"Neighbor, How Stands the Union?"

Ah. Today Daniel Froomkin boosts the journalistic reputation of Washington Post-Newsweek Interactive--which, as everybody in the Post newsroom hastens to assure me, is a very separate operation from the print Washington Post:

Dan Froomkin - Bush Rules - washingtonpost.com: Today's Senate vote on President Bush's detainee legislation, after House approval yesterday, marks a defining moment for this nation. How far from our historic and Constitutional values are we willing to stray? How mercilessly are we willing to treat those we suspect to be our enemies? How much raw, unchecked power are we willing to hand over to the executive?

The legislation before the Senate today would ban torture, but let Bush define it; would allow the president to imprison indefinitely anyone he decides falls under a wide-ranging new definition of unlawful combatant; would suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus; would immunize retroactively those who may have engaged in torture. And that's just for starters.... The people have lost confidence in their president.... Bush remains deeply unpopular... mistrusted... out of touch....

But he's still got Congress wrapped around his little finger. Today's vote will show more clearly than ever before that... the Republicans who control Congress are in lock step behind the president, and the Democrats -- who could block him, if they chose to do so -- are too afraid to put up a real fight. The kind of emotionless, he-said-she-said news coverage, lacking analysis and obsessed with incremental developments and political posturing -- in short, much of modern political journalism -- just doesn't do this story justice....

This is bad. Very bad. I can't underscore how bad this is. This is our Fugitive Slave Act, our Sedition Act, our Korematsu. This is a danger to our domestic liberties and a terrifying threat to our national security--for its impact on our international standing and on our alliances may be terrible indeed.

The sixteen-year-old is reading about another Daniel: "The Devil and Daniel Webster" is assigned for his English class:

Steven Vincent Benet, "The Devil and Daniel Webster": It's a story they tell in the border country, where Massachusetts joins Vermont and New Hampshire. Yes, Dan'l Webster's dead--or, at least, they buried him. But every time there's a thunderstorm around Marshfield, they say you can hear his rolling voice in the hollows of the sky. And they say that if you go to his grave and speak loud and clear, "Dan'l Webster--Dan'l Webster!" the ground'll begin to shiver and the trees begin to shake. And after a while you'll hear a deep voice saying, "Neighbor, how stands the Union?" Then you better answer the Union stands as she stood, rock-bottomed and copper-sheathed, one and indivisible, or he's liable to rear right out of the ground...

Daniel Webster will certainly walk tonight, for nobody today can say that the Republic is rock-bottomed and copper-sheathed.

But she nevertheless does stand as she stood. Things have been just as bad, and things have been almost as bad in the memory of men yet living.

From Fred Friendly's memoir, Due to Circumstances Beyond Our Control, p. 59 ff:

The day after [Joe] McCarthy's reply [broadcast to Edward R. Murrow's attack on him], President Eisenhower held a news conference. After expressing doubt over [whether there had been] any delay over the production of the H-bomb [caused by Communist agents working for the U.S. government, as McCarthy had claimed], the President paid tribute to [Edward R.] Murrow, "my friend," which provided headlines for most afternoon papers that day.

As for the senator's broadcast, I don't believe that anybody [informed], including his own supporters, felt that he had made his case against Murrow, but as Gould of the New York Times observed: "When as much mud is thrown at an individual as Senator McCarthy threw at Mr. Murrow, it is futile to expect that all the debris can be wiped from the public mind.... [McCarthy] huffed and he puffed but Mr. Murrow's house wouldn't blow away..."

That house suffered more wind damage than we realized.... Frank Stanton... [said that] reaction to our two programs had been so negative... some broadcasters had told him that the Murrow "attack on McCarthy" might cost the company the network.... [A] public-opinion survey... CBS had commissioned from Elmo Roper... 59% of the adult population had either watched or heard about the program... 33% of those [who had watched or heard] believed either that McCarthy had proved Murrow was pro-Communist or had raised doubts about Murrow.

I told Stanton that if the poll had been five to one in McCarthy's favor... there would have been even more justification for having done the original telecast. Stanton... was most distressed; there was certainly no suggestion that McCarthy was justified, but he believed that such controversy and widespread doubts were harmful to the company's business relationships...

