A Spork in the Drawer

You WILL Obey

Sen. Kit Bond (R-Just Following Orders) this morning:

When the government tells you to do something I think you all recognize that that is something you need to do.

Says it all.

.

Can We Call It A Police State Now? Redux

Say hello to Main Core:

According to a senior government official who served with high-level security clearances in five administrations, "There exists a database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived 'enemies of the state' almost instantaneously." He and other sources tell Radar that the database is sometimes referred to by the code name Main Core. One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect. In the event of a national emergency, these people could be subject to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention. [emphasis added]

Of course, federal law is somewhat vague as to what might constitute a "national emergency." Executive orders issued over the past three decades define it as a "natural disaster, military attack, [or] technological or other emergency," while Department of Defense documents include eventualities like "riots, acts of violence, insurrections, unlawful obstructions or assemblages, [and] disorder prejudicial to public law and order." According to one news report, even "national opposition to U.S. military invasion abroad" could be a trigger.

[...]

Main Core also allegedly draws on four smaller databases that, in turn, cull from federal, state, and local "intelligence" reports; print and broadcast media; financial records; "commercial databases"; and unidentified "private sector entities." Additional information comes from a database known as the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, which generates watch lists from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for use by airlines, law enforcement, and border posts. According to the Washington Post, the Terrorist Identities list has quadrupled in size between 2003 and 2007 to include about 435,000 names. The FBI's Terrorist Screening Center border crossing list, which listed 755,000 persons as of fall 2007, grows by 200,000 names a year. A former NSA officer tells Radar that the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, using an electronic-funds transfer surveillance program, also contributes data to Main Core, as does a Pentagon program that was created in 2002 to monitor antiwar protesters and environmental activists such as Greenpeace.

Well ain't that a kick in the pants?

[Via Think Progress.]

.

A Little Here And A Little There

A nascent police state:

A man walking through Tom Lee Park pauses to snap a photo of the iconic Hernando DeSoto Bridge. Another man shoots pictures of numerous downtown buildings.

Many would assume the men are tourists taking in the city's sights, but law enforcement officials say they could be terrorists staking out possible targets.

It gets better:

"You may think a guy is just shooting pictures, but if you report it to us, we'll send it on to the FBI and they may have four or five other reports of the same thing," said Richard Pillsbury with the Tennessee Fusion Center, a collaboration between the Department of Safety and the Department of Homeland Security.

And now the punchline courtesy of Eric Jackson of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force:

"We will never do anything to interfere with anyone's First Amendment rights," Jackson said. "But we do ask people to be on the lookout for that individual who comes into the group and talks a little bit radical."

"Talks a little bit radical"? What the hell does that mean? Oh, and apparently Agent Jackson has never heard the legal term "chilling effect."

We've turned into a nation of simpering ninnies. Pathetic.

.

Oh Joy

Right here in River City:

An Evening with Karl Rove

I'll be sure to clear my calender.

.

KO

Keith finally uses the "F-word."

"You are a liar, Mr. Bush. And after showing some skill at it, you have ceased to even be a very good liar.

And your minions like John Boehner, your Republican congressional crash dummies who just happen to decide to walk out of Congress when a podium-full of microphones await them, they should just keep walking, out of Congress and, if possible, out of the country."

.

Answer: Yes

Froomkin:

Here's a White House "Fact Sheet" on telecom immunity: "Companies should not be held responsible for verifying the government's determination that requested assistance was necessary and lawful -- and such an impossible requirement would hurt our ability to keep the Nation safe."

But isn't that the very definition of a police state: that companies should do whatever the government asks, even if they know it's illegal?

.

Oh Joy

The US Chamber of Commerce, not an organization known for its support of democracy and the little guy, tips it's fascist hand:

Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business.

"We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said.

By "grass-roots" Donohue means "pouring $60,000,000 into swiftboat-style attacks."

"I'm concerned about anti-corporate and populist rhetoric from candidates for the presidency, members of Congress and the media," he said. "It suggests to us that we have to demonstrate who it is in this society that creates jobs, wealth and benefits -- and who it is that eats them."

I'm no Communist but it's this sort of thing that makes me think they have a point.

So who's going to pay for these attacks? Glad you asked:

There has been pressure from lawsuits and government activist groups to require the chamber to reveal the source of its political funds and more details on its spending.

Donohue is not inclined to do so.

Swell.

.

RudyMania!

