The News Is So Bad Even "Funny Links" Don't Work

Andrew Sullivan, today:

I pass along the following pieces of grim news simply out of a duty to notice them. A reader told me today that he could no longer read the blog because it was so depressing. I try and cheer it up with funny links, videos, the windows series, and so on. But the news from the great struggle of our time is currently pretty grim. We have the worst rioting in Afghanistan since the liberation; we have news of possibly the worst American atrocity of the war in Haditha; we have Anbar province going backwards not forwards in Iraq; we have basic infrastructure in Iraq deteriorating; we have a massive hunger-strike at Gitmo; and we have a collapse of morale at home. There are ways to hope; and there is a case for patience. But this blog, unlike some others, is not into denial. [Emphasis added]

Depends on how you define 'denial', I guess. And not quite as bad as the Barbara Bush 'beautiful mind' quote, against which all other demonstrations of any lack of understanding of and/or concern for the extent of the current nightmare in Iraq and elsewhere must be measured:

But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?

-- Barbara Bush on "Good Morning America," March 18, 2003

Bush Administration Justifications of Its Illegal Activity

Here's a little more background on what I see as the two primary justifications presented by the Bush administration for their supposed right to ignore the laws of the country and to be exempt from any oversight from any other branch of government.

The two justifications claimed by the administration are:

(1) As a result of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress and granting permission to the administration to invade Afganistan, we are currently in a state of war.

(2) Under Article II of the Constitution, the executive branch has unlimited powers in time of war. These powers are not bound by any of the laws of the country -- even, if I'm not mistaken, by the same Constitution that grants these powers -- and cannot be overseen or checked by either of the other two branches of government (or anyone else, for that matter).

Item (1) has been refuted many times, even by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (2/6/06): "There was not a war declaration, either in connection with al Qaeda or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force." It can and has been argued that we are in a state of undeclared war, but the power to declare war is granted only to the Congress.

(2) Article II, Section 2 famously makes the President "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States". Proponents of the theory of the unitary executive take this to mean that the President is vested by the Constitution with unlimited power to command the country, militarily and otherwise, in times of war.

The two main problems with this are first, that Congress has not declared the country to be in a state of war, and second, that the administration claims that an undeclared state of war exists, that it grants the President untrammeled power, and that is a 'Long War' that will last for many decades and perhaps generations into the future.

(It's important to note, by the way, that the President is Commander in Chief only of the armed forces -- not of the members of Congress or any other civilian members of the other branches of government, and certainly not of his civilian citizen-employers.)

I'm not in any way a Constitutional scholar, so I can't unravel or dissect the various legal precedents that support various interpretations of these Article II powers. When all is said and done, it is a simple and popularly appealling argument to say that we have been in some sort of a state of war ever since 9/11, and that the dangers of wartime demand a pragmatic increase of the President's powers.

But even this simply compelling argument has been refuted time and time again in our nation's history, as lengthily documented by Greenwald and other legal scholars.

Here's what one of those scholars wrote in 2004:

"... As Hamilton explained, the President's military authority would be 'much inferior' to that of the British King: 'It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy: while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which, by the constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.' The Federalist No. 69, p. 357."

These words were written by Justice Antonin Scalia, in his opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the case brought by the father of an American citizen arrested on orders of the Bush Administration, held incommunicado for two years without being charged with any crime, and ultimately released.

Both quotes in this post are taken from Greenwald's book, "How Would A Patriot Act".

Not Just Another Crisis

The Bush administration's seizure of the powers of a 'unitary executive' may be the most important crisis facing the country today. And yet it seems to me that many people who are most staunchly opposed to the Bush administration and everything it stands for may, paradoxically, be relatively unaware of the seriousness of this threat.

(I.) This is partly because the administration's statements outlining its perceived unitary powers do not, in and of themselves, engender prominent and lasting news coverage. Certain actions taken by the administration that are guided by the doctrine, most notably the illegal NSA warrentless wiretapping program, do make headlines, but they tend to be swallowed up in the daily stream of other scandals not directly related to or illustrative of this one -- most notably the administration's bungled and incompetent prosecution of the war in Iraq, but also the many other examples of its amorality and inability to govern, such as the response to Katrina, the illegal outing of Valerie Plame, its top-heavy and garbled Medicare plan, and on and on.

I would argue that the unitary executive scandal, in addition to its seriousness, has the advantage of many of the others in being easier to argue clearly, and less divisive than many of the others. This is not in any way to downplay the importance of the other less closely related subjects. But in a time of crisis, with people on both sides of the issues ceaselessly screaming and sneering at each other, and the air filled with aggressively argumentative statements that fail to carefully argue the underlying points, this crisis is one on which there is (or would be, if it were more widely known and discussed) the greatest degree of unifying and bipartisan outrage towards the President.

