Trump Will Have Vast Powers As President. Thanks, Democrats.

by Gaius Publius

I don't want to let this go by without a mention. There have not been many voices in the mainstream Democratic ecosystem that have taken Obama and his Democratic administration for taking Bush II's war on civil liberties and putting it on steroids.

It's been left to those of us at the margins of the conversation, i.e., not on MSNBC or in the Washington Post, to notice, for example, that via the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), the executive branch can order indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. Or that Obama's drone kill program normalizes executive execution. As Jonathan Turley wrote in 2012:

On Monday, March 5, Northwestern University School of Law was the location of an extraordinary scene for a free nation. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder presented President Barack Obama's claim that he has the authority to kill any U.S. citizen he considers a threat.

How does this not mean that President Obama asserts the White House right to order you killed?

Seems silly to say it that way, doesn't it? I mean, Obama's one of the good guys (i.e., a Democrat), and he'd never use that power frivolously, right? (Actually, of course he would, but not against anyone you would care about — meaning, ethnically European — except in jest.)

Now all that power that our vengeance-seeking, retributional nation thought was "safe" in Obama's hands will be handed to Donald Trump.

Civil Liberties in the Age of Trump

Suddenly, on the cusp of the Age of Trump, the Washington Post sees a problem (emphasis added):

Glenn Greenwald: Trump will have vast powers. He can thank Democrats for them.

Liberals liked executive authority as long as Obama wielded it. Now they've set a precedent.

Liberals are understandably panicked about what Donald Trump can carry out. “We have a president-elect with authoritarian tendencies assuming a presidency that has never been more powerful,” Franklin Foer wrote this past week in Slate. Trump will command not only a massive nuclear arsenal and the most robust military in history, but also the ability to wage numerous wars in secret and without congressional authorization; a ubiquitous system of electronic surveillance that can reach most forms of human communication and activity; and countless methods for shielding himself from judicial accountability, congressional oversight and the rule of law — exactly what the Constitution was created to prevent. Trump assumes the presidency “at the peak of its imperial powers,” as Foer put it.

Not to mention the extra-judicial detention and murder mentioned above. The cause of the problem, of course, is Barack Obama. The news is that the Post is now willing to notice this:

[B]eginning in his first month in office and continuing through today, Obama not only continued many of the most extreme executive-power policies he once condemned, but in many cases strengthened and extended them. His administration detained terrorism suspects without due process, proposed new frameworks to keep them locked up without trial, targeted thousands of individuals (including a U.S. citizen) for execution by drone, invoked secrecy doctrines to shield torture and eavesdropping programs from judicial review, and covertly expanded the nation’s mass electronic surveillance.

The other cause of the problem, of course, is that partisan Democrats and other Obama supporters found all of this completely acceptable. (I don't mention Republican enablers here, since they will almost always find authoritarian rule acceptable.)

Blinded by the belief that Obama was too benevolent and benign to abuse his office, and drowning in partisan loyalties at the expense of political principles, Democrats consecrated this framework with their acquiescence and, often, their explicit approval. This is the unrestrained set of powers Trump will inherit. The president-elect frightens them, so they are now alarmed. But if they want to know whom to blame, they should look in the mirror.

Something to keep in mind as you cringe considering the Trump possibilities, or when you fall back into Obama nostalgia.

Constitutionalizing State Violence

Just as one likely cause of Clinton's electoral loss was Obama's mad push to pass TPP before leaving office, one certain cause of all of Trump's abuse of executive power regarding indefinite detention, death-by-drone, and mass-surveillance of citizens (with the resulting blackmail opportunities this clearly offers) ... is that Barack Obama normalized what Bush II did, gave it the color of law, and a bipartisan blessing.

What both parties agree can be done, can be done by either party. It's the other way our Constitution gets amended. Or, as Greenwald puts it:

By putting a prettier liberal face on these policies, and transforming them from a symbol of GOP radicalism into one of bipartisan security consensus, the president entrenched them as permanent fixtures of the American presidency. As [Bush DoJ official Jack] Goldsmith put it, Obama’s actions were “designed to fortify the bulk of the Bush program for the long-run.”

Yes, he did say "designed to fortify" the Bush program "for the long run." In other words, Obama's actions were deliberate, to secure for the executive branch by law what Bush had secured by taking. 

Trump will have vast powers as president, powers that we will not be able to curtail. Thank you, Mr. Obama, and thank you, complicit Democrats. I hope we don't forget you, as the vice grip tightens, that your hand was on it too.

GP
 

Reckless disregard for due process got the gov't into the Guantánamo mess, yet they keep thinking more reckless disregard will get them OUT of it

Judge Lamberth in 2009 (spelling doesn't seem to be C-SPAN's
strong suit) -- he didn't sound like a happy camper yesterday.

