collaborative blog focused on "human rights, especially anti-torture, as well as due process for detainees; Iraq, Afghanistan and the so-called Global War on Terror." posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:08:00 PM -- |    

 
Useful stuff
Register to vote --- (including in Maryland) at GoVote.org. Not sure you still have time? Look up your state's deadline. Think you're already registered? Make sure you are at MyDem.com (reg. required); they keep tabs on state registered voter lists.


Apply for an absentee ballot --- ...in Maryland* (note: no excuse needed any more; deadline: October 31), or anywhere in the U.S. (check state web site for your state's deadline). Avoid lines, free yourself up for election work, and be sure your vote will be counted accurately if you live in a state like Maryland with non-voter verified electronic voting systems. Live overseas? Go here.

Choose campaign:Cardin (MD)Lamont (CT) Sanders (VT)Tester (MT) Webb (VA) Whitehouse (RI) More information

Volunteer for Ben Cardin for Senate --- If you don't live in Maryland or don't have the time, choose from one of the selected candidates for U.S. Senate in the graphic form to the right and volunteer for that campaign, or go to the DSCC web site and pick the Democratic Senate campaign you want to work for.


Declare your independence from junk mail -- And I insist that's not a contradiction with getting involved with a political campaign! I'm going to do this; every day, at least half of our mail goes straight into the recycle bin, and that's a shame. The New American Dream organization has set up a web site that makes it easy for you to formally request getting less junk mail. They also help you advocate for "greener" catalogs that you do still want to get, and for a national "Do Not Junk" registry modeled on the "Do Not Call" telemarketing one.


Request your FOIA information --- Want to know what the federal government's got on you? Thanks to the wonderful Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA), they have to tell you if you ask them nicely. I've finally sent in my request, and I suggest you do as well.


=====
* In Maryland you no longer need an excuse to vote by absentee ballot.
NOTES: Voter registration links via Jim Macdonald ("Making Light") posted by Thomas Nephew at 6:17:00 PM -- |    

 
Presto, change-o! Workers become management
In 2002, nurses at Oakwood Heritage Hospital in Taylor, Michigan decided they wanted to join a union. Today 12 of them know they won't be allowed to -- by this country's so-called "Labor Relations Board," which has morphed from a protector of employee rights into an advocate for management's every wish to curtail the right to organize.

The reason: under a brand new reading of labor law, they're statutory supervisors. From the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) 3-2 Oakwood decision:

Where an individual is engaged a part of the time as a supervisor and the rest of the time as a unit employee, the legal standard for a supervisory determination is whether the individual spends a regular and substantial portion of his/her work time performing supervisory functions. Under the Board’s standard, "regular" means according to a pattern or schedule, as opposed to sporadic substitution. The Board has not adopted a strict numerical definition of substantiality and has found supervisory status where the individuals have served in a supervisory role for at least 10–15 percent of their total work time.(emphasis added, footnotes omitted.)

So if someone spends one hour in ten assigning some responsibilities to co-workers, they're supervisors (and likely unwilling-scabs-to-be) -- even if they can't hire, fire, discipline, or reward anyone. From the dissent (published with the decision, footnotes likewise omitted) by Clinton appointees Wilma B. Liebman and Dennis P. Walsh:

Today’s decision threatens to create a new class of workers under Federal labor law: workers who have neither the genuine prerogatives of management, nor the statutory rights of ordinary employees. Into that category may fall most professionals (among many other workers), who by 2012 could number almost 34 million, accounting for 23.3 percent of the work force. [M]ost professionals have some supervisory responsibilities in the sense of directing another’s work—the lawyer his secretary, the teacher his teacher’s aide, the doctor his nurses, the registered nurse her nurse’s aide, and so on.

If the National Labor Relations Act required this result—if Congress intended to define supervisors in a way that swept in large numbers of professionals and other workers without true managerial prerogatives—then the Board would be dutybound to apply the statute that way. But that is not the case. The language of the Act, its structure, and its legislative history all point to significantly narrower interpretations of the ambiguous statutory terms "assign . . . other employees" and "responsibly to direct them" than the majority adopts. The majority rejects what it calls a “results-oriented approach” in interpreting the Act. But the reasonableness of the majority’s interpretation can surely be tested by its real-world consequences. Congress cared about the precise scope of the Act’s definition of "supervisor," and so should the Board. Instead, the majority’s decision reflects an unfortunate failure to engage in the sort of reasoned decision-making that Congress expected from the Board, which has the "primary responsibility for developing and applying national labor policy."(emphasis added)

The decision was reached without any public hearings on the matter -- an indication the Board knew just how explosive the result would be. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney writes,

It is a sad day for every American who works to put food on the table and gas in their cars, when the rights they count on can be cynically eviscerated by a Labor Board that is informed more by political ideology than sound legal analysis.