Anyone doubting this has only to witness the startling vision of a bipartisan joint statement on the recent FBI raid on the Congressional office of a Democrat under investigation for bribery, issue by the slavishly loyal and staunchly Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert and the loudly and virulently anti-Bush Democrat Nancy Pelosi. (There was a riveting and carefully debated discussion of the FBI search on yesterday's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer; a transcript and/or video should soon be available here or elsewhere.)

(II.) Another reason for Bush opponents to unconsciously downplay this threat may be the belief that the conduct of this administration is comparable to that of a number of past administrations, and that this is just another example of a conservative, right-wing president ardently supported on right-wing radio talk shows and television networks, coddled by the corporate-controlled mainstream media, elected and re-elected by a fundamentally conservative electorate, etc.

This somewhat cynical view of the 'embattled left wing' certainly contains large kernels of truth, but it is at least partly undermined by the fact that many staunch conservatives and Republicans are outraged by this doctrine, seeing it as one that does not adhere to traditionally conservative principles, and also one that in the most un-American way flies directly in the face of our system of government, fought for and then carefully established in the Constitution by the founding fathers. Glenn Greenwald, for one, was a self-described apolitical conservative as recently as 2002, when he became concerned about the illegal imprisonment of Jose Padilla -- and although I don't know for sure, I'd assume that he's still a conservative (although obviously a great deal less apolitical than before).

"How Would A Patriot Act?"

"In rejecting monarchy because it was unsafe, republicans had forgotten that it might also be effective ... Much present-day thinking puts civil liberties and the rule of law to the fore and forgets to consider emergencies when liberties are dangerous and law does not apply."

-- Harvey Mansfield, Harvard professor of government, in the Weekly Standard, 1/16/06 (quoted in "How Would A Patriot Act?", pp. 70-1) [Emphasis added]

I've just finished Glenn Greenwald's book, "How Would A Patriot Act?", and I urge everyone who hasn't already to buy it and read it as well. It's a slim volume of 120 or so pages, written in the same cold, clear, yet impassioned style as Greenwald's blog (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com), and covering many of the same points, but in an un-hyperlinked, sequential manner and with plenty of fleshed-out historical examples and other supporting information. (Needless to say, I highly recommend the blog as 'required reading' every day, as it continues to expand and elaborate upon the crisis described in the book.)

The simple subject of the book is the formulation by the Bush administration of a political doctrine that grants extraordinary powers to the executive branch, and that removes the checks and balances between the three branches of government that is intended to regulate the powers of each of them.

At its core, this doctrine is based on two claims: (1) that as a result of the 9/11 attacks we are currently in a state of war, and (2) that in time of war, the Constitution grants the executive branch essentially unlimited powers, unbound by the laws of the country and unchecked by any oversight from the other two branches of government. (The administration also claims that the current state of war will probably not end in any of our lifetimes, but that it differs significantly from the similarly open-ended Cold War in that it is a 'hot' one, thus requiring the leadership of a Commander-in-Chief with unlimited powers.)

Both of these claims are untrue. Greenwald's book explains why.

The Bush administration's pursuit of this doctrine, sometimes referred to as the theory of the unitary executive, represents a 'clear and present danger' to our way of life, and to the fundamental principles underlying the United States and enshrined in the Constitution. Al Qaeda has amply demonstrated its bloodthirsty willingness and ability to murder innocent citizens of America and other countries, and obviously represents a grave threat. But the danger that the fear and shock instilled by those attacks would drive us to fundamentally alter our basic principles of government is also being realized. Warnings of this danger were more frequently expressed in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, when the possibility ofviolations of our constitutional rights seemed more abstract and were not yet known to have occurred.

The book is especially useful for those of you who find it easier or more pleasant to read off of paper rather than a computer monitor, and has the added advantage of portability. Buying the book also supports the ideals expressed within, as well as Working Assets Publishing.

I'll try to summarize some key points and related issues in future posts.

One Degree of Separation: Tom Tancredo

The next time you see mild-mannered Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO; looks a bit like actor Harvey Keitel), being interviewed by Jim Lehrer on the PBS News Hour, please remember that Rep. Tancredo was a friendly guest on Michael Savage's "The Savage Nation" radio talk show on May 10 of this year. Here's a partial transcript:

SAVAGE: If you're a person of European descent, why do they want your child to be a minority in America? And when your little girl is a minority in America, what will happen to her? ... Do you think that the minorities, when they take over the country, will be quite as benevolent and as enlightened as the European-Americans are today? Or do you sense that just perhaps, just maybe, they will not bring the learnings of the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, to their new power? ...

Do you think that the people who are now minorities, when they seize power, when they are the senators, when they are the congresspeople, when they are the president, and the vice president, do you think they'll be quite as enlightened as our liberal government is today? And treat the minorities, meaning then the whites, as fairly as the nonwhites are being treated today? I don't, I do not ...