Even with Eisenhower's explicit but coded support, CBS executives still wished that Murrow had not made his anti-McCarthy broadcast. It would have been nice if Eisenhower had been more explicit and aggressive in his attempts to undermine McCarthy--but Eisenhower was never one to lead from the front where he might take a bullet; he was one to work night and day to get the people at the front the bullets they needed.

Comments

[CN]

What authority has been granted to Bush that Joe Stalin did not have?

What authority did Joe Stalin have that Bush does not?

[howard]

this is truly a horrible and humiliating day in american history. While i won't draw an equivalence between those like bush and the gop who actively advocate torture and indefinite imprisonment and those in the democratic party who thought it was a good idea to praise john mccain and not fight this monstrosity, there is hardly anyone in our political system today who is not failing his or her oath of office.

[SamChevre]

And it shouldn't be forgotten that Eisenhower was willing to use federal troops to suppress peaceful protests.

US citizens have been losing their liberty for a long time.

[matt wilbert]

Have to drag out this exchange from "A Man for All Seasons"

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

I never expected to live under the Tudors.

[Publicus]

This is indeed a black day. Apparently the Democrats ducked on the "weak on security" issue again. When will they realize that they they have a case, and can and must attack on that issue? It is the Republicans who are undermining American security, and at least some people realize it.

America will not regain its standing in the world in my lifetime.

[save_the_rustbelt]

About every decade the country is at its low point, but somehow we manage to right our course eventually.

A little optimism boys, we shall survive this too.

PS: Great explanation of Eisenhower talent's - we could use his calm now.

[Barry]

Sam, STFU. One lie and you're out.

[Matt]

Reagan was a big government, communist and stalinist. I always knew it.

More Stalinist scoundrels in our history. Alexander Hamilton, even Lincoln.

Stalinist, big government communists: The Heritage Foundation, Fox News, National Review (Poor Bill Buckley!)

Overtaken I tell you by the Communist movement in America.

I wish Thomas Jefferson never died.

[thoughttheater]

See a tongue-in-cheek visual of the Grand Opening of "Tortureland"...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html?ex=1317096000&en=3eb3ba3410944ff9&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

September 28, 2006

Rushing Off a Cliff

Here's what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans' fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.

Republicans say Congress must act right now to create procedures for charging and trying terrorists — because the men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks are available for trial. That's pure propaganda. Those men could have been tried and convicted long ago, but President Bush chose not to. He held them in illegal detention, had them questioned in ways that will make real trials very hard, and invented a transparently illegal system of kangaroo courts to convict them.

It was only after the Supreme Court issued the inevitable ruling striking down Mr. Bush's shadow penal system that he adopted his tone of urgency. It serves a cynical goal: Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism.

Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies. Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.

These are some of the bill's biggest flaws:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of "illegal enemy combatant" in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there's no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

• There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.

We don't blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they'll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won't remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

They'll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation's version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

[anne]

Passed, in the course of a day.

[anne]

What I would have wished was for even a lone Senator to think to filibuster, but I suppose there is too much to fear.

[Larry]

Anne,

While the Dems have hardly covered themselves in glory, this notion that a single Dem senator can somehow filibuster the bill is pernicious nonsense. We have no idea regarding how many Dems would have been willing to do so. Clearly less than 41, probably less than 34. But the notion that the failure of the Dems to mount a filibuster somehow indicates that none of them were willing to do so is simply wrong.

[anne]

No; I mentioned not a word about Democrats or Republicans. I only thought that a lone Senator might have spoken for as lengthy a time as possible agains the bill. Any Senator, only a lone Senator would have pleased me. A lone Senator, you see, can hold the floor for quite a while. A Republican Senator would have been fine. I mentioned no Party. I do not care about the count, I only thought a lone Senator would be enough for a while. Possibly though a lone Senator can no longer hold the floor in protest against pending legislation.

[anne]

There is a John Murtha in the House of Representatives, but where is there such a Senator?

[anne]

The vote by the way was 65 to 34; with Lincoln Chafee voting with 33 Democrats against the bill.

[Larry]

Anne, you're not getting it. The Senate rules (generally, and specifically under the rules that (perhaps unwisely) the Senate leadership agreed on do) not allow senators to speak for an unlimited time. Hillary actually spoke for more than the maximum time allowed. The kind of thing you wanted to happen could only have happened if there were enough votes. There weren't.