Kevin Drum:

Choosing the best presidential candidate among the 2008 contenders is a tough job. Picking the worst is easy. Rudy Giuliani is the guy you'd get if you put George Bush and Dick Cheney into a wine press and squeezed out their pure combined essence: unbounded arrogance and self-righteousness, a chip on his shoulder the size of a redwood, a studied contempt for anybody's opinion but his own, a vindictive streak a mile wide, and a devotion to secrecy and executive power unmatched in presidential history. He is a disaster waiting to happen.

Yep.

.

Whore Of Babylon

Tony Norman:

Because intolerance is as natural to Ms. Coulter as dyeing her hair a mustard-gas yellow, it was only a matter of time before she got around to saying something offensive about another member of the Abrahamic Axis of Eden.

[...]

Mr. Deutsch pressed her. Asked if "we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians," the tarty Torquemada quickly agreed.

"Well, it's a lot easier," she quipped. "It's kind of a fast track."

[...]

What non-Christian could resist becoming a part of a tradition with this kind of history of perfecting others? If we were all to become like the happy Christians who smiled like idiots through the 2004 Republican convention, we would never have to fear another Holocaust, would we?

Judging by the makeup of the "perfected community" with all of its segregation and intolerance, perfection probably isn't all its cracked up to be.

As the saying goes, read the whole thing.

.

You're Not Paranoid

I'm honestly not surprised by this:

A former Qwest Communications International executive, appealing a conviction for insider trading, has alleged that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal.

Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week. [Emphasis added.]

[...]

But the filing also claims that Nacchio "refused" to participate in some unidentified program or activity because it was possibly illegal and that the NSA later "expressed disappointment" about Qwest's decision.

"Nacchio said it was a legal issue and that they could not do something that their general counsel told them not to do. . . . Nacchio projected that he might do it if they could find a way to do it legally," the filing said.

Cheney, among others, have for decades desired the presidency to be an authoritarian institution. So how can anyone be surprised that they were attempting to put a surveillance state in place well before there was any excuse to do so?

These are bad people who DO seek to harm our country and our Constitution.

.

Atavists

For a while now - certainly for the last few months - I’ve been pondering our Friends on the Right. And, to tell you the truth, I haven’t been able to get my mind around the subject with any coherence. The rightists are tipping over some edge into a true ugliness and I fear the next stop will be outright violence. The odds of that rise if the Democrats increase their Congressional majorities and take the White House in 2008. The right will then no doubt feel utterly powerless and the need to strike out will take over.

At any rate, I’m trying to work my way through this and until I do I urge everybody to read this Ezra Klein post.

---

ADDED: Ezra has follow-ups here and here.

.

Hoover

As we descend into a national surveillance state it’s helpful to remember that we’ve been here before. From the Alien and Sedition Acts of John Adams through the first Red Scare to the second Red Scare to our current fear of terrorism and immigrants paranoia is a signal, if largely unnoted, aspect of our country.

Kenneth D. Ackerman looks at the first Red Scare and finds a monster being born:

John Edgar Hoover kept his desk clean, it’s glass-covered mahogany surface polished, and he gave everything he touched a sense of order.

Neat. Orderly. Hoover wanted the United States to be just like him. (Would it be going too far to compare Hoover to Adolph Eichmann? Maybe. But both sought to make the trains run on time. Let's call it a difference of degree.)

John Edgar quickly learned the ways of power. This is the point: Nobody gave Hoover power, he created it on his own.

Ackerman recounts:

They chose to send a message...they came armed with clubs, police backup, and over two hundred Labor Department deportation warrants naming the leaders of the Union of Russian Workers….

The Department of Justice as well as courts at all levels handed out warrants like candy. The focus was immigrants.

Is there another John Edgar Hoover in our government today? No.

We’ve become a more subtle people. We allow ourselves to be violated by degrees.

This is how today’s John Edgar Hoover prefers it.

.

On "Heroism"

Rosa Brooks:

As most dictionaries explain, true heroism involves "extraordinary courage, fortitude or greatness of soul." So firefighters who take unusual risks to save others can legitimately be called heroes -- but just showing up for work and turning on a fire hose when required isn't quite enough. Similarly, suffering doesn't magically turn an ordinary person, however beloved, into a hero. Some of the office workers who died on 9/11 were truly heroic, sacrificing their own chance of escape to help others. But many of those who died never even got a chance to be heroic.

[...]

There are plenty of other genuine heroes whose names will never be recorded, like the utility workers described by a Cornell University research team: On 9/11, "they went into the flooded Verizon building just north of World Trade Center 6, risking electrocution in chest-deep water and kerosene to shut off the building's massive circuit-breakers by hand." But when each of the thousands of stockbrokers and secretaries in the World Trade Center qualifies for the "everyone's a hero" award, why bother to identify those whose actions were unusually selfless?