Well, the question is, the European-American, or the white person, is being erased from America's future, and the only question is why? ... Our guest now is Congressman Tom Tancredo, a hero to many. Congressman Tancredo welcome to The Savage Nation.

TANCREDO: Thank you. It's a pleasure to join you again.

One Degree of Separation: John McCain

The next time you see John McCain (R-AZ) interviewed here, there, or anywhere, remember that on May 13 he was the commencement speaker at the Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. And never forget that on September 13, 2001, Rev. Falwell said this:

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'

Earlier this year Sen. McCain said of Rev. Falwell that "we agreed to disagree on certain issues, and we agreed to move forward". He declined to specify (nor was he asked, of course) which issues those were upon which they 'disagreed', and whether or not one of them was his new ally's deranged opinion that a large number of his fellow citizens were responsible for the worst terrorist attack in American history.

One Degree of Separation: Dick Cheney

The next time you see Vice Decider Dick Cheney (which, unless you watch Fox News or listen to Sean Hannity, may not be for a while, as he is a notoriously timid little church-mouse when it comes to defending his opinions in a real hardball interview), please remember that two days before he carelessly shot a friend of his in the face, he was a guest at the annual Conservative PAC convention and dinner, where the featured speaker was Ann Coulter. Ms. Coulter was raucously applauded as she joked, "I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'". She also joked about murdering an ex-President, and encouraged our terrorist enemies to murder Supreme Court judges:

"There was one time I had a shot at Clinton. I thought 'Ann, that's not going to help your career.'" ... "If we find out [a terrorist] is going to attack the Supreme Court next week, can't we tell Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalito?"

While we're on the subject of popular and mainstream right-wing personalities who have invited our enemies to attack our country and murder our fellow citizens, please keep in mind Bill O'Reilly's anti-American hatred -- especially if you live in San Francisco:

And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead. [The Radio Factor, 11/8/05]

Gen. Hayden and the 4th Amendment: Follow-up

[E-mail to Daniel Froomkin at the Washington Post (froomkin@washingtonpost.com), who is soliciting questions from readers for Tony Snow, the incoming White House press secretary, for his first-ever press gaggle this Monday.]

I think your solicitation for questions for Tony Snow in his first appearance as press secretary is a great idea. I also approve highly of your request that the questions not be smart-alecky gotchas -- I think there's far much too much of that in the liberal blogosphere.

With that last in mind, perhaps there's a way these two questions could be phrased less 'snarkily' ... I would really, honestly like to know the answers Mr. Snow would give to them. (I'm not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar but I think the facts presented are accurate...):

QUESTION: Are you aware that the Constitutional standard for performing a search that does not violate a citizen's protection against unlawful searches and seizures is 'probable cause'?

FOLLOWUP [assuming Mr. Snow answers in the affirmative]: On January 23 of this year, Gen. Michael Hayden, then national director of the NSA and now President Bush's choice as CIA director, disagreed with a reporter who stated that the standard was probable cause. Gen. Hayden claimed the standard was reasonableness. Has Gen. Hayden's incorrect understanding of the content of the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution since been corrected?

Miers and Hayden: The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations

"The spirit of the No Child Left Behind Act basically says society has a deep obligation to challenge the soft bigotry of low expectations, that we believe every child can learn, and therefore, we believe it makes sense to determine whether or not every child is learning, and if not, there ought to be extra help so that no child in our society is left behind."George W. Bush, 4/26/2006

I'm ashamed to confess that, like too many Americans, I am imperfectly familiar with the substance and content of the Constitution of the United States, despite the fact that I , together with George Bush's 300 million other employers, am referenced in the document's famous opening phrase.

But although we, the people, have perhaps the strongest motivation for familiarity with this document, it seems to me we must also hold our famous and powerful employees, and their employees beneath them, to this same high standard. To do otherwise would be to be guilty of the odious mindset described by the title of this post.

Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, George Bush's choice to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, represents at least the second candidate put forward by Mr. Bush for high office who appears, shockingly, to be almost as unfamiliar with the content of the U.S. Constitution as I confess to be.
The first was Harriet Miers, Mr. Bush's first choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court, before he was forced to settle for his second choice, Samuel Alito. One of Ms. Miers' famously brief and shallow responses to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire revealed her lack of familiarity with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution.

I'm only a citizen – not (like Ms. Miers) a nominee to the highest court of the land described by the leader of the free world as the finest legal mind in the country and his first choice for the position – but according to Constitutional experts from both sides of the political spectrum this was just sad:

Meanwhile, several constitutional law scholars said they were surprised and puzzled by Miers's response to the committee's request for information on cases she has handled dealing with constitutional issues. In describing one matter on the Dallas City Council, Miers referred to "the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause" as it relates to the Voting Rights Act.

"There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause," said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation -- which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies -- with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations.

