So Little Time, So Much Damage
CIVIL LIBERTIES We don’t know all of the ways that the administration has violated Americans’ rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Last month, Attorney General Michael Mukasey rushed out new guidelines for the F.B.I. that permit agents to use chillingly intrusive techniques to collect information on Americans even where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.So Little Time, So Much Damage (New York Times)Agents will be allowed to use informants to infiltrate lawful groups, engage in prolonged physical surveillance and lie about their identity while questioning a subject’s neighbors, relatives, co-workers and friends. The changes also give the F.B.I. — which has a long history of spying on civil rights groups and others — expanded latitude to use these techniques on people identified by racial, ethnic and religious background.
The administration showed further disdain for Americans’ privacy rights and for Congress’s power by making clear that it will ignore a provision in the legislation that established the Department of Homeland Security. The law requires the department’s privacy officer to account annually for any activity that could affect Americans’ privacy — and clearly stipulates that the report cannot be edited by any other officials at the department or the White House.
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has now released a memo asserting that the law “does not prohibit” officials from homeland security or the White House from reviewing the report. The memo then argues that since the law allows the officials to review the report, it would be unconstitutional to stop them from changing it. George Orwell couldn’t have done better.
the latest
latest episodes
Title correct?
So much blog, so little coffee. Corrected.
Review does not equal edit!
We could use a lunaatic like Che these days. Things like this make wholesale violence against a government almost seem like a great idea.
..title not quite correct for me yet...
"The memo then argues that since the law allows the officials to review the report, it would be unconstitutional to stop them from changing it."
?
What are the chances that these "interpretations" will be reversed on January 19th, 2009?
Oh ffs. Still no coffee. Fixed.
this whole past 8 years sounds exactly like the intro to Joe's Garage by Frank Zappa:
"Our studies have shown that this horrible force is so dangerous to society at large that laws are being drawn up at this very moment to stop it forever! Cruel and inhuman punishments are being carefully described in tiny paragraphs so they won't conflict with the Constitution (which, itself, is being modified in order to accommodate THE FUTURE)."
Why don't you go lay down for a while Xeni? A little nap never hurt anybody.
let them. After inauguration, gallows construction can commence. Heh! maybe they'll flee to South America!
@ Dean #8: I'm afraid Xeni won't have a decent night's sleep till January 20th. Neither will I.
Not surprising really, though certainly disheartening. Can't say I wasn't expecting it... And, I'm with #5 Angryhippo- Can the new administration overturn this stuff or not? I'm unsure.
And sadly, Takuan- but I don't think anyone will pay for anything in this administration. When Pelosi promised not to take a series look at impeachment proceedings. They will get off. All the Bushies that are going to pay, all ready have been thrown under the bus (Lewis and Goodling being the most obvious examples- but one could argue that Gonzales and Rumsfeld also qualify).
The Democratic Party is nearly as fraught with Neo-Cons as the Republicans -- they're just less obvious about it, particularly without the benefit of their own Party rule... until now(-ish).
(Don't forget that "the organization as well as the ideology of the neoconservative movement has left-liberal origins".)
There are "Democrats" such as Joe Lieberman, Bob Kerrey, and even Hillary Clinton, who while they wear the same uniform as, say, Dennis Kuscinich, have more in common with Bill Kristol.
It's as though Neo-Cons want to claim dominion of the "center", taking it from the ideologically opposite Third Way which held the "center" in the 1990s with Bill Clinton.
Here's what Bob Kerrey said a week ago:
Of course the single-party rule of Demcrats should get to work repealing the USAPATRIOT Act, repealing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, repealing the REAL ID Act, repealing the Protect America Act, ending torture, ending extraordinary rendition, closing Guantanamo Bay, and comprehensively rolling the United States back to a pre-9/11 condition. Undo the past 8 years, you fuckers!
fear not. The economic horror coming will stir the anger of the people so no amount of weaselly pre-pardoning will protect the guilty. This isn't like Viet Nam or Iraq. The carnage is at home and in everyone's face every day. Let's hope Obama doesn't succumb to the temptation to overuse the tsunami of outrage that is about to `crest.
And of course; open the dungeons and close the torture chambers first. Funny how that once was a metaphor.