The NLRB should protect workers' rights -- not eliminate them. If the Administration expects us to take this quietly, they’re mistaken. Over the next week, working people will be coming together in the streets in cities across the nation to make sure everyone knows the Bush Administration is slashing workers’ right to have a voice on the job.

For more, see "Working Americans Under Attack" at The Center for American Progress (CAP) Progress Report, an extremely informative and link-rich summary of the case and its implications. See also "NLRB Undermines Workers' Rights" at American Rights at Work where you can let President Bush know just what you think of this transparent union-busting action by his cronies at the NLRB.

It's unlikely that will change Bush's mind, of course. So if you care about worker rights and unions, I'd suggest working like hell (and giving cash till it hurts) to get his Republican buddies in Congress defeated. With a majority in the House and Senate, Democrats can begin to try to reverse this and other travesties of the Bush years. Until then, the best we can do is make sure they know we're paying attention.

But meanwhile we can also (try to) get a laugh out of it. Via American Rights at Work, check out this July Stephen Colbert segment on the NLRB and the related "Kentucky River" case:

posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:22:00 PM -- |    

 
Cool stuff
The trek (David Fleck, Moira Breen, "Progressive Reactionaries") --- I love travelogues, and this one is about a great trip through the American West:

The basic plan was this: from home, drive west to central Utah. Spend about a week there, fanning out and visiting as many national parks as possible. Then, drive southwest, through Las Vegas to the southern Sierra Nevada (details of plan got fuzzy here) and thence working our way north through the mountains, popping back out into the northernmost Central Valley, and onwards up the Willamette Valley. Finally, after a couple of days rest, turning eastwards again and following the Snake River to its very headwaters, travelling through Grand Teton and Yellowstone, following many winding, high-altitude, picturesque roads to eventually wind up on the northern Plains, pausing at Little Bighorn, again in the Black Hills, Badlands National Park, and finally staggering back home.

Me, I got worn out just clicking through the posts, and there are more to come. Meanwhile, John Wesley Powell quotes, weird geology, and glorious photos, photos, and more photos-- what more could you want?


Kitchen Sisters --- a.k.a. Davia Nelson and Nikki Silva, a radio documentary team I first heard driving to work one morning this summer. They explain how they came to do the piece I heard on NPR, "Texas Icehouses":

A lot of Kitchen Sisters stories are born in taxicabs. In fact, the whole Hidden Kitchens concept was conceived in the back of a Yellow cab in San Francisco. The icehouses of Texas came to our minds in a Checker in San Antonio. We were there last year on our way to an interview for our story on the Chili Queens when we saw an abandoned ice depot on the way and asked the driver what it was. He began to tell us the story of how ice was delivered to the neighborhoods and the birth of the icehouses all over town. We were hooked and lured a year later to document this faded but vibrant tradition, and to drink some Texas beer chilled on Texas ice.

The Texas ice houses turn out to be the back story to (drumroll....) 7-11! But as one man described the difference:

" A Stop & Go is just that. This is a stop and stay. You put down anchors here."

Imagine dancing at a 7-11 to Floyd Tillman on the jukebox playing "Cold, cold beer." OK, well, don't. But these places sound like they were (and still are) fun. Score one for Texas.


Non-Errors --- "Those usages people keep telling you are wrong but which are actually standard in English" or "annoying pecknsiffery I feel very strongly about." Re the split infinitive fallacy, one explanation of this stupid so-called rule I've come across is that it was a 16th century effort to graft Latin grammar onto the English language. From the same Wikipedia entry: try rewriting "She decided to gradually get rid of the teddy bears she had collected" -- no word changes, just rearranging. More importantly: Captain Kirk should have to say "to go boldly"? I think not!


Make your own Jackson Pollack (click occasionally to change colors).

Falling sand game --- Wikipedia explains:

The game involves four different particles falling from the top of the screen, which all look and move similar to sand: sand, water, salt, and oil. Each of these elements have properties that can be manipulated, such as burning, desiccating, growing, and eroding. Along with these four, additional elements can be placed on the screen with the mouse, some that are solid and stationary instead of flowing. By mixing the different elements together, many colorful designs, complex structures, and systems can be created.