Well, we don't have Ms. Miers to kick around any more. This brings us to Gen. Hayden. There are several reasons to object to his selection as CIA chief, most notable and important of which is his enthusiastic spearheading and defense of Mr. Bush's illegal warrentless wiretapping program. But his lack of familiarity with another famous section of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, is, I think, also worth mentioning.

Gen. Hayden's ignorance concerns the 4th Amendment, which not coincidentally describes the fundamental Constitutional right that the Bush Administration's warrentless wiretapping crime spree flaunts – the protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
First, the full text of the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now, Gen. Hayden's understanding of same, as revealed in January of this year in an exchange with a Knight Ridder reporter. Please read the whole exchange carefully:

QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But the --

GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --

GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause."

And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place of probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?

GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.

Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.

And here again, for the added clarity that sometimes comes with repetition, is the 14th Amendment, but with emphasis added:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I don't want to belabor the point, but it seems to me that the man charged by Mr. Bush with deliberately and systematically violating the laws of the United States as ultimately laid down in the 4th Amendment should, at least, have a solidly based understanding of the law he has sworn to defile.

"The President Has a Great Sense of Humor"

Tim Russert closed this morning's edition of NBC's Meet The Press with a jovial interview with Steve Bridges, the comedian and political impressionist who performed with George Bush at last Saturday's White House Correspondents' Association dinner. Bridges and Bush stood side by side at matching podiums, with Bush delivering a standard political speech and Bridges interjecting with comical 'Bushisms.'

This morning's Meet the Press interview was unintentionally riveting – I watched it standing up, unable to take my eyes from the screen – for two reasons: first, because it was the latest example of Mr. Russert's staggering cowardice as a journalist, and second because of Mr. Bridges' assessment of Mr. Bush as a 'great guy' who was 'endearing' and had a 'great sense of humor.'

The accusation of cowardice directed at Mr. Russert has largely to do with his choice of interviewees: The Bridges/Bush routine was only the opening act for last weekend's headliner, Comedy Channels' Stephen Colbert, who delivered a twenty minute mock-adulatory speech wherein he mercilessly ticked off many of the President's high crimes and misdemeanors, as well as those of the media lapdogs sitting in the room, while the lapdogs and their Leader sat for the most part in glazed, uncomfortable, infuriated silence. (Transcript here and elsewhere, discussion, video, etc. here.)

But I'd like to address the issue of the President's 'great sense of humor.' George W. Bush does, indeed, have a 'great' sense of humor – or, to be more precise, a 'sickeningly inappropriate' one. Although there are many examples available, I've always felt that one in particular is all that is needed to make the point.

In September, 1999 George W. Bush, Governor of Texas and Republican Primary candidate, was interviewed for Talk Magazine by conservative Tucker Carlson. Convicted murderer Karla Faye Tucker had been executed in Texas the previous year, after Governor Bush had rejected her plea for commutation of her sentence to life in prison. (Perhaps because she had become a born-again Christian in prison, her plea was echoed by appeals for clemency from such left-wing bleeding hearts as Pope John Paul II, Newt Gingrich, and Pat Robertson.)

A true comedian, George Bush found the humor in the situation, as described by Tucker Carlson:

In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.

This bon-mot ("don't kill me", forsooth!) was, I think, Mr. Bush's moment of 'greatest' humor, approached only by the hilarious slide-show offered up at the 2004 Correspondents dinner, where the leader of the free world and Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces (more about that a bit later) showed us all how funny it can be when you invade a country looking for WMD's, and you've got soldiers and civilians wounded and dying right and left, terrorists and insurgents attracted to the place as if it were some sort of non-adhesive flypaper, ... and you can't find the WMD's! Not anywhere.

What a great guy -- endearing, too!

Where to begin?

I have decided to start this blog as a way to vent my frustration and anger at the actions of the Bush administration, and the incompetence and cowardice of the "mainstream media" in covering or failing to cover those actions. I have been reading various left-of-center blogs for the last few years, and have spent a lot of time and energy fuming and fulminiating to myself or close family, without writing anything down or doing anything about it.

I get all my news from these blogs and other news sources, as opposed to investigative digging or newsreading on my own, so this blog will probably be a sort of 'remora', swimming along after the big blogs and commenting on their content.

My immediate inspiration for beginning this blog was the blog of Glenn Greenwald, who stands head and shoulders above all the other bloggers I have read in the clarity and anger of his writing, and above all in his refusal to resort to childish ad-hominem attacks on villains in the administration or the press. He uses no exclamation points, ALL-CAPITAL RANTS!!, "text vocalizations" ("Er..", "Um..."), text strikeout, foul language, or any other irritants, and still manages to convey his utter disgust and contempt for the Bush administration and their lapdogs in the media. His Comments section is occasionally tainted with some of the irritants described above, but he has recently expressed his intent to do a little weeding there, which I applaud.