Ah- in the wonderful vision hindsight grants us - we LET these things happen. We did not protest in masses large enough to effect a change till this election. And still we have not stopped the incineration of our rights. We've been poor guardians of our collective liberty so to speak. But we seem to be renewing the spirit of being good guardians again. At least I devoutly hope so.
Doc Smith created the Lens as an instrumentality for his guardians of Civilization.
I offer a miracle tool to see the face of Liberty's guardians? It's called a mirror. Make no mistake in my intent. The ultimate checks and balances are each one of us. Let us never forget that. Whatever we do or not do- say or not say- being able to look at our selves in the mirror with a clear conscience is our only hope.
Which brings me to close on a note of possible new ethics. In the form of a horror truly worthy of contemplating. The "reward" for our most evil hate criminal's actions. Their jail terms to be served in isolated shatter proof mirrored cells. So every moment their eyes are open they will see the author of their lives.
So . . . how to the people who used to defend Bush's internal spying feel about it now that it's a Democrat who will have the power?
Do they feel safer?
I don't want either side to have these powers, but once Bush opened that box there's no putting them back in-- when does any government willingly give up one of it's powers?
Why can't they just steal all the 'O's from the keyboards and move along?
I want the USAPATRIOT Act repealed right. fucking. now.
Does anyone else think that this flurry of bullshit maneouvres is just a distraction from the real business of the last 70-odd days of the Bush administration? Namely, burying bodies, shredding documents, hiding money and trashing the White House.
Well Oren, ever read the Riverworld series. A rapist is forced to face his crime. In the Tower, if memory serves.
Zuzu - Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat.
When I volunteered for the Obama campaign one of the staff said that Justice committee chair Conyers assured him that both Rove and Bush would be subpoenaed to testify. If they ignore the subpoena they will be arrested. Why have they failed to do that till now? Because the Dems have not had a clear majority. In the Senate they have a one vote majority and that one vote is Joe Lieberman. In the Congress the Blue Dog Dems have been willing to vote with the GOP minority and have undermined all attempts to bring any real accountability or oversight. Impeachment has been off the table because it's politically impossible. That and military grade anthrax mailed to the Dem leadership and killing people.
I want the USAPATRIOT Act repealed right. fucking. now.
It won't happen. It's entirely possibly that none of the principles will ever be brought to justice, though one can hope.
It's probably going to take years just to figure out everything these guys have done, much less fix it. At this point I just want some honesty. Stop lying to us.
Sure, Ned Lamont beat Lieberman out of the Democratic primary in Connecticut, but Lieberman still won the seat as an independent. He was then invited to caucus with the Democrats.
Then there was the tussle once Lieberman started officially campaigning with John McCain. But as recently as last Sunday on Meet the Press John Kerry said that he'd welcome Joe Lieberman back to the Democrats.
Regardless, the faction of Democrats like Joe Lieberman (who are ostensibly Neo-Cons in beliefs and action), is still significant beyond Lieberman himself. Compared with the very few if any Democrats who still believe and act according to Bill Clinton's radical center.
You desperation is such sweet sweet music. I don't know if you noticed but that was nearly a decade ago. This is today.
John Kerry said that he'd welcome Joe Lieberman back to the Democrats.
FAIL. Reid will strip Lieberman of his committee chairs today. He is getting a well deserved boot to the curb. You see, in real politics pragmatism rules and the reality of the 2006 election was that in order to even form a government the Dems had to caucus with Lieberman. If they had refused he would have picked up and gone to the GOP and they, not the Democrats, would have taken the majority.
@Takuan: more likely, Bush Administration officials will never leave the country again. It is highly unlikely that any administration will ever try to prosecute its predecessors for the simple reason that they don't want that precedent set for when *they* leave office. On the other hand, if, say, Dick Cheney goes to Europe next year, he may well get arrested for war crimes.
As far as USA PATRIOT goes... I doubt Obama will actively attack it, but it would be a significant improvement if the DOJ merely stops their constant interventions in opposition to everything the EFF tries to do. I'd much rather see it get thrown out by SCOTUS for being unconstitutional than merely repealed.
Treason trials sound entertaining but would set a terrible precedent. Remember the Special Prosecutor? Presumptive immunity has the disadvantage of letting Presidents get away with terrible things. It has the rather large advantage of encouraging them to actually leave office at the end of their term, which is not currently the global norm. Vengeful prosecution never goes well.