"It is a sad reality that in the ten years since the first detainees were brought to Guantanamo Bay not a single one has been fully tried or convicted of any crime. Despite this, the Government has fought to deny detainees the ability to challenge their indefinite detentions through habeas proceedings. In a litany of rulings, this Court and the Supreme Court have affirmed that the Federal courts are open to Guantanamo detainees who wish to prove that their indefinite detentions are illegal."

-- D.C. District Court Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, slapping down the latest gov't end run around due process for Guantánamo detainees

by Ken

Ouch! Chief Judge Lamberth sure doesn't sound like a happy camper, does he?

This whole chunk of his ruling is quoted in Michael Doyle's McClatchy report on the judge's slapdown, "Judge sides with Guantanamo detainees." To get us up to speed on the story, here's how Doyle's account begins:

Using strong words, a federal judge has rejected the Obama administration's efforts to change the rules under which Guantanamo Bay detainees are represented by lawyers.

Denouncing what he called "an illegitimate exercise of Executive power," U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said in his 32-page ruling that an existing 2008 court order will continue to guide detainees' access to counsel, even in cases where there is not an active habeas corpus petition.

"It is clear that the government had no legal authority to unilaterally impose a counsel-access regime, let alone one that would render detainees’ access to counsel illusory," Lamberth declared.

It's just a shame that the U.S. District Court's powers don't extend to punishing the gov't thugs and/or legal cretins who have been burdening the federal courts with their flagrantly abusive perversion of both the military and the civilian legal systems. I'm thinking along the lines of someday -- actually, tomorrow would work fine for me! -- having all the officials of the Bush and Obama administrations who've participated in the perversion of the administration of justice rounded up and dumped in the hold of a cargo ship for transport to their own wing at Gitmo, where they will be treated, not merely under the flagrantly illegal and unconstitutional conditions they have instituted for their prisoners, but better still, under the very worst conditions they've attempted to impose, including all those already struck down by Judge Lamberth's court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

The net effect would be de facto permanent incarceration with essentially no contact with the outside world. Boo-hoo.

It can be argued that some, at least, of those U.S. officials have acted not out of a will to criminally subvert, or to cover up a history of governmental criminal subversion, but simply out of their own sniveling incompetence. Fair enough! I'm not sure that's exactly excuplatory, but there should be adequate opportunity for them to make their case at, er, some point --to, um, somebody, although the only somebodies they'll ever have access to are the ones who put them there, and those somebodies have a powerful interest in making sure their victims are never heard from. And don't forget, under the most extreme theories advanced by the U.S. injustice authorities, it may well constitute an intolerable breach of national security even to tell them why they're there!

Not to worry, though. During their essentially permanent stays at Gitmo, the U.S. injustice officials will be treated . . . well, with all the consideration they wanted to extend to their prisoners, which is to say pretty much none. Fortunately, they won't have to worry about outright torture, unless some unnamed functionary thinks they would benefit from being tortured.

LET'S TAKE A MOMENT HERE TO REFLECT
ON THE CONCEPT OF "DUE PROCESS"

If the actual Gitmo detainees had arrived there via a rigorous process of investigation and lawful detention, they would still be entitled to due process. This is what we as Americans pretend to believe in. But the reality is that overwhelmingly those people wound up in this inescapable black hole through a diabolical combination of bad luck and military and law-enforcement dishonesty and ineptitude -- dishonesty and ineptitude that have also made it virtually impossible to try even the legitimately implicated defendants in anything resembling an actual legal procedure. It's almost funny. In the cases of the minuscule percentage of the detainees who are actually still suspected of committing some sort of crimes, the record of abusive detention minimizes the possibility of actually pressing legal cases in court.

The fact is, however, that most of the detainees should never have been detained, and even in the case of those for whom there may once have been some reason for further scrutiny, the grounds for suspicion have mostly fallen apart. But because of the government's need to cover all those exposed butts, hardly any of the detainees have much hope of release anytime soon. And this is also almost funny: How many of the detainees who had no connection to terrorism before they were shanghaied into the system can be expected, if they're finally released, to head for their nearest terrorist recruiting office?

Of course the career butt-coverers have powerful allies among right-wing pols who are either (once again) too stupid or too dishonest to acknowledge the monumental, probably irrecoverable botch we have made of this whole situation. And for a public that has embraced thuggery and imbecility as virtues, the magic words "national security" cover all sins.

IF YOU'RE CURIOUS WHAT EXACTLY THE
GOV'T TRIED TO GET AWAY WITH THIS TIME . . .

Here's Michael Doyle's explanation:

The Obama administration has sought to impose a new requirement that detainees' attorneys sign a "memorandum of understanding" in order to meet with their clients. Six detainees challenged the new requirement, which covers those who no longer have an active or pending habeas petition.