But there's a deeper reason to be wary of the "everyone's a hero" rhetoric. Simply put, it fits neatly alongside other terms beloved of the powers that be, such as "warrior" and "the Homeland": It's part of the language of fascism.

For a chilling account of another society in which "the devaluation of the concept of heroism" was "proportional to the frequency of its use and abuse," check out Ilya Zemtsov's "The Encyclopedia of Soviet Life." In 1938, Zemtsov notes, the Soviet Union instituted "the title 'Hero of Socialist Labor'. . . . Thousands of those heroes emerged. . . . The hero was supposed to die in the name of Stalin during wartime [and] give his or her all in labor on communist constructions. . . . [But] a person upon whom the title 'hero' is bestowed has often performed no heroic deed whatsoever, but may receive the title . . . merely in return for displaying loyalty and/or diligence. . . . With time, the awarding of the title came to be used as a token to be disbursed or withheld according to political considerations. . . . "

In other words, comrades, whenever it seems as if they're handing out "hero" medals for free, look out: There's usually a hidden price.

Brooks is going to catch hell for this column but she's right.

.

You're Not Paranoid

On the subject of data sharing on airline passengers between the US and Europe we find this:

According to the deal, the information that can be used in such exceptional circumstances includes "racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership" and data about an individual's health, traveling partners and sexual orientation.

Trade union membership? Sexual orientation?

This agreement has little or nothing to do with preventing terrorism and everything to do with an enforcing an extreme right-wing agenda.

I'm losing the ability to even recognize this country anymore.

.

Our Fellow Citizens

Via BooMan, we find that Johann Hari went on a cruise sponsored by the nations' preeminent right-wing rag the National Review. So what's on the minds of our "conservative" fellow citizens?

I lie on the beach with Hillary-Ann, a chatty, scatty 35-year-old Californian designer. As she explains the perils of Republican dating, my mind drifts, watching the gentle tide. When I hear her say, " Of course, we need to execute some of these people," I wake up. Who do we need to execute? She runs her fingers through the sand lazily. "A few of these prominent liberals who are trying to demoralise the country," she says. "Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that's what you'll get." She squints at the sun and smiles. " Then things'll change."

Lovely.

I am travelling on a bright white cruise ship with two restaurants, five bars, a casino – and 500 readers of the National Review. Here, the Iraq war has been "an amazing success". Global warming is not happening. The solitary black person claims, "If the Ku Klux Klan supports equal rights, then God bless them." And I have nowhere to run.

Was this Clarence Thomas, perchance?*

To my left, I find a middle-aged Floridian with a neat beard. To my right are two elderly New Yorkers who look and sound like late-era Dorothy Parkers, minus the alcohol poisoning. They live on Park Avenue, they explain in precise Northern tones. "You must live near the UN building," the Floridian says to one of the New York ladies after the entree is served. Yes, she responds, shaking her head wearily. "They should suicide-bomb that place," he says. They all chuckle gently. How did that happen? How do you go from sweet to suicide-bomb in six seconds?

They do seem to like violence, don't they?

Now that this barrier has been broken – everyone agrees the Muslims are devouring the French, and everyone agrees it's funny – the usual suspects are quickly rounded up. Jimmy Carter is "almost a traitor". John McCain is "crazy" because of "all that torture". One of the Park Avenue ladies declares that she gets on her knees every day to " thank God for Fox News". As the wine reaches the Floridian, he announces, "This cruise is the best money I ever spent."

doesn't say much for the value of money, does it?

They rush through the Rush-list of liberals who hate America, who want her to fail, and I ask them – why are liberals like this? What's their motivation? They stutter to a halt and there is a long, puzzled silence. " It's a good question," one of them, Martha, says finally. I have asked them to peer into the minds of cartoons and they are suddenly, reluctantly confronted with the hollowness of their creation. "There have always been intellectuals who want to tell people how to live," Martha adds, to an almost visible sense of relief. That's it – the intellectuals! They are not like us. Dave changes the subject, to wash away this moment of cognitive dissonance. "The liberals don't believe in the constitution. They don't believe in what the founders wanted – a strong executive," he announces, to nods. A Filipino waiter offers him a top-up of his wine, and he mock-whispers to me, "They all look the same! Can you tell them apart?" I stare out to sea. How long would it take me to drown?

And racist, too!