There are a number of versions out there; here's one I came across, I think via Karen ("Peripetia").


=====
NOTES: Try the slideshow option (upper right corner) for the Western US trek photos. You can listen to "Cold, Cold Beer" at the NPR "Texas Ice Houses Melt Away" web page. Pollack site via Flash Insider, where an authorship controversy is noted. posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:30:00 PM -- |    

 
Al Qaeda: "Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest"
Following up on the post below about DeWine's "we're in it for us" statement, it looks like we're also apparently in Iraq for Al Qaeda, judging by this October 2005 message from Al Qaeda lieutenant "Atiyah" to Zarqawi:

The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God’s permission.

The message was among the documents captured after Zarqawi was found and killed in June. The English translation was released in late September by the "Combating Terrorism Center" at West Point. Via Steve Benen and Marc Lynch ("Abu Aardvark")*, who has a August 29 post that looks pretty spot-on in view of the Atiyah-Zarqawi message:

If the Americans left, al-Qaeda would likely soon follow because killing other Iraqis does them little good - it is fighting and killing Americans which sells videos and wins recruits. As Hezbollah's experience demonstrates, resistance to a perceived occupation resonates in ways which a sectarian player in a civil war does not. While some of the most extreme jihadis may see killing Shia as an end unto itself, for bin Laden and al-Qaeda Central Iraq is a means to a wider end of mobilizing Arab and Muslim attitudes against America, against secular regimes, and towards Islamism. Without a major American presence, the insurgency would continue, but Iraq would lose its pride of place in the current jihadi universe. I'd go so far as to say that the homegrown Iraqi insurgency does indeed want the US out of Iraq, but al-Qaeda wants us in.

Stay the course?


=====
* A.k.a. associate professor of political science at Williams College and author of Voices of the New Arab Public: Iraq, Al Jazeera, and Middle East Politics Today.

EDIT, 10/4: "about...statement" and link to "post" added.
UPDATE, 10/5: Not surprisingly, Kevin Drum (a.k.a. "Washington Monthly") got there before I did with Whose Interest? He adds the Suskind One Percent Solution kicker -- the CIA concluding Bin Laden's pre-election message was intended to help Bush win -- to his post. Bush also thought that message helped him win, but didn't appear to draw the additional conclusion.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:28:00 PM -- |    

 
Steele and Foley: oh yes they are Republicans
What is it with Republicans wishing they or their pals weren't Republican? First Maryland Senate candidate Michael Steele (R-MD) -- who this summer confided to a journalist that he considered the "R" designation to be a "scarlet letter" -- unveils a deceptive campaign sign saying nothing but "Steele" and "Democrat." Like the Steele campaign theme color, the sign is blue. The sign is ostensibly part of an outreach to "Steele Democrats", but Steele doesn't display his own party affiliation on his regular signs either.

Now Tennessee Guerilla Women and others are reporting that the FOX News "O'Reilly Factor" show is repeatedly identifying the creepy Mark Foley (R-FL) as a Democrat. They have a photo and a video clip to prove it.

Josh Marshall caught the same thing in an AP report (now fixed). This kind of dirty pool is par for the course for O'Reilly, of course, but while the Associated Press has not been above a bit of partisan spin in the past, this would be a new low.

But meanwhile: how telling that the Republican machine is resorting to political mimicry to survive.


=====
EDIT, 10/12: "spin" link added; leads to "Talking Points Memo" coverage of John Solomon's reporting on Senator Harry Reid (D-NV). posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:08:00 PM -- |    

 
Depends what the meaning of "us" is
Gary Farber draws attention to a statement Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) made on his Meet the Press encounter with challenger Sherrod Brown, calling it a "huge gaffe." Let's roll the tape:

MR. RUSSERT: Here's two poll questions that I think caught the attention of a lot of Americans. Let me start with Senator DeWine.

"Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout." "Most Iraqis." "A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers."

And then this poll. "Iraqis back attacks on U.S. troops. About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces ... [according to] the poll done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes."

Senator DeWine, if they want us out, and they're in favor of attacking us, why are we still there?