The MOU, Lamberth noted, strips counsel of their “need to know” designations, and explicitly denies counsel access to all classified documents or information which counsel had “previously obtained or created” in pursuit of a detainee’s habeas petition. Counsel can obtain access to their own classified work product only if they can justify their need for such information.

"At its heart," Lamberth wrote, "this case is about whether the Executive or the Court is charged with protecting habeas petitioners’ right to access their counsel."

Well, yes, that's the legal heart of the case. But Judge Lamberth himself made it clear that the real heart of the matter is larger. Let's look again at what he wrote:

It is a sad reality that in the ten years since the first detainees were brought to Guantanamo Bay not a single one has been fully tried or convicted of any crime. Despite this, the Government has fought to deny detainees the ability to challenge their indefinite detentions through habeas proceedings. In a litany of rulings, this Court and the Supreme Court have affirmed that the Federal courts are open to Guantanamo detainees who wish to prove that their indefinite detentions are illegal.

There oughtta be a law!

Right-wing demagogues like to pretend that Gitmo detainees are there for a reason, and are being treated with more consideration than is called for even by such quaint principles as the Geneva conventions, and in any case terrorism can only be dealt with by "national security" procedures that override the mere tenets of law enforcement. Once again this right-wing demagogues are either too stupid or too dishonest to know or acknowledge that the most effective rooting out of terrorists has been accomplished by competent and vigorous law enforcement.

#

McCAIN WAS AS BAD A STUDENT AS BUSH-- AND HE SURELY NEVER LEARNED ABOUT THE GREAT WRIT OF LIBERTY

This morning, even conservative Establishment columnist George Will is wondering about McCain's fitness for office. "In Marbury v. Madison (1803), which launched and validated judicial supervision of America's democratic government, Chief Justice John Marshall asked: 'To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?' Those are pertinent questions for McCain, who aspires to take the presidential oath to defend the Constitution."

Indeed they are. And we saw the answer, as Will mentions, this week when McCain got his panties all in a bunch over the Supreme Court's habeas corpus ruling. It's conceivable that McCain, like Bush, doesn't understand what habeas corpus is or how much blood has been shed by our ancestors to win it and defend it. Will:

No state power is more fearsome than the power to imprison. Hence the habeas right has been at the heart of the centuries-long struggle to constrain governments, a struggle in which the greatest event was the writing of America's Constitution, which limits Congress's power to revoke habeas corpus to periods of rebellion or invasion. Is it, as McCain suggests, indefensible to conclude that Congress exceeded its authority when, with the Military Commissions Act (2006), it withdrew any federal court jurisdiction over the detainees' habeas claims?

As the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute argued in its amicus brief in support of the petitioning detainees, habeas, in the context of U.S. constitutional law, "is a separation of powers principle" involving the judicial and executive branches. The latter cannot be the only judge of its own judgment.

McCain, without reading the 126 pages that make up the decision, immediately smelled blood in the water and, not realizing it was his own, ran-- with asswipes Lieberman and Lindsey Graham-- to his trusted stooges in the media screeching that the ruling was "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Will certainly swings right-- often far right-- but he knows a line of desperate malarkey when he hears it. "One of the worst decisions in the history of this country?" He doesn't think so. In fact, he seems to think it was on the scores of lobbyists who persuaded McCain that this was an opportunity to show right-wingers-- knee-jerk dumb ones brainwashed by Hate Talk Radio, not intellectual ones who may actually revere the Constitution and restrained government-- that he'll pick more ideological and extremist judges like Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Does it rank with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document, to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect? With Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu v. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps?

...The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. Of Guantanamo's approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous "enemy combatants." Some probably are not. None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests.

As such, the Supreme Court's ruling only begins marking a boundary against government's otherwise boundless power to detain people indefinitely, treating Guantanamo as (in Barack Obama's characterization) "a legal black hole." And public habeas hearings might benefit the Bush administration by reminding Americans how bad its worst enemies are.

Over at Salon today Gary Kamiya suggests the rule of mercy be implemented to "avoid humiliating a once-great party and subjecting America to more painful glimpses of McCain's ideas and teeth." He suggests we just forgo the election formalities and let McCain and the rest of the Bush rubber stamps slink off the national stage with whatever shred of dignity they can manage to muster.

It isn't reasonable to expect the GOP to bounce right back after being led for eight years by a destructive nonentity like Bush. The father of modern American conservatism, the late William F. Buckley, remarked before he died that Bushian conservatism had failed to "take into account reality" and that the movement had become "slothful." Well, my fellow Americans, I submit that a reality-avoiding sloth may be an attraction at the zoo, but it is not a creature that deserves a place on the ballots of this great nation.