But, ahoy! There's trouble in paradise:

Then, with a judder, the panel runs momentarily aground. Rich Lowry, the preppy, handsome 38-year-old editor of National Review, says, "The American public isn't concluding we're losing in Iraq for any irrational reason. They're looking at the cold, hard facts." The Vista Lounge is, as one, perplexed. Lowry continues, "I wish it was true that, because we're a superpower, we can't lose. But it's not."

No one argues with him. They just look away, in the same manner that people avoid glancing at a crazy person yelling at a bus stop. Then they return to hyperbole and accusations of treachery against people like their editor. [...]

The implicit made explicit:

Jim leans forward and says, "When I see these football supporters from England, I think – these guys aren't going to be told by PC elites to be nice to Muslims. You're going to get fascists rising up, aren't you? Why isn't that happening already?" Before I can answer, he is conquering the Middle East from his table, from behind a crème brûlée.

So there you have it.

When I was writing an earlier post I debated whether or not to compare Bill Kristol with Nazi propagandist Josef Göbbels: Is the comparison going too far? Or not?

I consider that internal debate to be settled now.

*Trick question. It was, in fact, Ward Connerly.

.

Fitting

The latest addition to the WaPo's ever expanding stable of rightwing columinists, former Bush speechwriter Michael "Axis of Evil" Gerson, writes today about Tony Blair. It's pretty much the expected puffery for a Loyal Bushie from another Loyal Bushie. But this part caught my eye:

Predicting a legacy is a tricky thing, but Blair's is clear. Thirty years ago, Harvard political theorist Harvey Mansfield mockingly asked, "Who today is called a liberal for strength and confidence in defense of liberty?" By this high standard, Tony Blair is a liberal.

Harvey Mansfield...Harvey Mansfield...Oh! Now I remember! Just two weeks ago Mansfield was writing in favor of dictatorship:

Now the rule of law has two defects, each of which suggests the need for one-man rule. The first is that law is always imperfect by being universal, thus an average solution even in the best case, that is inferior to the living intelligence of a wise man on the spot, who can judge particular circumstances. This defect is discussed by Aristotle in the well-known passage in his "Politics" where he considers "whether it is more advantageous to be ruled by the best man or the best laws."

[...]

The case for a strong executive begins from urgent necessity and extends to necessity in the sense of efficacy and even greatness. It is necessary not merely to respond to circumstances but also in a comprehensive way to seek to anticipate and form them. "Necessary to" the survival of a society expands to become "necessary for" the good life there, and indeed we look for signs in the way a government acts in emergencies for what it thinks to be good after the emergency has passed. A free government should show its respect for freedom even when it has to take it away. Yet despite the expansion inherent in necessity, the distinction between urgent crises and quiet times remains. Machiavelli called the latter tempi pacifici, and he thought that governments could not take them for granted. What works for quiet times is not appropriate in stormy times. John Locke and the American Founders showed a similar understanding to Machiavelli's when they argued for and fashioned a strong executive.

It says a lot that a Bush cultist is favorably quoting an outright advocate of dictatorship.

.

To Add...

...to the post below: Coincidentally, via Glenn Greenwald, comes the "respectable" Harvey Mansfield writing in the "respectable" Wall Street Journal just today:

Now the rule of law has two defects, each of which suggests the need for one-man rule. The first is that law is always imperfect by being universal, thus an average solution even in the best case, that is inferior to the living intelligence of a wise man on the spot, who can judge particular circumstances. This defect is discussed by Aristotle in the well-known passage in his "Politics" where he considers "whether it is more advantageous to be ruled by the best man or the best laws."

[...]

The case for a strong executive begins from urgent necessity and extends to necessity in the sense of efficacy and even greatness. It is necessary not merely to respond to circumstances but also in a comprehensive way to seek to anticipate and form them. "Necessary to" the survival of a society expands to become "necessary for" the good life there, and indeed we look for signs in the way a government acts in emergencies for what it thinks to be good after the emergency has passed. A free government should show its respect for freedom even when it has to take it away. Yet despite the expansion inherent in necessity, the distinction between urgent crises and quiet times remains. Machiavelli called the latter tempi pacifici, and he thought that governments could not take them for granted. What works for quiet times is not appropriate in stormy times. John Locke and the American Founders showed a similar understanding to Machiavelli's when they argued for and fashioned a strong executive. [Emphasis added.]

There it is. An outright call for dictatorship from "Mr. Mansfield is William R. Kenan Professor of Government at Harvard."