SEN. DeWINE: Tim, I was shocked by that as well. But you know, on reflection, this is their country. There's a lot of things going wrong. You blame someone who is there. Still does not change that we're not in Iraq primarily for the Iraqis. We're in Iraq for us. We're have to do what we have to do, and it goes back to what the three generals, three military leaders said. It would be a total disaster for us to leave. It is in our self-interest, the interest to protect American families, that we are in Iraq. Thats why we're there.*

Farber argues that DeWine's admission that "we're in Iraq for us" is a gaffe, reflecting abandonment of the goal of making Iraq a democracy and better than it was before. For his part, Sherrod Brown managed a comment to the effect that DeWine shouldn't have been so surprised about Iraqi public opinion.

To me, it's the "on reflection, this is their country" part that really stands out as extreme cognitive dissonance. ("Therefore, we must continue to stay there against their will!") But as far as "we're there for us," I think DeWine's probably right in thinking that's what Iraq war supporters want to hear at this point-- whether it's true or not. Being there for the Iraqis hasn't made sense for a while now -- especially from their point of view, it would seem.

And given the tepid American public response to the number of Iraqi deaths, the detainee mistreatment, and the news of atrocities at Haditha and elsewhere, I don't think the welfare of Iraqis or their country has been high on war supporters' lists for quite some time now. The "spreading democracy" notion has been a distraction, not much else; this administration has clearly never been very serious about it, or it would have at least taken pre-war planners seriously, sent in competent people, not disbanded the Iraqi Army, and tried to flood the zone with more troops (somehow) early on.

Farber has a point that DeWine's notion is the old "flypaper" theory warmed over -- "fight them there so we don't fight them here." I think that's immoral,** but I hardly expect that view to sweep the country any time soon.

No, for Democrats who are focused on winning the November elections, I think it's much more to the point that this "strategy," if it deserves that name, is proving ineffective and counterproductive -- that is, just plain stupid, not to put too fine a point on it. Bob Woodward is reporting that attacks on U.S. forces are at much higher levels than generally believed here in the U.S. Meanwhile, Iraq has become Jihad U. according to that National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Bush doesn't want us to see.

So if I'd been Sherrod Brown, I'd have said, "I'm not surprised you'd say that, Mike. Because by 'us' you don't mean the American people, or the good people of the great state of Ohio -- you mean 'We're in Iraq for the Republican Party, desperately trying to cling to its discredited 'stay the course' strategy. Thanks to Bush's bone-headed leadership, that's all Republicans have to offer. Well, you and George W. Bush are fooling no one, Mike -- it's just not working: attacks are going up and polls like these and facts on the ground show we're creating enemies and terrorists faster than we can kill them. We're not more safe because we're in Iraq -- we're less safe. It's time to make a change."

Of course, if I'd been Sherrod Brown I wouldn't have voted for the Military Commissions Act either, so I don't suppose I'll be passing along this advice to him any time soon.


=====
* Link to PIPA poll added; Farber summarized its results in an earlier post.
** Paperwight was the first one I know of to make this point.

UPDATE, 10/4: PZ Myers gets there quicker: "Maybe "We're there for us!" could be the new GOP slogan." posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:15:00 PM -- |    

 
Attention U.S. military and intelligence personnel

You are not required to obey an unlawful order.

You are required to disobey an unlawful order.

You swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The Constitution states (Article VI):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Here is article 3, the common article, to the Geneva Conventions, a duly ratified treaty made under the authority of the United States:

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is straightforward and clear. Under Article VI of the Constitution, it forms part of the supreme law of the land.

You personally will be held responsible for all of your actions, in all countries, at all times and places, for the rest of your life. “I was only following orders” is not a defense.

What all this is leading to:

If you are ordered to violate Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, it is your duty to disobey that order. No “clarification,” whether passed by Congress or signed by the president, relieves you of that duty.

If you are ordered to violate Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, this is what to do:

1. Request that your superior put the order in writing.

2. If your superior puts the order in writing, inform your superior that you intend to disobey that order.

3. Request trial by courtmartial.

You will almost certainly face disciplinary action, harassment of various kinds, loss of pay, loss of liberty, discomfort and indignity. America relies on you and your courage to face those challenges.

We, the people, need you to support and defend the Constitution. I am certain that your honor and patriotism are equal to the task.

Reprinted with permission of Jim Macdonald ("Making Light").

It's somewhat difficult to ask someone to stick their neck out for their country's ideals -- except that's supposedly what we're doing in the first place with our armed services and our intelligence services.