The problem is that we let them get away with murder while they're in office. We should learn from the last eight years and ride the new administration like a 300 pound jockey on a Shetland pony. Prosecuting Bush and Cheney won't bring back the dead. But it will create a precedent for malicious prosecution of public figures. Hasn't anybody read Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome?
note from the article:
We suppose there is some good news in all of this. While Mr. Bush leaves office on Jan. 20, 2009, he has only until Nov. 20 to issue “economically significant” rule changes and until Dec. 20 to issue other changes. Anything after that is merely a draft and can be easily withdrawn by the next president.
thank god for small blessings!
justice comes from the earth, not heaven. Even now, someone who's life-path took him or her to the doing arm (the CIA for instance) is reviewing what has been, what should have been and what they saw and know and kept silent on and will now use to right the balance. Eichmann took decades. We can wait. they can only run.
Its not just this. Its the issuing of bogus rules in environmental protection, worker safety, civil rights, you name. The 8 years of corruption will even last longer until every political appointee is gone.
Ok, but John Kerry said he wanted to bring Lieberman into the fold as recently as last Sunday.
Lieberman being stripped of the chairmanship was part of the aforementioned "tussle" of campaigning for McCain. But Kerry seems to think Lieberman still has a seat at the Democratic table generally.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/06/inside-the-ring-20169387/
Now I will. Thanks!
Kerry? John Kerry who? Desperation, hun, sweet desperation. What kind of clout does Kerry have? Nada. Keep grasping for those straws though.
I don't understand what the deal is with insisting Lieberman is not the persona non grata among Dems that he is anyway.
Oh, yeah, you want to advance the narrative that it's the Democrats who are the real Neo-cons. Uhhh... sure, good luck with that. But I suspect that most people still remember the last eight years and what a complete and utter failure every last conservative libertarian initiative has been. You can run all you want but you can't hide.
However I hear there is a river in Egypt you might like.
Book-reviewers everywhere are chortling with new-found power....
*sigh*... Noen...
1. Political party labels, Republican or Democrat, have never been as important or cohesive (i.e. "good versus evil") as you want to think. (Republicans do "rally the wagons" more though, while Democrats are more prone to in-fighting.)
2. Neoconservativism is a social / perspective problem in itself, regardless of whichever party they infect. (Or whether the figurehead is George W. Bush or someone else.) It's a way of thought -- a belief system, a philosophy. Right now it seems to want to claim the title of "centrism", which would cement its legitimacy in United States politics.
3. Sorry, but the past 8 years in no way reflects "conservative libertarian initiative". If you believe that, you have no clue what "libertarian" or "free market" actually mean. The past 8 years have been socialism for the rich.
As I've always said, take the labels off of everything and just observe behavior.
yep, watch, Evil always reveals itself regardless of name adopted.
Remember when Bush took over and claimed that his very "election" was a clear "mandate" that the people wanted his policies and he overturned a bunch of Clinton last-days legislation?
Well, I would like it if Obama would go in and erase all the laws, rules, regulations, and secrecies from the last 8 years.
Of course this will not happen. Which makes me sad.
hee! spread that one Zuzu!
::::SIGH::::
To paraphrase
1. Party labels are not important.
Yeah, Ralph Nader tried that line of BS too. We remember. US under Clinton? Government surpluses, the world at peace. Under Bush? The US economy is a smoldering crater, we're over extended in two wars, 10 trillion in debt, rotting corpses floating face down in New Orleans, the entire world on the brink of global economic collapse. Don't even f*cking talk to me about 'labels make no difference'.
2. Neo-cons want to claim the political center.
Neo-conservationism is a fascist ideology straight from the writings of Leo Strauss. There might be some conservative DINOS who hold to it but it has no traction what-so-ever with liberals.
3. The past eight years bears no relationship to free market libertarian theories.
Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed is that it? Talk to Greenspan about it. He at least admits he failed. Talk to the Nobel prize winning Paul Krugman:
What I mean by that is that for the past 14 years America’s political life has been largely dominated by, well, monsters. Monsters like Tom DeLay, who suggested that the shootings at Columbine happened because schools teach students the theory of evolution. Monsters like Karl Rove, who declared that liberals wanted to offer “therapy and understanding” to terrorists. Monsters like Dick Cheney, who saw 9/11 as an opportunity to start torturing people.