Glenn makes an important point:

...but the extraordinary fact that our nation's dominant political movement is openly advocating that most radical theories of tyranny -- that "liberties are dangerous and law does not apply" -- is barely noticed by our most prestigious and self-loving national journalists. Merely to state those facts is to demonstrate how profoundly dysfunctional our political press is.

While the results from last November's elections provide some hope I can't help but think this is going to turn out badly. A not insignificant number of "respectable" people and institutions are now implicitly touting Mussolini and Hitler as examples to be followed.

.

Interesting And Scary

The Administration continues to try to turn itself into an unaccountable dictatorship. This time by arguing against freedom of religion:

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in just such a case. Hein vs. Freedom From Religion Foundation is unlikely to make headlines, but it could deal a sharp blow to the wall of separation between church and state.

The plaintiffs are ordinary citizens who object to their federal tax dollars being used to fund the president's program for "faith-based and community initiatives." In particular, they claim that several conferences sponsored by the program were propaganda vehicles for religion and therefore violated the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, which forbids government promotion of religion.

The government defendants — "Hein" is Jay F. Hein, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives — dispute the plaintiffs' claim about the conferences. But at this stage, the Bush administration is asking the court to throw the case out on grounds that ordinary taxpayers have no legal interest in how the executive branch spends public money.

[...]

Suppose, as the lower court suggested, the secretary of Homeland Security used general executive funds to build a mosque and hire an imam in the belief that such visible support for Islam would reduce the risk of Islamist terrorist attacks against the United States. Would this traducing of the establishment clause not allow taxpayers to sue?

[...]

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court rarely takes a case to affirm the decision from below. That, together with the recent shoring up of the court's conservative majority, strongly suggest that the administration's position will prevail, despite the threat it poses to the separation of church and state. If it does, everyone at the ball will take notice. But by that time, the party will be over.

This bears watching.

.

To Repeat:

Rep. Don Young called for his fellow Congresscritters to be murdered.

This should be an issue, no?

.

Say What?

The WaPo picks up on the story of the fake Abraham Lincoln quote used in an op-ed by neocon Frank Gaffney and recycled yesterday by Rep. Don Young (R-Nuremberg):

During floor debate on the Iraq war yesterday, Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) quoted Abraham Lincoln as advocating the hanging of lawmakers who undermine military morale during wartime.

"Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged," Young declared.

One problem: Lincoln never said such a thing.

Okay, that's settled. But...

"Now that he's been informed these are not the actual words of Lincoln, he will discontinue attributing the words to Lincoln. However, he continues to totally agree with the message of the statement," Kenny said. "Americans, especially America's elected leaders, should not take actions during a time of war that damage the morale of our soldiers and military -- and that is exactly what this nonbinding resolution does."

And no, Kenny said, Young was "not advocating the hanging of Democrats."

Hold on: Young "totally agrees with the message of the statement" but doesn't advocate "the hanging of Democrats."

If he "totally" agrees then, yes, he is advocating the hanging of Democrats. Even if we take hanging out of this Young is still advocating arrest and/or exile. Sound pretty fascistic to me.

And, one has to wonder, why do Republicans who vote for the resolution get a pass?

.

It's Good To Be The King

One of the most disturbing aspects (and their are many) of the current administration is their belief, strongly held, that decisions should be made by people that know nothing about the subject confronting them. Think, "Brownie, you're doin' a heckuva job." Today's NYT tells us that it just got much worse:

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

Imagine, if you will, that you go into the hospital for surgery and being old that the operation will be performed by an insurance adjuster. That's what we're talking about here. Needless to say:

Business groups welcomed the executive order, saying it had the potential to reduce what they saw as the burden of federal regulations. This burden is of great concern to many groups, including small businesses, that have given strong political and financial backing to Mr. Bush.

Well, of course they do; they will make a lot of money under the new non-regulations. We, however, will pay much, much more.

Peter L. Strauss, a professor at Columbia Law School, said the executive order “achieves a major increase in White House control over domestic government.”

“Having lost control of Congress,” Mr. Strauss said, “the president is doing what he can to increase his control of the executive branch.”

LameDuck George lost his lapdog Congress so, of course, he decides to concentrate his own power. Are we living in a republic or a monarchy?

I have tremendous sympathy for the next Democratic president. That person's entire first term will be occupied by trying to weed out right-wing apparatchiks rather than focusing on a positive agenda for the country.

This has to be stopped. And it's becoming ever more clear to me that the only way to do so is to remove the current administration.

.

You're Not Paranoid

A nascent police state:

A Defense Department database devoted to gathering information on potential threats to military facilities and personnel, known as Talon, had 13,000 entries as of a year ago -- including 2,821 reports involving American citizens, according to an internal Pentagon memo to be released today by the American Civil Liberties Union.