[anne]

Oh, I did not know. Thank you for explaining, but could the Democratic leadership in the Senate have stood against the rule limiting debate before debate? I am pleased that 34 Senators voted against the bill, but I still wonder, even foolishly, why more of an opposition was not possible.

[MobiusKlein]

Then whoever agreed to those rules should be dispatched back to their home state, and not allowed to return.

And Joe Lieberman, who voted for the bill too.

[anne]

Interesting the copies of the New York Times editorial against the bill I was sent today by attorneys who I have taught. The Times thought a filibuster was in order. I am pleased at least a lone Senator spoke too long, however. Was the Senator reprimanded fiercely?

[anne]

When a Senator speaks too long against such a bill, is the Senator, say, really really really given a stern talking to? I wonder.

[anne]

Would the rule-breaking Senator have received a vote less for breaking the rule further? These are fierce times, so who can tell what might have been.

[bncthor]

I suppose nothing last forever, including the civil liberties once promised and in large measure afforded U. S. citizens by our Constitution. I do not understand how provisions of the Constitution can be eroded without the Constitution being amended as provided in the Constitution. Perhaps the U. S. Supreme Court will stike down the legislation passed by the Senate today. Oh wait...

[bbbbbbbbbbbbbb]

"Oh, I did not know. Thank you for explaining, but could the Democratic leadership in the Senate have stood against the rule limiting debate before debate? I am pleased that 34 Senators voted against the bill, but I still wonder, even foolishly, why more of an opposition was not possible."

Lone senators cannot stand and talk as you say. If someone does, a vote is called by Rethugs to close debate. If that cloture vote passes, debate ends. To make the cloture vote fail, Dems need 41 (or 40? ) votes. They had only 34.

[Emma Anne]

But Anne, it did used to be the way you describe. Cf. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I don't know when the rules changed.

[anon]

save_the_rustbelt: there are low points and there are _low points._ When was the last time the US abandoned habeas corpus? The civil war? When has the US ever before condoned torture as *official* policy? What has happened is far worse than any other 'low points' one can name at least as far back as Japanese internment during WWII--and as abhorrent as internment was, the US didn't torture the detainees.

[Platypus]

In addition to the references to Stalin, one shouldn't forget the Reichstagsbrandverordnung, which was issued after the burning of the Reichstag in 1933. This decree abolished habeus corpus and other civil liberties in Weimar Germany and, together with the subsequent Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz), laid the legal foundation for the Nazi regime.

As with the present day situation, a weak parliment was manipulated through fear and intimidation. Once the legal authority passed to the excecutive branch they were free to initiate an authoritarian government. At this point we only have the Supreme Court as a firewall. May God help us.

[Josiah Bartlett]

I am ashamed. My own Democratic Senator, Bill Nelson, voted for this bill. My own Democratic Senator that is up for re-election against an opponent who has demonstrated through her actions that she is the worst kind of puppet for the bush* regime. An opponent that has only the barest support of the hardest blind core of her party. He has no fear dor his re-election but he still chose to vote for this abomination.

I am ashamed, truly ashamed.

[Steinn Sigurdsson]

Well, I drove into DC late this afternoon, as a fierce thunderstorm rolled in.
Serious booming thunder and lightning over the beltway.
I don't think anyone in there heard. They chose not to.

[Madison Guy]

Some of our freedoms died tonight, not with a bang, but a whimper, a deal brokered by these three senators in clownpaint -- McCain, Warner and Graham. The Yeas, a Roll Call Hall of Shame: Some of these senators are real fascists. Some are mere political opportunists. Some are cowards, afraid to vote their convictions under intense political pressure to conform or be labeled un-American or worse. You decide who's who. And remember. Nobody gets a pass on this one.

http://letterfromhere.blogspot.com/2006/09/hall-of-shame.html

[monkyboy]

Get ready for a rushed show trial from Gitmo to fill the airwaves between now and November.

I bet they're building the courtroom set, selecting the wisest looking military officers and choosing the smaryist looking "terrorist" they can find to star in Rove's production.

[christofay]

If the courtroom set from the old Perry Masons isn't available that will be a couple million more dollars out of our pockets. I'm not one of the ones swayed by the big song & dance number production values, remember the beautiful setting of Bush's New Orleans speech? Or the great looking DoD set in whatever the oil pot dictator country for "Iraq II: Mission Accomplished Right"?