Actually, a reality-averse sloth would be far more competitive than the pathetic team the hapless GOP is trotting out to play for the championship. If allowed to proceed, a McCain-Obama matchup will be a hideous reenactment of one of those 105-to-16 games between the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals, or another one of those interchangeable teams of slow, dorky white guys who stumble around missing set shots while Meadowlark Lemon and his chortling teammates spin the ball on the tips of their fingers, bounce it off their opponents' heads, and soar in with big grins on their faces for uncontested layups.

If you appreciate sports analogies and mildly scatological humor, I recommend you read the rest of Kamiya's hilarious post.

IN A NARROW 5-4 DECISION THE SUPREME COURT STANDS UP TO BUSH AND REAFFIRMS HABEAS CORPUS

Two of a kind-- and McCain makes a triple-play

I saw one GOP propaganda site this morning bellowing that the Supreme Court had sided with the terrorists. Actually, the Supreme Court sided with the U.S. Constitution, which is exactly what they're supposed to do. Bush isn't happy but, reluctantly, he's agreeing to abide by the ruling-- while he looks for a way around it. He isn't alone. Warmongers Joe Lieberman, Lindsey Graham and John W. McCain are all angry. They think we need more judges like Scalia.

Kathryn Kolbert, president of People For the American Way has a much more reasonable-- and more American approach.

The Supreme Court has rebuked President Bush’s vision of the presidency as an office of limitless power, and declared that the president of a free nation cannot simply lock people up and throw away the key like some third-world dictator. This is a stinging blow to the administration’s lawless policies and its allies in Congress.
 
It’s chilling that the case was decided on a single vote, 5-4. One more Bush Justice on the Court, and the decision would likely have gone the other way. That’s why it’s so important for Americans to realize that in this election year, the Supreme Court is on the ballot. John McCain has already promised the GOP that he would nominate Justices to the Court exactly like those Bush has brought to the bench. This year, we must reverse the tide, and begin to restore a Supreme Court that upholds our individual rights and the laws that keep us free.

Russ Feingold agreed."Today’s Supreme Court decision is yet another stinging rebuke of the Bush administration’s extreme views on executive power. Time after time, the Supreme Court has rebuffed the administration’s attempts to undermine the Constitution, from its Rasul and Hamdi decisions in 2004 to its Hamdan decision in 2006. It is a testament to our system of government that the Court has rejected the habeas-stripping provisions of the Military Commissions Act and reaffirmed that the government does not have the power to detain people indefinitely and arbitrarily without judicial review. The writ of habeas corpus provides one of the most significant protections of human freedom against arbitrary government action ever created. We can and must fight terrorists without abandoning the principles on which our country was founded.”

This is a very important decision in re-affirming, despite the 4 right-wing judges, that this is still a nation ruled by laws, not by the whims and calculations of a monarchy.

As Ms Kolbert pointed out, if McCain and like-minded senators get to appoint and confirm one more judge, we might as well forget constitutional government. McCain isn't the only one who voted to conform extremists like Roberts, Alito and Scalia, judges who are consistently ruling against ordinary Americans and for more centralized power and more power for corporations. Let's look at some of the senators up for re-election in 2008.

Between April 29, 2003 and the confirmation of Alito to the Supreme Court, George Bush judicial appointments generated 40 contentious battles in the Senate. McCain voted 40 times with Bush. Other members of the Senate who have to face the voters in November and who have rubber stamped one hideous judicial appointment after another for the Bush Regime include:
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Norm Coleman (R-MN)
James Inhofe (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
John Sununu (R-NH)
Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Susan Collins (R-ME)

In fact, speaking of Collins, take a look at what Kathleen Turner had to say about Susan Collins judicial votes and how it impacts women's right to choice:



One more comment, this one from the person we hope will be nominating federal judges for the next eight years:

"Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo-- yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach. I voted against the Military Commissions Act because its sloppiness would inevitably lead to the Court, once again, rejecting the Administration's extreme legal position. The fact is, this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend.  Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values."

GUEST POST FROM JOHNNY WENDELL, WHO MAKES THINGS SOUND SO EASY TO UNDERSTAND

I find Mr Bush's and Mr Cheney's evasions amusing if disgusting. But they do pale compared to the defenses offered by their admirers like Sen. Pat Roberts for example, who tell us that our rights are useless if we're dead (disregarding original patriot Patrick Henry among others).
 
They get away with this because we're at war with a shadowy "enemy", one that isn't generally regarded as white and Christian for the most part. Because they'd like us to tribalize ourselves and see "terrorists" as non-white "others", I'd like to propose a paradigm that just might enlighten them a little and shatter this illusion.
 
To wit:
 
Many Irish and Italian Catholic priests have been charged with child sexual abuse, yes? In Massachusetts and Los Angeles and Philadelphia and Newport KY, as examples. So, if you know any Irish/Italian Catholics, they probably know a little about this, being of the same ethnic, geographicaland religious background. Why risk that they don't?
 