[...]

The released memo, one of a series of Talon documents made public over the past year by the ACLU under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, said that the deleted reports did not meet a 2003 Defense Department requirement that they have some foreign terrorist connection or relate to what was believed to be "a force protection threat."

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

.

Censorship

Spocko of "Spocko's Brain" (notice that that's not a link) has been shut down.

It seems that Spocko displeased the omnipotent lords at Disney.

Spocko explains here.

TRex has links.

Censorship, by definition, is something only the government can do. But what happens when corporations become the government?

.

A Plea

There's some bad things happening here.

Do something!

.

"Clarification"

Now that it's been noticed that George is reading our mail, the White House trotted out Pony Blow to to explain that this is legal:

A "signing statement" attached to a postal reform bill on Dec. 20 says the Bush administration "shall construe" a section of that law to allow the opening of sealed mail to protect life, guard against hazardous materials or conduct "physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."

White House and U.S. Postal Service officials said the statement was not intended to expand the powers of the executive branch but merely to clarify existing ones for extreme cases.

"This is not a change in law, this is not new, it is not . . . a sweeping new power by the president," spokesman Tony Snow told reporters. "It is, in fact, merely a statement of present law and present authorities granted to the president of the United States."

That's rather artfully worded. When Snow refers to "present law" he's not referring to the Postal reform bill, he's likely referring to "unitary executive theory which essentially grants the president dictatorial powers.

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, said the government has long been able to legally open mail believed to contain a bomb or other imminent threat. But authorities are generally required to seek a warrant from a criminal or special intelligence court in other cases, Martin and other experts said.

"The administration is playing games about warrants," Martin said. "If they are not claiming new powers, then why did they need to issue a signing statement?"

A good, if rhetorical, question.

---

ADDED: Froomkin:

And sadly, most of the questions about signing statements that I raised in a Nieman Watchdog essay last June still remain unaddressed. Foremost among them: Are these signing statements just a bunch of ideological bluster from overenthusiastic White House lawyers -- or are they actually emboldening administration officials to flout the laws passed by Congress? If the latter, Bush's unprecedented use of these statements constitutes a genuine Constitutional crisis.

.

The Imperial Presidency Rolls On

Now he's reading your mail:

President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.

The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.

That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.

Bush's move came during the winter congressional recess and a year after his secret domestic electronic eavesdropping program was first revealed. It caught Capitol Hill by surprise.

[...]

"You have to be concerned," agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim. "It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."

Do ya think?

Now that the Democrats have taken control of Congress it's time to put a stop to George's dictatorial "signing statements" and crush the idea of the "unitary executive."

In the likely event that George doesn't mend his ways there's a simple remedy at hand.

[Via Steve Benen.]

.

Heh

Letter in today's NYT responding to the censored Iran op-ed:

To the Editor:

As a black helicopter lands in my backyard, I’m transmitting this letter in response to “What We Wanted to Tell You About Iran.” Please print this redacted version, as allowed by the White House:

xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxx

xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx

xxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxx

xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxx

Newton E. Finn
Waukegan, Ill., Dec. 22, 2006

.

Political Censorship

The New York Times today publishes an op-ed by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann concerning Iran. Here's the catch: The op-ed has been censored by the Administration even though the redacted parts are are already in the public domain.

Leverett and Mann:

Indeed, the deleted portions of the original draft reveal no classified material. These passages go into aspects of American-Iranian relations during the Bush administration’s first term that have been publicly discussed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former Secretary of State Colin Powell; former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; a former State Department policy planning director, Richard Haass; and a former special envoy to Afghanistan, James Dobbins.

These aspects have been extensively reported in the news media, and one of us, Mr. Leverett, has written about them in The Times and other publications with the explicit permission of the review board. We provided the following citations to the board to demonstrate that all of the material the White House objected to is already in the public domain. Unfortunately, to make sense of much of our Op-Ed article, readers will have to read the citations for themselves. (See links at left.)

Leverett and Mann are too restrained to state the obvious: The Administration doesn't want people to remember that we had cooperative relationship with Iran after 11 September because they now want to bomb that nation back to the stone age. Those relations ended with the now-infamous "Axis of Evil" speech, a speech that set the US on the road to not only the occupation of Iraq but to national and international decline.

Here is Leverett and Mann's full explanation, with links to the redacted information and here is the op-ed in all its blacked-out glory.

The true face of the Bush Administration can be seen quite clearly.

.