[monkyboy]

You know, christofay,

There's no law that says the press can't cover Bush's people setting up the stage for political theater like the New Orleans speech or them constructing the kiddie pool they set up at ground zero for his recent 9/11 speech.

I wonder why they don't?

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/opinion/l29detain.html

Trampling Rights to Fight Terrorism

To the Editor:

The day the detainee bill is signed will be a day that will live in dishonor in our history. The practices that appalled us in the past when used by sleazy regimes will be incorporated into our legal heritage.

If we do not reject the responsible party in power, we will indict ourselves as accomplices before decent world opinion.

(Rev.) Connell J. Maguire
Riviera Beach, Fla., Sept. 28, 2006
The writer is a retired Navy captain.

•

To the Editor:

You say that the “Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws.” This is correct, but incomplete.

This administration seeks to strike fear in the hearts of all Americans so it can maintain total control. It uses the issue of security to create insecurity, while Democrats remain silent.

In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt said that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” The contrast is striking with today, when we seem to fear everything and reward the political opportunists who thrive on it.

Morris Roth
Fort Lee, N.J., Sept. 28, 2006

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/opinion/l29detain.html

Trampling Rights to Fight Terrorism

To the Editor:

You say that the broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the antiterrorism bill railroaded through Congress could subject legal residents of the United States “to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal” and that “the president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.”

Detainees would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment, and anyone could be locked up forever, with no reason given and no notification to friends and family.

Many of us are bitterly opposed to the current administration and have angered those who support the disaster in Iraq. What is to prevent letters, lies and innuendoes from being sent to the authorities accusing us of being illegal enemy combatants and a danger to the country?

What redress would we have? I tell myself that this could never happen here, but I fear we are on a very slippery slope.

Mabel J. Dudeney
Norwalk, Conn., Sept. 28, 2006

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/opinion/l29detain.html

Trampling Rights to Fight Terrorism

To the Editor:

Terrorism poses a grave and different kind of threat to the Republic. Yet it is no more grave than, say, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

No one has explained how it is different in ways that justify condoning torture, rewriting international law, discarding principles of due process and human decency, ceding judicial authority to the president, and putting our troops and reputation in further jeopardy.

The president's pre-election antiterrorism legislation will do these things. It is a measure of cravenness that members of both parties would vote for this bill for political expediency.

Christopher J. Mugel
Richmond, Va., Sept. 28, 2006

[prostratedragon]

A couple of sections on filibuster rules, from Wikipedia:

http://tinyurl.com/oadkc

Current rules date from the post-Civil Rights Act era. A vote of 60 percent of Senators (present, I think) is needed to close debate.

Apparently, Reid decided not to pursue a filibuster in a deal with the GOP senators, whereby the Dems got to introduce some amendments instead---thus no attemtps to arm-twist seven senators to support a filibuster at least for a while. Spectacularly bad choice, in my opinion.

Ref: Susie M., http://tinyurl.com/npksf

[robert the red]

1) There is too much money at stake for the Republicans to lose control of Congress -- hundreds of billions per year.

2) The American Res Publica is formally over.

[christofay]

political theater like the New Orleans speech / a special ABC presentation of The Night of the Hunter

[anne]

Dragon:

"Apparently, Harry Reid decided not to pursue a filibuster in a deal with the Republican senators, whereby the Democrats got to introduce some amendments instead---thus no attemtps to arm-twist seven senators to support a filibuster at least for a while. Spectacularly bad choice, in my opinion."

Thank you.

[anne]

When you choose to introduce amendments that will surely lose and lose in a flash, but not call attention to what is happening to rights in legislation by talking and talking and delaying a vote while explaining the cause, I think there is a double loss. If 7 senators were needed for a filibuster, then 7 there should have been. Or, a lone senator should have broken the rule on time for speaking and risked, say, risked what?

[anne]

We must not allow ourselves to be fear driven away from our historically evolved ideals. We must not.

[Doctor Jay]

"Apparently, Harry Reid decided not to pursue a filibuster in a deal with the Republican senators, whereby the Democrats got to introduce some amendments instead---thus no attemtps to arm-twist seven senators to support a filibuster at least for a while. Spectacularly bad choice, in my opinion."