Therefore, according to the same logic that the Right applies to Cheney and to the administration's policies on torture, rendition and suspension of Habeas, they should be rounded up, wiretapped without warrants and imprisoned indefinately without facing their accusers, because child predation is a serious crime-- much as "terrorism" is--- you're talking about the life of a defenseless child here.
 
We have to use every resource here. Never mind that if these people had any actual contact with a priest that might yield information, it could be obtained by warrant and that in America, one is presumed innocent. All irrelevant-- because pedophilia is a horrible, brutal crime and must be wiped out. Ergo, the POSSIBLE association of any Catholic to a pedo-priest means said Catholic's rights are superceded by the need to end pedophilia.
 
Wonder how Sean Hannity's fan "Trish in Mineola" would think of an indefinate stay in Gitmo?
 
When the proverbial shoe is on the other foot, they can't walk in them.
 
Have a nice day.


Johnny Wendell, KTLK talk host, aka Johnny Angel, writer, musician, actor, loving father.

SHERROD BROWN COMES CLEAN AND PROMISES TO MAKE AMENDS FOR HIS VOTE ON THE TORTURE BILL

The first time I spoke with Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) I thought he was the most awesome congressman I had met since I started doing the Blue America interviews. He was running for the Senate and I couldn't wait to contribute money to his campaign and to convince others to do likewise. Most politicians don't let you down until after they've been elected (see Chris Carney). In Rep. Brown's case it only took 6 weeks. Of course he was in an awkward situation-- an elected official (a congressman) who had to vote one way or the other on a controversial bill in the middle of a campaign for another office. Unfortunately, he voted with the Republicans and against basic Democratic values and ideals and against basic American principles. He voted for torture and against habeas corpus; he voted to rubber stamp Bush's fascist proclivities. We immediately kicked him off our Blue America page, the only person ever endorsed who was subjected to that ignominy.

He was one of only 34 Democrats who voted with the Republicans-- and he was the only progressive to do so. The torture bill passed 253-186. Only 7 Republicans stood up for America that day (including a Republican from Ohio, Steven LaTourette). And the Democrats who Brown joined on that day? All the regular suspects who almost always vote with the Republicans when it really matters: Dan Boren (OK), Harold Ford (TN, defeated at the polls and now chair of the reactionary DLC), Leonard Boswell (IA), Gene Taylor (MS), Henry Cuellar (TX), Mike McIntyre (NC), Melissa Bean (IL), Georgia's 3 reactionary fake-Dems (Jim Marshall, John Barrow and David Scott), Collin Peterson (MN), Mike Ross (AR), Charlie Melancon (LA), John Tanner (TN), Tim Holden (PA), Bud Cramer (AL), Allen Boyd (FL)... you know the shameful list of Blue Dogs and neo-Confederate trash-- a list you would never, never, never expect to see Sherrod Brown's name attached to.

Now that the Democrats have won control of both houses of Congress-- including Brown switching from the House to the Senate, replacing Mike DeWine who, like him, voted to trash the Constitution on September 28, 2006, just a few weeks before the election)-- we've all been waiting for the clean up of Bush's mess to get seriously under way. I've been urging Democrats to eradicate the stain against our democracy by getting rid of that torture bill and by reinstating habeas corpus. And I've wondered if Brown was too small a man to admit he had done something tragically wrong.

The answer came today in an e-mail from my friend Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks. Cenk interviewed Brown today-- and Brown admitted he had made a serious mistake:

Cenk Uygur: Thanks for joining us Senator. We appreciate it. I gotta start off with the question we've had now for over six months, I gotta ask you, why did you vote for the Military Commissions Act?

Senator Brown: It was a bad vote. I shouldn't have.

Cenk Uygur: Oh, wow. Okay.

Senator Brown: A vote I'll correct ... when it comes.

Cenk Uygur: So, you regret that?

Senator Brown: I take responsibility. It was the heat of the campaign and I made a mistake.

Cenk Uygur: So, if it comes again you're going to change the vote?

Senator Brown: You bet.

Notice Senator Brown does a thing only Democrats do and that Republicans never do. He admitted he had done wrong and he took responsibility for what he did. He didn't blame everyone else. It's been 9 months. I'll look forward to him making good on the promise he made to Cenk-- and to America-- today. (And, by the way, so far he's had a spectacular voting record in the Senate, even better than Bernie Sanders'!)