And in our national discourse, we pretended that these monsters were reasonable, respectable people. To point out that the monsters were, in fact, monsters, was “shrill.”
Reality has a liberal bias because when we fail we re-examine our assumptions and adjust our theories. We don't blame reality. We leave that to you.
@ Takuan
-- Richard Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out@ Noen
You're doing the Fox News thing, but with the names and catch phrases changed around to those of "your side". The salient question is, do you even realize it?"...expanded latitude to use these techniques on people identified by racial, ethnic and religious background..."
But not sexual orientation! HA HA, gays win this round!
Noen: You are mistaking Libertarian/Conservative thought for the TheoCon/NeoCon evil morass the Republican party has become. Most thinking Libertarians I know (and some are just vulgar capitalists, but many are thinking) are just as if not more horrified by the last 8 years of the Bush Admin than any "liberal". To be sure the Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld cabal don't fit into any freedom-loving person's worldview that I know - whether they define themselves as anarchists, democratic socialists, Libertarians, old-school conservatives, or even some Republicans. Did you not see the wholesale abandonment of the Republican sinking ship by conservative intellectuals over the past few months?
And while we are praising Clinton, let's not forget the stripping of welfare, the war in the former Yugoslavia, Don't Ask/Don't Tell, DOMA, sanctions in Iraq and a Sec of State that called the murder of millions of children "worth it", etc.
I'm far to the left of the democratic party and identify as an anarchist/socialist, and think a lot of free market libertarian/anarcho-capitalist ideas are bunk, but really you are consructing an elaborate strawman if you are going to attack Zuzu for an administration he likely finds as abhorrent as you and a betrayal of conservative/libertarian values and a selling off of the Republican party to the plutocrats, neocons, and the fundie wingnuts.
And saying that neocons don't have traction within the Democratic party would be great if it were true, but it's not. There's a lot of warmongering Democrats.
It's rubber to the road time now, let's see how far the Democrats govern for the people and by the people and how much they are bought and paid for by their corporate masters. Beginning to dismantle the military-industrial complex and the prison-industrial complex would be a good start.
@ TuringCub
Only until DARPA / Homeland Security completes development on actual gaydar. ;)
I generally try to hold off jumping into a discussion unless I feel I have something to add, but since people are jumping into the other side of the teeter-totter that Noen is on, I will throw my weight with him / her. (Sorry, I don't know your gender and don't want to assume.) After all, I totally agree with everything Noen has posted in this thread. To underscore the point: it is a little far fetched to lump the liberal democrats in with the neo-con-men who have gotten us where we are now, which is why it is time for the pendulum to swing back the other way.
I agree with Antinous that prosecution of the host of them is not likely nor advised, however, except in cases where the bush appointed Justice dept. has simply turned a blind eye to the subpoenas Congress has already served to these madmen. This means that, yes, bush will get off scott-free, just like Reagan did with Ollie North willing to take the fall. But was either ever more than a puppet?
Oh, and glad to see BB finally post something I recommended, even if I get no credit for bringing it here first.
Furthermore, the politics involved are multi-polar, not simply bi-polar.
This is akin, I think, to the larger social reality of moral ambiguity.
(Conversely, the Straussian Neo-Cons want you, as their indoctrinated masses, to believe in Good and Evil.)
Zu2: Sorry, I have no Z axis (truly an axis of EVIL.) Muhuhuhhahaha!
But really, this is not a tag team, even though I know you like to debate as many as possible. Your attempt to bait with "Not all Democrats are (or equally) "liberal" in the sense you use the word." is going to go unheeded, as there is no argument there. I may not have phrased things perfectly, as right now I simply do not have the time. I am merely saying I second Noen in the discussions you have had in this thread. Now I leave it to Noen to continue, as I know you can go forever on an issue without yielding any ground and I simply don't have the wherewithal at present.
You're doing the Fox News thing
When it comes to torture, no I am not doing the same thing. All you have are empty platitudes, I have photos. Monsters they are, monsters they will forever be. Your false equivalence cannot withstand the shattered bones and ruined lives of the victims of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Not all Democrats are (or equally) "liberal" in the sense you use the word.
True, I will grant you that. Our plan is simple. First more democrats, then better democrats.