I disagree. He did not have the votes to sustain a filibuster. Period. End of story. This law is very likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court, in short order. The same Supreme Court that gave us Hamdi, I might add.

So, in the end, Reid got something for nothing. Reid got lots of Republicans to vote directly against Habeas Corpus. For one thing, I think this vote means Lieberman is toast. Lamont will completely motivate his supporters with this.

When I look at the list of Dems voting for, the only ones I think that could have been arm twisted are the NJ twins, and maybe Nelson of FL. But that's still 62 votes for cloture.

It's a sad day, to be sure, but don't blame Harry Reid for it.

[sm]

"I do not understand how provisions of the Constitution can be eroded without the Constitution being amended as provided in the Constitution."

Tom Paine understood:

"...the plain truth is, that it is wholly owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the constitution of the government that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey."

[anne]

No; a few, very few senators could have spoken and spoken till they were forced by vote to stop. No; even a single senator could have held the floor beyond the rule limit and risked being beaten by sticks for such rule breaking. No; there was need of a lone senator to truly protest if any senator believes the law so clearly so dearly violates the Constitution.

[anne]

Brad DeLong wonders:

"Neighbor, How Stands the Union?"

We need to wonder the same, and there was a responsibility of a lone senator to so wonder as the risk or, say, at the risk of, say, what risk? Where is conscience?

[anne]

We have been afraid, we have been told to be afraid, fear has been cultivated so that we might forget who have become through generations and who we must be. We must not be afraid, even being afraid we must rise above our fears.

[Dirk van Dijk]

A dark dark day for America indeed. A good working definition of cowardace is the abandonment of deeply held principals out of fear for your physical saftey. Of course it is very possible that many in the GOP do not hold prinicpals like the value of Habeus Corpus, or that torture is a bad thing. To the extent that they have any moral compass what so ever, they have abandoned it because they are pissing in their pants over the possibility of another 9/11. This is cowardace plain and simple. Those who voted for this are either immoral or cowards.

[anne]

"I do not understand how provisions of the Constitution can be eroded without the Constitution being amended as provided in the Constitution."

SM of Tom Paine....

[João Carlos]

Guys,

The Bubble is collapsing and the if Roubini is right the Big Recession is coming.

If you think this is the lower point, wait for the time the Republicans will blame the Democrats for the economic crisis and Bush get more Acts for have more exective power for "solve" the economic crisis. You remember what the hiperinflation made to German's Democracy at the 30's?

The lower point for Democracy it is not now.

[anne]

Ah, not to worry another $70 billion this morning for the occupation of Iraq, a tad for Afghanistan included. I was so worried we might have run out of money and have to leave or as the President told us yesterday the Party of Roosevelt and Truman wants to be the Party of "cut and run." Not to worry though.

[andres]

Doctor Jay: I would not be so optimistic that the Judicial branch will overturn this ghastly legislation. If in the past the Supreme Court has been capable of Dred Scott, Plessy vs. Ferguson, and Bowers vs. Hardwick, it is capable of letting this legislation stand, particularly with Roberts and Alito now on the wagon.

Slowly but surely I am starting to come around to the idea that the growing concentration of power in this country, the slide towards dictatorship, can only be stopped by the mass disobedience of the American people, not by the action of any political party, certainly not the Democrats.

Either that or we will get some catastrophe when either this administration or its successor decides to invade Iran and some wider armed conflict erupts. Time to pray more often.

[anne]

Ah, thank you for reminding me that the designer of the Presidential signing statement, Samuel Alito, also sailed to confirmation after an agree ment that there be no filibuster unless absolutely necessary and it is evidently never necessary to filibuster.

Thank you, Andres.

[anne]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092806bush,1,7270198,print.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

September 28, 2006

Bush Calls Democrats 'Party of Cut-and-Run'
By James Gerstenzang

BIRMINGHAM, Ala — President Bush, delivering a lengthy defense of the wars in Iraq and on terrorism, angrily accused Democratic leaders today of misrepresenting a recently declassified intelligence report, saying they favored policies that would increase the nation's vulnerability to terrorist attacks.

Speaking to an audience of Republican Party contributors, the president melded politics, the war in Iraq and the antiterrorism fight to a greater extent than in recent times.