Sociopath

LATimes:

What would happen if terrorists destroyed Washington? I imagine there are plenty of us who figure it might be the best thing that could happen to America.

PHILLIP W. HOFFMAN
Pace, Fla.

Har har har. Since Mr. Hoffman thinks it would be swell if terrorists murdered millions of his fellow citizens and destroyed the Government of the United States doesn't that, y'know, make him a traitor or something?

And yet it's us lefties who supposedly hate America.

.

Double Standards

The Carpetbagger:

And yet, Bush’s buddies not only label left-leaning voices “traitors,” he wants to see them in “detention camps.”

As regular readers know, this isn’t an isolated phenomenon.

When radicals like Jerry Falwell and Ann Coulter get together for a right-wing event in Washington, Republican presidential aspirants and White House officials think nothing of standing by them, side by side. John McCain cozies up to Falwell, even after Falwell said Americans “deserved” 9/11, and fears no negative consequences.

A fringe theocratic group recently held an event at which the event’s sponsor unveiled his new book, “Liberalism Kills Kids.” Clearly, the Republican establishment would want to keep their distance from such radical activists, right? Wrong. The GOP sent three leading House Republicans (Tom DeLay, Todd Akin, and Louis Gohmert) and two leading Senate Republicans (John Cornyn and Sam Brownback).

There are two sets of rules. If Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) benefits from an email solicitation sent by MoveOn.org, the right goes berserk. If Sen.-elect Jim Webb (D-Va.) takes out an ad on Daily Kos, the Republican machine is all over it. And yet, no one is too extreme on the right for GOP leaders, and no rhetoric is too overheated.

Like Steve, I don't know what to do about this sort of thing. My feeling is that it starts with the "news" media but as for solutions, so far I have none.

.

The Dixie Chicks, George W. Bush, And God: A Rebuttal

A couple of weeks ago I highlighted a letter published in the Post-Gazette concerning the new Dixie Chicks documentary, Shut Up and Sing. Here's the original letter:

Peas In A Pod

Pinochet death 'saddens' Thatcher

Says a lot.

.

Die! You Bastard! Die!

A good ally.

Yet Saddam is a monster.

The double standard makes me angry.

.

Somebody's Watching

Done any international traveling recently?

-Without their knowledge, millions of Americans and foreigners crossing U.S. borders in the past four years have been assigned scores generated by U.S. government computers rating the risk that the travelers are terrorists or criminals.

The travelers are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments, which the government intends to keep on file for 40 years.

[...]

Government officials could not say whether ATS has apprehended any terrorists. Based on all the information available to them, federal agents turn back about 45 foreign criminals a day at U.S. borders, according to Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection spokesman Bill Anthony. He could not say how many were spotted by ATS.

[...]

The government notice says some or all of the ATS data about an individual may be shared with state, local and foreign governments for use in hiring decisions and in granting licenses, security clearances, contracts or other benefits. In some cases, the data may be shared with courts, Congress and even private contractors.

"Everybody else can see it, but you can't," Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration lawyer who teaches at Cornell Law school, said in an interview.

I love that corporations can see all of this information about you but you can't.

Exactly who does our government work for anyway?

(Yes, that was a rhetorical question.)

.

This Is A Surprise?

LameDuck George's supporters are insane.

.

Sanity

Bob Geiger looks at Chris Dodd's legislation repealing much of the Military Commissions Act (aka, "The Torture Bill") and finds it commendable. Dodd's bill makes evidence gained through torture inadmissible in court and restores Habeas Corpus, among other things.

.

You're Not Paranoid

Years ago Presidential flack Ari Fleischer infamously said, "And that's why—there was an earlier question about has the president said anything to people in his own party—they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do."

As if to remind us of this we learn:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 — An antiterrorist database used by the Defense Department in an effort to prevent attacks against military installations included intelligence tips about antiwar planning meetings held at churches, libraries, college campuses and other locations, newly disclosed documents show.

One tip in the database in February 2005, for instance, noted that “a church service for peace” would be held in the New York City area the next month. Another entry noted that antiwar protesters would be holding “nonviolence training” sessions at unidentified churches in Brooklyn and Manhattan.

[...]

In most cases, entries in the Talon database acknowledged that there was no specific evidence indicating the possibility of terrorism or disruptions at the antiwar events, but they warned of the potential for violence.

One entry on Mr. McPhearson’s group from April 2005, for instance, described a protest at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces at which members handed out antimilitary literature and set up hundreds of white crosses to symbolize soldiers killed in Iraq.