Furthermore, the politics involved are multi-polar, not simply bi-polar.
Naw, I disagree. I know that people want to believe that politics in the US is multipolar and it is true to an extent but once we start electing people to office there are only two parties. We live in a duopoly. How is Ron Paul doing these days anyway?
I know that there are different strains of conservatives. Libertarians, social conservatives, paleocons, the religious right, white southern racists, corporatist and so on. I also know that they are all running away as fast as they can from the abject failure that is George Bush.
but really you are consructing an elaborate strawman if you are going to attack Zuzu for an administration he likely finds as abhorrent as you
Zuzu is a Ron Paul supporter. So no, no straw here. His choice for president is even crazier than Bush. Even if Ron Paul would have been less likely to torture he would have brought the crazy in whole new and different ways.
NO, if you are libertarian you don't get a pass for thirty years of failed economic policies that have finally born their bitter fruit this fall. You don't get a pass for making common cause with Southern bigots and assorted crackers just so that your toy economic theories could gain some shred of dignity instead of being buried with Ayn Rand as they ought to have been. And you don't get to run away from the administration that really did put your ideas into practice. Now that they have failed horribly and threaten to take the entire global economy with them.... now you want to blame the Democrats, or the neocons... or someone, anyone but you.
Tell me Zuzu. Tell me once again 'cause I'd like to hear it. Tell me how greed is good, if we leave it alone business will regulate itself and that if we just let the wealthy do ANYTHING they want, then it'll be magical ponies for everyone.
what happens is, wearing name badges or not, waving flags or not, things just turn out as they do - regardless of avowed ideology.
Little if anything will change with the laws already in place. Many of the Patriot Act's provisions deal with departments like the TSA and with funding to state and local police organizations to fight 'domestic' terrorism -remember the dopey sheriff who bought the APC. Whole industries in this country have been created in the last eight years based on the promotion of fear of terrorism, it's now big business. No president -who either creates or inherits tools like these- will ever give them up in their entirety, so you should get used to them.
...The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has now released a memo ...
This is an opinion by an attorney who works in the Justice Department. This is one person's opinion this is not a ruling by the Supreme Court -or any court for that matter- and it holds no legal credibility until it is used in a court of law during a trial and is either upheld or tossed out. As legal opinion goes this one holds little if any merit since the laws states clearly that the report cannot be edited by anyone but the privacy officer. Given that though, there is nothing to stop the President or his henchman from reading drafts of the report and suggesting -or insisting on- changes to the report be made by the privacy officer.
@ Noen
I am not the pigeon for your hole.
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era, received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”
“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”
Zuzu: I don't think you're Nan-in, as much as one Nan-out. ;D
Oh Bush, how I will miss your antics come January. In all honesty, he should have just moved down to his ranch in Crawford permanently after the Summer Olympics, because he's certainly not going to change anything now.
To those saying prosecuting Bush (& Co.) would set a precedent of revenge suits... Were you asleep in the late nineties? That precedent was set already with the Republicans trying their damnedest to impeach or traditionally prosecute Clinton. Yeah, that was before he was out of office; eat me.
Anyway, Bush's case is pretty exceptional. Saying we shouldn't prosecute him just because someone might later use this as precedent to go after someone who was innocent (or less guilty) is absurd. If ex-Presidents really need more protection (and they already have quite a bit, to be honest) laws can be passed to protect them. Saying we shouldn't prosecute the guilty just to keep people from prosecuting ex-Presidents is aristocratic bullshit. Even if it's true that it would create a precedent for revenge suits i'm not at all interested in that kind of argument right now. The alternative is to set a precedent whereby you allow a President to blatantly, flagrantly, repeatedly, intentionally, unashamedly, outrageously violate the law and get away free.
There's a reason Justice (capital J deity Justice) is portrayed wearing a blindfold, after all.
I find myself in the amusing position of generally agreeing with the Libertarian social agenda (best summed up, perhaps, as "get the fuck out of my life") while being totally opposed to their economic agenda (best described, perhaps, as "get the fuck out of my wallet").
I'm all for as much social and personal freedom as possible, so long as no one else gets hurt by it, but damn it, greed hurts people.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/37721prs20081107.html
http://washingtonindependent.com/17813/11-hour-regulations