"The party of FDR, the party of Harry Truman, has become the party of cut-and-run," he said, in a speech that repeatedly brought an audience of several thousand to its feet....

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Defense-Spending.html

Senate, 100-0, Backs Budget for Pentagon
By ASSOCIATED PRESS

The bill, which totaled $448 billion, including $70 billion for the war effort, awaits the president’s signature.

[Maynard Handley]

Regarding the TV networks support then and now, I'd urge everyone to watch _Studio 60 on Sunset Strip_. The times being what they, it'll probably be cancelled soon, but Aaron Sorkin, for all his personal obsessions like drug laws and Israel, appears to be the one person in television right now willing to do some tiny bit to stand up and be counted. I'd like him to be more aggressive but, heck, it's a relief to see one show on TV that is willing to seriously criticize Bush and his lunatic supporters.

[matt]

Anne, I hear the disappointment in what you write, the thought that we could come to this spot in our history without one senator standing up and dissenting.

But this has been a long time coming, ever since the right wing began its campaign to fund their think tanks and to infiltrate little mindless stenographers into journalism schools who then went on to work at places like the NYT, WaPo, Wall Street Journal and other toady mouthpieces for the PTB. Remember the passes that Reagan/Bush got during Iran-Contra? Remember anyone complaining about Poppy violating the sovereignty of Panama to kidnap Noriega before he had a chance to blow the whistle on Bush complicity in the increase in cocaine coming into the United States during the 80s? Did you hear anyone say a bad word about Ollie North that "great hero" who I'm ashamed to say wore the same uniform I did while in Viet Nam?

What happens next will be telling here. How long before the First Amendment is shredded by the arrest of someone who dares to disagree with the Emperor to the extent that King George decrees her to be a threat to the war effort and a supporter of terrorists? Think it won't happen?

They're just waiting until after 7 November to start arresting American dissidents.

This is truly a sad day.

[matt]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-gonzales-judges,1,2558676.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

Gonzales Cautions Judges on Interfering
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer
9:18 AM PDT, September 29, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is defending President Bush's anti-terrorism tactics in multiple court battles, said Friday that federal judges should not substitute their personal views for the president's judgments in wartime.

He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief and the Supreme Court has long recognized the president's pre-eminent role in foreign affairs. "The Constitution, by contrast, provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during wartime," the attorney general told a conference on the judiciary at Georgetown University Law Center.

ADVERTISEMENT
"Judges must resist the temptation to supplement those tools based on their own personal views about the wisdom of the policies under review," Gonzales said.

And he said the independence of federal judges, who are appointed for life, "has never meant, and should never mean, that judges or their decisions should be immune" from public criticism.

"Respectfully, when courts issue decisions that overturn long-standing traditions or policies without proper support in text or precedent, they cannot -- and should not -- be shielded from criticism," Gonzales said. "A proper sense of judicial humility requires judges to keep in mind the institutional limitations of the judiciary and the duties expressly assigned by the Constitution to the more politically accountable branches."

His audience included legal scholars and judges, including Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the Bush administration's most reliable supporters on the Supreme Court.

The attorney general did not refer to any specific case or decision but only to wartime, military and foreign affairs cases in general.

Gonzales has sent Justice Department lawyers into federal courts from coast to coast defending Bush's detention of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, his plans to try some of them before military tribunals and his use of the National Security Agency to wiretap Americans without court warrants when they communicate with suspected terrorists abroad.

Over administration objections, the Supreme Court ordered that detainees could challenge aspects of their imprisonment in federal courts and overturned Bush's plans for military tribunals, forcing Bush to ask Congress to approve a new version of the panels.

A handful of federal district judges either ordered an end to the warrantless wiretapping or agreed to hear court challenges to it. Opponents of the plan argue the NSA program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's requirement that the government get a warrant from a court that meets in secret before wiretapping Americans to gain intelligence information.

The administration contends that despite the statute's language, the president has inherent authority from the Constitution to order such eavesdropping without court permission. Justice lawyers also have argued that the challenges to the NSA program should be thrown out of court because trials would expose state secrets. Most of the judges' rulings and proceedings have been stayed pending appeal.