While I'm mindful of the fact that much of the past years of legislative struggles have been about defining just what non-military personnel may do, I would also add that I believe the same constitutional and treaty obligations apply to members of the CIA and similar intelligence services, regardless of the legislation passed. At least, they ought to.

If I understand correctly, members of the armed services can call on legal assistance from military lawyers, even when they're accused of failure to obey orders. I'm told CIA members are starting to take out insurance to supplement their claim on such government assistance -- although so far it's been insurance for doing wrong, not for declining to. But whether military or intelligence personnel are involved, I for one will support them morally, publicly, and financially if need be, and hope that others will join me in that. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:00:00 PM -- |    

 
"I would like to string them up by the thumbs"
Attention unlawful enemy combatants:

'If I catch anyone who leaks in my government,' Bush tells Chrétien in March, 2002, 'I would like to string them up by the thumbs -- the same way we do with prisoners in Guantanamo.'

From a Neil Reynolds review, in the Globe and Mail, of a book by former Canadian prime minister Chrétien advisor Eddie Goldenberg. Via digby ("Hullabaloo"). posted by Thomas Nephew at 6:45:00 PM -- |    

 
GOP: Foley scandal means more money for the rest of us
While the first, last, and only pre-bad-news GOP instinct may be to "cover it up and hope it goes away," the first post-bad-news instinct seems to be "rescue the money":

Mr. Foley, who served on the House Ways and Means Committee, was a prolific fund-raiser. His campaign account had a balance of $2.7 million at the end of August, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Carl Forti, the communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Sunday that the committee would gladly accept Mr. Foley’s money or part of it to devote to House races. Mr. Foley already gave $100,000 to the committee in July, campaign records show, as part of the party’s Battleground Program, to which members are asked to contribute.“The money is in the control of Mr. Foley,” Mr. Forti said. “Whatever he decides to do with it is up to him.”

(Reported by Carl Hulse and Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times, via TPM.)

Stuff like this is why I can't keep myself from returning to this story. It's almost awesome in its pristine amorality, like something a nature TV program would show: the colony loses a worker, dismembers its remains, keeps going. See also the media worker ant frantically trying to spin the news, no matter how mindlessly. Nest in danger! Must repair damage! posted by Thomas Nephew at 6:15:00 PM -- |    

 
700 pages?!
Made you look. While I'm on the topic, best joke so far:

Now we know why the pages stick together. (*)

I also like the "GOP stands for..." contest. Yea, verily, God in His wisdom hath seen fit to demoralize both sides just in time for the November election. His truth is marching on! and I am but His humble servant.

Seriously, this is worth pushing a bit if you buy that this is a turnout election and that so-called "values voters" are some important part of the Republican base. But I also see the problem with stepping on the more substantive "State of Denial" revelations and the NIE story.

I suggest making a "narrative," as they say, that ties the stories together: whenever the GOP "leadership" (scare quotes essential) gets unwelcome news, their first, last, and only instinct is to hide it and hope it goes away -- no matter who else gets hurt.


=====
NOTE: "Made you look" link to Yglesias; next three to Steve Benen and commenters, last three to Washington Post articles.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:15:00 PM -- |    

 
The disgrace of tyranny freely chosen
From "Monkey's Paw" by Hunter, at DailyKos:

The torture bill is pernicious. That much is true; that much is undeniable. But we should not make the mistake of presuming it more than it is. It is not a Reichstag Fire. It is not. It is pernicious not for its scope, but for its hollowness, its complete legislative emptiness, dressed up in bloody bow. [...]

It sounds horrific to say, and it is, but: allowing for the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody was intended as a distraction from weightier things. No, you should allow that to sink in. It is the truth. There is no pressing need for new torture-authorizing legislation. There is no value in taking up the pro-torture banner now, as opposed to during the next session of Congress. The Bush administration had made it clear that they believe they themselves have the right to authorize the torture of U.S. prisoners. The Congress has, in a fit of very balanced, very sensible, very moderate pique, decided that they wanted to play a role too, in authenticating the U.S. positions on torture, rather than leaving those positions merely dangling, like stray veins and sinews, from the administration's stained teeth.

The anti-torture choice was abandoned long ago. The "moderate" Republicans could have chosen to block any authorization for torturing U.S. prisoners right from the bat; they refused.