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE-- ONE WIN, ONE... POSTPONEMENT

Hangin' around with Russ, gave Snarlin' Arlen a spine

This win is huge for our nation. They approved (by a party line vote + Arlen Specter) the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act. Russ Feingold, the only senator with the guts to have opposed this travesty from the beginning addressed the committee and congratulated Leahy and Specter for moving to correct this unspeakable symbol of Bushism. Ralph Neas of People For the American Way speaks for all decent and patriotic Americans when he commends the Senate Judiciary Committee on their action today:

The restoration of habeas is a moral and patriotic course of action that helps restore our constitutional system of checks and balances; it’s a shame that it apparently took a change in partisan control of the Senate to move this forward. It’s about time that the Senate took this action to check this blatant abuse of power by the Bush Administration.The attack on habeas corpus was an attack on the most basic right of citizens in a free society, and the most fundamental check on the governmental abuse of power.

President Bush has done his best to inflame fears and convince us that those held at Guantanamo present an imminent threat to our county. But there must be some fundamentally fair process to identify those who have been justly detained while protecting the rights of innocent people caught up in the conflict and confusion of war.”

Our nation is a nation of laws-- laws to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. When the government begins to ignore those laws, the rights of all citizens are in peril.

Both houses of Congress should immediately pass legislation to restore habeas corpus.

Less celebratory was the postponement of a vote on the Southwick Appeals Court nomination. Rumors have been flying that, outrageously, Majority Leader Harry Reid has made a deal with Miss McConnell to allow this through. Reid's office absolutely denies this is true and claims the Judiciary Committee will take up the issue next week. We'll be watching.


UPDATE: PRESSURE STARTS BUILDING ON REID TO LET DEMOCRATS DEFEAT SOUTHWICK

Obama is no longer the only Democratic candidate for president willing to stand up and talk out loud about Bush's bigoted nomination to the Appeals Court. Probably another reason the Inside the Beltway slime patrol hates Edwards. Here was his statement; I hope Reid is listening:

"President Bush's nominee, Judge Leslie Southwick, has an abysmal record of voting against the interests of workers, consumers and the civil rights of all Americans. We must demand that federal judges have demonstrated their commitment to Americans' full range of constitutional protections. Judge Southwick fails that standard. The stakes are too high for the Senate to wave through yet another hard-right Bush judicial nominee."

BIG DAY FOR PATRIOTIC AMERICANS IN THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TOMORROW

My pal Christy sent me a list of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning-- as well as some phone numbers where they can be reached:

Patrick Leahy (D-VT)- Chairman

Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Joseph Biden (D-DE)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Benjamin Cardin
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
John Kyl (R-AZ)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)

1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (800) 459 - 1887
1 (800) 614 - 2803
1 (866) 340 - 9281
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (877) 851 - 6437

She had something in mind. Tomorrow the Committee will take up S.185, "a bill to restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States. The bill was written by the committee's ranking Republican, Arlen Specter (R-PA) and is co-sponsored 18 senators, all Democrats-- from liberals like Feingold, Kennedy, Whitehouse and Leahy to presidential candidates like Hillary, Obama and Dodd to corporate shills like Biden and Feinstein to a bona fide reactionary, Ken Salazar. But not one Republican. It's even co-sponsored by freshman senator Sherrod Brown, who voted for it as a House member last year, forfeiting his endorsement from Blue America.

Christy is urging everyone to call their senators-- including non-committee members, since this is going to get voted out of committee and onto the floor of the full senate where Miss McConnell (R-KY) will try to kill it by parliamentary maneuver-- and also announced that tomorrow Firedoglake will host a habeas corpus special with some folks from the ACLU (noon, PT, 3pm back in DC). This is the first chance to start rolling back the worst of the outrages perpetrated against the Constitution by the Bush Regime over the past 7 years. Christy isn't the only one urging people to contact their senators. Patrick Leahy has launched an online advocacy campaign where people can urge their Senators to co-sponsor the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act, to build as much support as possible for the bill before Thursday's vote, and hopefully ensure swift floor action.

And while you're at it, keep in mind that the Senate Judiciary Committee members need to be reminded about something else of great importance that they will be dealing with Thursday: Bush's nomination of the supremely unqualified bigot, Leslie Southwick, for the U.S. Court of Appeals. One call: two crucial issues on the same day.

We can make a difference; Bush and his rubber stamp Congress eliminated a fundamental safeguard of our basic liberties. We can erase that disgrace tomorrow.

AN OPEN LETTER TO DEMOCRATS: HABEAS CORPUS... ITS BIGGER THAN YOUR CAREER PATH

In the midst of the midterm elections, Congressman Sherrod Brown went from being my favorite Senate candidate to the only one I had to kick off the Blue America page and urge our members to stop donating money to. That's because Sherrod Brown played some disgraceful political calculus that allowed him to vote for Bush's torture bill, a bill that also negates hundreds of years of Anglo-American law by jeopardizing habeas corpus. Americans should have risen up en masse and thrown Bush out of the White House he was never elected to.