“Veterans for Peace is a peaceful organization,” the entry said, but added there was potential that future protests “could become violent.”

.

Our Future?

Meanwhile, in the UK:

Britain is becoming a surveillance society where individuals are filmed hundreds of times a day by security cameras and where firms "data mine" to build customer profiles, its information commissioner said on Thursday.

[...]

"We are now waking up to a surveillance society. It is not just cameras on the street and things like that -- it is technology monitoring our movements, our activities," Thomas told BBC radio.

"Every time we use a mobile phone, use our credit cards, go online to search on the Internet, go electronic shopping, drive our cars, more and more information is being collected."

Is this what we want? Will we, as a people, be able to go to the government, or the corporations, and say, "I want to know what you know."

The irony is we won't be able to do that because of "privacy concerns."

.

Your Republican Party

[Bumped: Two updates.]

George "Me, a Jew?" Allen staffers beat up critic.

(Video at link.)

I'm afraid it's only going to get worse over the next week.

[Via kos.]

---

UPDATE: kos reminds us of what Allen's sister has to say:

"Ever since my brother George held me over the railing at Niagara Falls, I've had a fear of heights." [Fifth Quarter: The Scrimmage of a Football Coach's Daughter, page 43]

"We all obeyed George. If we didn't, we knew he would kill us. Once, when Bruce refused to go to bed, George hurled him through a sliding glass door. Another time, when Gregory refused to go to bed, George tackled him and broke his collarbone. Another time, when I refused to go to bed, George dragged me up the stairs by my hair." [Fifth Quarter: The Scrimmage of a Football Coach's Daughter, page 22]

And let's not forget Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Don "Mistress Strangler" Sherword. The Republicans are fun people. I guess "Abstinence for Adults" is a desperate attempt by Republicans to protect themselves from themselves.

UPDATE II: Video:

.

FYI

When you vote for Democrats you're voting for terrorists:

"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses," Bush told a raucous crowd of about 5,000 GOP partisans packed in an arena at Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, one of his stops Monday. "That's what's at stake in this election. The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq."

Smell the desperation.

Oh, and George? It's "Democrat-ic." Don't be juvenile.

.

We'll All Be Children Soon

What BushCo™ thinks of you:

Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it's a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.

"They've stepped over the line of common sense," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit that supports sex education. "To be preaching abstinence when 90% of people are having sex is in essence to lose touch with reality. It's an ideological campaign. It has nothing to do with public health."

The Right has long claimed that liberals are in favor of a "Nanny State," that adults can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves.

So much for that.

.

Your Liberal Media: Dixie Chicks Edition

I guess General Electric is afraid of losing pentagon contracts:

NBC is refusing to air an ad for the new Dixie Chicks documentary, “Shut Up & Sing.” Variety reports, “NBC’s commercial clearance department said in writing that it ‘cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush.’”

Do we now have to bow and scrape when in the presence of Our Glorious Leader™? Avert our eyes? Peel his grapes?

The offending ad:

.

Li' Ricky: Savior Of America

More evidence that Li'l Ricky is seriously deranged:

Likening the times to the late 1930s as Nazi Germany was rising to power, Sen. Rick Santorum said last night that if he loses his re-election bid, it could set the stage for terrorism to become more of a threat than the Nazis ever were.

“If we are not successful here and things don’t go right in the election, there’s a good chance that the course of our country could change,” he said. “We are in the equivalent of the late 1930s, and this election will decide whether we are going to continue to appease or whether we will stand and fight while we have a chance to win without devastating consequences.

“And you here in Pennsylvania — you here in this room — will have a huge role to play as to what happens.”

[...]

“I’m sure that offended a lot of Germans when we went out and declared war against the Nazis and fought that concept, as it did the Japanese in America. [...]

Putting aside the obvious lunacy of these statements it's worth noting that Germany declared war on the United States on 11 December, 1941.

And am I wrong in thinking that Ricky comes very close the saying that putting Japanese-Americans in prison camps was a good idea?

I may not be the biggest fan of Bob Casey on this planet but at least he's sane.

[Via Atrios.]

.

Fascism Rising

Making sure everybody knows Habeas Corpus is dead:

Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that "no court, justice, or judge" can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.

[...]

The administration's persistence on the issue "demonstrates how difficult it is for the courts to enforce [the clause] in the face of a resolute executive branch that is bound and determined to resist it," said Joseph Margulies, a Northwestern University law professor involved in the detainee cases.

Most people seem not to care that their country is dying.

.

The End Of America

Keith does it again:

[Thanks to scout_prime.]

.