This legislation is political salve; it is not required law. The Constitution and existing law, presuming for the faintest half-shadow of a moment that the administration could be expected to follow it, speak clearly and decisively on the issues of habeus corpus, and trial, and on torture. This legislation is simply a show trial against the Constitution, done for the expediency of displaying Republican toughness, where toughness is defined as having no moral, ethical, or legal boundary that cannot be moved, if a poll number sticks up against it.

Glenn Greenwald responds:

As Ackerman put it: "The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights." Similarly, Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."[...]

I fully understand, but ultimately disagree with, the viewpoint, well-argued by Hunter and others, that this bill constitutes merely another step on a path we've long been on, rather than a fundamental and wholly new level of tyranny. Or, as Hunter put it: "So this is a merely another slide down the Devil's gullet, not a hard swallow." But even with the extreme range of abuses the Bush presidency has brought, this is undeniably something different, and worse, by magnitude, not merely by degree.

There is a profound and fundamental difference between an Executive engaging in shadowy acts of lawlessness and abuses of power on the one hand, and, on the other, having the American people, through their Congress, endorse, embrace and legalize that behavior out in the open, with barely a peep of real protest. Our laws reflect our values and beliefs. And our laws are about to explicitly codify one of the most dangerous and defining powers of tyranny -- one of the very powers this country was founded in order to prevent.

Compared to that, Hunter's "emptiness" and "distraction" are almost comforting, in a cold, mad way. From the L.A. Times op-ed by Bruce Ackerman that Greenwald cites:

This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops "during an armed conflict," it also allows him to seize anybody who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison. [...]

Not to worry, say the bill's defenders. The president can't detain somebody who has given money innocently, just those who contributed to terrorists on purpose.

But other provisions of the bill call even this limitation into question. What is worse, if the federal courts support the president's initial detention decision, ordinary Americans would be required to defend themselves before a military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal trials.

Legal residents who aren't citizens are treated even more harshly. The bill entirely cuts off their access to federal habeas corpus, leaving them at the mercy of the president's suspicions. [...]

Though it may not feel that way, we are living at a moment of relative calm. It would be tragic if the Republican leadership rammed through an election-year measure that would haunt all of us on the morning after the next terrorist attack.

(All emphases added.) I suppose you could ignore that last part as Ackerman's plug for his book: Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism. Or you could actually think about it.

I'm sorely tempted to ignore it. But in my heart, I know Ackerman's right. This legislation, coupled with the near certainty of another 9/11-scale terror attack as time goes on, sets the stage for wholesale tyranny in America, and invites retail tyranny in the meantime.

To use the political approval of torture as a crowbar to curtail habeas corpus -- the right to have one's case heard at all -- is the single most unforgiveable thing the Republican Party has ever done, and that's saying something. Shame on each and every one of them, shame on their supporters, and shame on each and every Democrat who went along with it. I don't know you, and I don't want to know you.

In particular, shame on John McCain for using such a measure as another toehold on his climb to the presidency. I will despise him forevermore for this, and I say to him: You and your party, sir, are a disgrace and a dishonor to your country, your ancestors, and yourselves.

But I'll be frank: it's hard not to think a great deal less of a great number of the American people now as well. Those of you who have actively or tacitly applauded torture and legal disappearance of others have your just reward: it will now be a great deal easier to do the same to you and yours as well.

"But I'm no enemy combatant," you exclaim. Well, of course not, not an upstanding citizen like you. But your cousin the Greenpeace guy, your sister the Middle East activist, your brother the journalist in Iraq, your stupid kid who dabbles with the Revolutionary Spartacists at State U., your mother the legal resident, your Muslim co-worker who gave at the mosque to some charity newly blacklisted by Gonzales et al -- they're all within view of that designation now. The marginal, the minorities, the idealists, the people with a controversial cause: they'll be the first to feel the chill. You, you're nothing -- probably too timid or lazy even to dabble in legal dissent or democratic politics, your finger to the wind of what the media tell you to think. Best stay that way, it's safer. What's on TV?

You did nothing -- you may have even applauded -- while your ancient birthrights and those of your children were being sold at auction to the highest bidder. Those children were counting on you to give them a world as least as good as yours; that doesn't mean just keeping them safe from the boogeyman with ritual torture, that means preserving their rights.

You've allowed those rights to be squandered. You did that by thinking you'd keep yours while you let someone else lose his. You did it, basically, by not caring enough about those rights in the first place. In all of that, you resemble Congress.

I guess that's why it's called a representative body. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:25:00 PM -- |