Matt Stoller informed me today that Democrats are doing the ole calculus routine again, trying to figure out whether or not to restore it. Playing defense, as usual, they are worried that restoring basic rights to Americans will make them look weak. They make me sick.

I'm told there's an outside shot that House Democrats on the Armed Services Committee will put a restoration of habeas corpus into the Defense Department Authorization Bill being marked up tomorrow and Thursday. Apparently Chairman Skelton has the votes but there are concerns about whether to have this fight now.

Now's the time to let them know that this is something that we elected them to get done. There's a bit of fear that this vote could put freshmen members at risk, though I don't really know why as the data on this isn't compelling and the attack ads just didn't work in 2006.

The most important members to contact are Ike Skelton, antiwar freshmen, and members of the Armed Services Committee. Pelosi and Hoyer would be good too. Each link below goes to that member's email form, and their phone numbers are to the right. I've only included Democratic members of the committee since the decision on whether to make a vote will be made within the party -- the full list of Armed Service members is here.

The key is to ask them to restore habeas corpus and to let them know how crucial an issue it is to you. There are 4 members of the committee who were endorsed by Blue America, Patrick Murphy, Carol Shea-Porter, Kirsten Gillibrand and Joe Sestak. Last year 584 of us donated to Congresswoman Gillibrand through Blue America and 674 of us did likewise with Congressman Murphy and 815 with Congressman Sestak. This year Patrick Murphy is on our list again, Congressman Sestak has requested that he come over for a Blue America chat on June 2, and we added Carol Shea Porter and showed her a whole lotta love.

You want to be part of the solution? I have a better way than sitting around sticking pins into Dick Cheney dolls. Contact Patrick Murphy, Joe Sestak, Kirsten Gillibrand and Carol Shea-Porter and introduce yourself. Tell them you were proud to help them get into Congress and that you're eager to help them again next year... and that habeas corpus isn't something to play political games with. The hearings are Thursday.


NEW YORK TIMES TO DEMOCRATS: GIVE US BACK OUR HABEAS CORPUS

Today's NY Times most important editorial is a reminder to Democrats that they have a job to do. Cleaning up after Bush will take years. Restoring habeas corpus is an excellent, a crucial, first step.

Last year, Congressional Democrats allowed the Bush administration to ram through one of the worst laws in the nation’s history-- the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This year, the Democrats pledged to use their new majority to begin repairing the profound damage the law has done to the nation’s justice system and global image.

But there are disturbing signs their pledge may fall victim to the same tactical political calculations and Bush administration propagandizing that allowed this scandalous law to pass in the first place.

Pointing to the heart of the Bush Regime's Rovian modus operandi, the Times editors remind us the congressional Democrats that "Bush turned habeas corpus into a partisan issue by declaring that the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, even innocent ones, do not deserve a hearing. Lawmakers who objected were painted as friends of terrorists."

But let’s be clear. There is nothing “conservative” or “tough on terrorism” in selectively stripping people of their rights. Suspending habeas corpus is an extreme notion on the radical fringes of democratic philosophy. As four retired military chief prosecutors-- from the Navy, the Marines and the Army-- pointed out to Congress, holding prisoners without access to courts merely feeds Al Qaeda’s propaganda machine, increases the risk to the American military and sets a precedent by which other governments could justify detaining American civilians without charges or appeal.

Consider some of the other wild-eyed liberals calling on Congress to restore habeas corpus: William Sessions, director of the F.B.I. under the first President Bush; David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union; the National Association of Evangelicals; David Neff, editor of Christianity Today, founded by the Rev. Billy Graham; a long list of other evangelical leaders and scholars; and nearly two dozen sitting and retired federal judges...

The Democratic majority has a long list of wrongs to right from six years of Mr. Bush’s leadership. We are sympathetic to their concerns about finding a way to revive habeas corpus that won’t die in committee or be subject to a presidential veto of a larger bill. But lawmakers sometimes have to stand on principle and trust the voters to understand.

This is one of those times.

NOW THAT ONLY 28% OF AMERICANS APPROVE OF BUSH, WILL CONGRESS FEEL IT'S SAFE TO RE-INSTITUTE HABEAS CORPUS?

Of all the outrages perpetrated on our nation by the Bush Regime, I don't think anything got me so worked up as their attack on habeas corpus. This is one of the most basic rights that distinguishes Americans for people who live at the mercy of full-fledged-- instead of half-assed-- dictators. I was so angry when otherwise ideal then-Rep. Sherrod Brown-- in what looked like what might be a tight race against rubber stamp wingnut Senator Mike Dewine-- voted for Bush's up-with-torture/down-with-habeas-corpus bill, that I kicked Brown off Blue America's fundraising page. Previously he was probably my favorite candidate.