Gonzales also said he thought more states should move away from having judges stand in partisan elections to keep their seats. Gonzales himself as a Texas Supreme Court justice "had to raise enough money to run print ads and place television spots around the state in order to retain my seat."

In such contested elections, "most of the contributions come from lawyers and law firms, many of whom have had, or will have, cases before the court," Gonzales said. "The appearance of a conflict of interest is difficult to dismiss."

He noted favorably that some states have adopted other ways of picking judges, including merit selection and appointment with simple up-or-down retention elections rather than contested campaigns. With polls showing many voters think judges can be swayed by campaign contributions, Gonzales said, "If Americans come to believe that judges are simply politicians, or their decisions can be purchased for a price, state judicial systems will be undermined."

[matt]

Sorry, here's the continuation:

A handful of federal district judges either ordered an end to the warrantless wiretapping or agreed to hear court challenges to it. Opponents of the plan argue the NSA program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's requirement that the government get a warrant from a court that meets in secret before wiretapping Americans to gain intelligence information.

The administration contends that despite the statute's language, the president has inherent authority from the Constitution to order such eavesdropping without court permission. Justice lawyers also have argued that the challenges to the NSA program should be thrown out of court because trials would expose state secrets. Most of the judges' rulings and proceedings have been stayed pending appeal.

Gonzales also said he thought more states should move away from having judges stand in partisan elections to keep their seats. Gonzales himself as a Texas Supreme Court justice "had to raise enough money to run print ads and place television spots around the state in order to retain my seat."

In such contested elections, "most of the contributions come from lawyers and law firms, many of whom have had, or will have, cases before the court," Gonzales said. "The appearance of a conflict of interest is difficult to dismiss."

He noted favorably that some states have adopted other ways of picking judges, including merit selection and appointment with simple up-or-down retention elections rather than contested campaigns. With polls showing many voters think judges can be swayed by campaign contributions, Gonzales said, "If Americans come to believe that judges are simply politicians, or their decisions can be purchased for a price, state judicial systems will be undermined."

[anne]

Fine sad comments, we are however in a trillion dollar war and occupation, though the figure seemed unreal when initially raised and unreal still. Driving to the library a few days ago, I heard an American Enterpriser tell us that the cost of Iraq was meaningless. Whatever could that mean? There really are trades being made but they are being made in ways subtle enough to escape us. We have chosen guns not butter, but scarcely know. We are however effected economically and we are in turn effected morally.

[modus potus]

Gonzales actually has a point concerning the election of judges, though we need to be very, very careful what we replace it with. His claims as to the supremacy of the executive, on the other hand, have a lot less merit.

[Anthony Damiani]

I am filled with a deep and terrible despair. I mourn for the country that I knew and loved, where such a thing was impossible, and I fear I shall never set foot on her shores again.

[anne]

Since coming to the Presidency, George Bush has vetoed a lone bill, that on stem cell research and that for political show. The reason there have been no other vetoes, beyond a Congress that is beholden to the President no matter what else is pretended, the reason for no vetoes is the signing statement that the President repeatedly makes when a bill is passed. The President simply tells how the law will be interpreted by the Administration and the bill becomes precisely what the President wishes. We have, you understand, an imperial President.

[quartz]

I am deeply ashamed.

[anne]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092806bush,1,7270198,print.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

"The party of FDR, the party of Harry Truman, has become the party of cut-and-run," he said, in a speech that repeatedly brought an audience of several thousand to its feet....

[When the President made this comment, why do you suppose the audience cheered? What were they thinking? What do these people wish?]

[anne]

Language, you understand, can be meant to stop us from thinking. Think why, please, the audience should have cheered. What was being cheered? The historical images I have in mind of such cheering are disturbing.

[andres]

anne: Yep. Thousands, possibly millions of people, who are scared out of their wits by some foreign enemy that has carried out a terrorist attack, turn to a leader (and his political machine) who sounds forceful and vigorous and determined to take action. A classic recipe, now about to be tried American-style with ketchup and mustard.

Like I said, time to pray harder. Paging Reverend Niemoller (sorry again, Mr. Godwin).

[anne]

http://www.lbi.org/fritzstern.html

November, 2004

Speech Upon Receiving the Leo Baeck Medal
By Fritz Stern

[Read, then, this remarkable, thoroughly unexpected speech by cultural philosopher Fritz Stern.]

[matt]

Isn't it interesting that Gonzales has the nerve of mentioning that judges in their bids to be reelected have to raise money from people who might have cases in front of them.

Isn't this the same situation in which Roberts and Alito, and all other federal nominees find themselves vis-a-vis the executive? Theoretically the executive branch can and recently has found itself in front of judges in numerous diverse jurisdictions.

Whereas local and state judges might be tempted by the lure of money recent judicial nominees and appointees have sold their souls, their integrity, and our democracy for the "federalist" cause.

Romania is looking very inviting.

[matt]

anne, I think the reason the audience rose to its feet is because they are vetted ahead of time so there will be no embarrassing moments of reality for the emperor to deal with.

These are like the crowds Reifenstahl filmed at nuremberg, they are the people who love perpetuating that old cultural war we've been involved in for years. I don't know about you, but I remember some of these people from highschool, 1967, 1968 when they were defending johnson.

They went on to get numerous deferments while me and other guys who hated johnson, nixon, and their war wound up in the jungles.

Now we're the traitors like murtha and kerry, guys who know what it sounds like when a bullet snaps next to your head or when it hits the guy next to you while you're talking to him and his head explodes in front of you.

These bastards don't have those memories but they have the balls to create them for others while cutting the funding to help them.

And ponder this: Why is the Dow approaching record territory? I can't read anything into it any more because we are no longer permitted to see the figures for M3. I guarantee you the good old PPT and various other entities are inflating this market ahead of november.

[anne]

Matt, I understand and thank you. Reading the stock market over the near term, tells little about the economy, though sector moves can at times be meaningful indicators. The bond market tells much more, and long term bond yields are telling us a slowing economy with little inflation worry.

[matt]

Just as Bloomberg radio indicates inflation is beginning to rise. I look at the bond market all the time and understand it but the people of this country who have their money in 401ks are listening to all the rosy talk thinking that everything is fine.

When they see the stock market moving to new highs there has to be a voice inside telling them that Bush's Social Security privatization is just the thing for them.

Herte's a good indicator that this market is getting ready to tank: There are commercials daily for people to make money in the market by taking a course that teaches them trading. Now I know these courses are always around but they're being touted on channels like Nickelodeon and Comedy Central. Sure sign that the bottom is getting ready to fall out again just as soon as some more saps take their hard-earned money and try to beat the market or time it or follow the momentum or whatever this course is pushing.

Wring that last nickel out of the suckers' hands while the war profiteers who are raping our Treasury buy another beach house on the Outer Banks.

This isn't going to have a happy ending, I'm afraid.

[A]

I join Anne in having wished for some Senator to stand up and give a speech similar to that of Otto Wels on March 23, 1933 in the Reichstag session when Hitler's 'Enabling Act' was voted on, ending the 'Weimar Republic' period of German democracy. (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Wels
). Also, all 94 SPD members of the Reichstag voted against the act, at presumably some risk to their safety, but today, 12 Democratic Senators voted for S.3930, only 34 against.--
Sorry for that comparison (normally indicating a decline in standards of discussion) but being German-born, that comes to mind first for me.
A sad day for the United States.

[Dave]

I have been told in email that in Brazil it took a couple of tries, and eventually tanks sitting outside the chambers, before the Junta managed to muster enough votes to do away with that pesky Habeas Corpus.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html?ex=1317096000&en=3eb3ba3410944ff9&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Rushing Off a Cliff

There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.

We don't blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they'll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won't remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration....

[There should have and could have been a filibuster, no matter that the filibuster would have been voted away. There should have and could have been a lone Senator who would not be silenced by a leadership agreement on limiting time to speak against the bill. A lone Senator should have and could have spoken beyond the time limit, simply in sadness of American tradition.]

[John Owens]

monkyboy:
"There's no law that says the press can't cover Bush's people setting up the stage for political theater like the New Orleans speech or them constructing the kiddie pool they set up at ground zero for his recent 9/11 speech."

Didn't you notice? There is such a law now, if he chooses to use it that way.

About Anne's American Enterpriser: WTF? You would think someone from AEI ought to at least have some vague notion of "opportunity cost", if he's going to be shooting his mouth off as a spokesperson on such things. Isn't an understanding of opportunity cost pretty darn basic to such things as, say, actual enterprise?