Although I haven't found any coverage of this in either the New York Times or Washington Post-- at least not yet-- this morning stalwart progressive Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and sometimes reactionary Jane Harman (D-CA) joined forces to introduce legislation in the House to restore our right to habeas corpus in America, which will, once again, allow every American citizen to challenge the legality of his or her arrest and detention in an open court of law. The top Democrat and top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced a similar bill in the Senate in January.

Ralph Neas, president of People For the America Way worked extremely hard to get Congress to revisit the Bush Regime's outrageous Military Commissions Act of 2006, the bill allowing torture and chipping away at Habeas Corpus. Today Neas, like all Americans who care for constitutional governance (at least those who somehow found out about this), was overjoyed:

Shortly before last year’s congressional elections, many members of Congress made the poor decision to vote for legislation that deprived U.S. detainees of habeas corpus relief. That bill was passed in a politically charged, pre-election environment providing little opportunity for thorough, thoughtful debate. The Great Writ of Habeas Corpus should not permanently fall prey to the shortsighted and cynical politics that characterized the 109th Congress. The 109th Congress played politics with a time-honored constitutional protection and the result has weakened our country. Members now have the opportunity to revisit the issue and overturn one of the more odious strikes at our constitutional core in our nation’s history.

While last year’s legislation put us on a slippery slope toward ever-greater erosion of liberty, Representatives Nadler and Harman offer us hope for a halt to that slide with their introduction of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007. Habeas corpus has been a bulwark against tyranny in this country for more than 200 years. It prevents the government from abusing its power and imprisoning people for no reason, and it gives all of us the guarantee that if we are detained, we have the right to challenge the legality of the detention. This is America-- the government should not have the power to make people disappear into legal black holes with no way to prove their innocence. While the judiciary could ultimately find last year’s legislation to be unconstitutional, the best approach is to undo legislative mistakes through the legislative process. The Nadler-Harman bill, along with companion legislation introduced in January by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Penn.)-- provides this Congress with the opportunity to restore a historic constitutional right. We urge members of Congress to pass this important legislation and the President to sign it into law.

MORE ON BUSH'S TORTURE BILL-- SUPPORTING POLITICAL INDEPENDENTS IS THE BEST ALTERNATIVE, BUT YOU DON'T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT

When big corporations pour tens of millions of dollars into Republican and DLC congressional candidates annually, they are making a purchase. They're buying very specific support for a very specific agenda. Big Oil bribed Dirty Dick Pombo with over $200,000. That's a lot of money for a money grubbing pischer like Pombo. But in return the Chairman of the Resources Committee, was able to deliver millions of dollars in favors to Big Oil. Just north of Pomboland, John Doolittle is at least as corrupt and Big Oil bought his ass for over $120,000 to get him to vote against proposals o restrict price gouging (among other things on Big Oil's legislative agenda). Both of these crooked politicians also took tremendous bribes from Big Pharma and both expressed their appreciation by supporting the Big Pharma-written Medicare Bill. Do you think senior citizens in Northern California appreciate John Doolittle and Dirty Dick Pombo shoving the doughnut hole down their throats? I just picked these two almost as random. Every single Republican congressman is on the take from Big Business. Big Oil and Big Pharma are two of the worst. Defense contractors have been bribing Republicans and making out like bandits, although several of the bandits are in prison and several more are headed that way. Buck McKeon is the Chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee and while he oversaw the rise on student loan rates by 2.4% and cut federal student loan programs by a staggering $12.7 billion, the very people who stand to benefit most from these policies, student loan vendors, were shoving over a quarter million dollars in bribes up McKeon's ass.

DLC Democrats are exactly as corrupt as Republicans. They just haven't had as much to offer lately. Just wait. But that's another story, one I follow avidly. But what about non-DLC Democrats, the ones who don't believe in selling votes for legalized (and otherwise) bribes? Well, those are our guys. And when I interview candidates I always ask them if they support substantive campaign finance reform. I had a great talk with Sherrod Brown a few weeks ago on the subject. I was very proud to support a man who could assure me that he never sells his vote. Period. I believed him them. And I believe him now. I donated some money to his campaign and urged my friends and DWT readers to do likewise.

So, at least on one level, Brown's out-of-character vote for Bush's Torture Bill shouldn't have shocked me. Our donations weren't buying Brown's votes, not even on this crucial a matter. By donating to his campaign-- and encouraging others to do the same-- I was making a gamble, based on a long and solid record, that we would be helping to elected a good Senator who would make the right decisions.

By voting the same way as Mike Dewine, Bill Frist, Trent Lott, Felix Macacawitz, Rick Santorum, Denny Hastert, Roy Blunt and Mean Jean Schmidt, Brown made a big mistake. He doesn't think so. Below you'll find Brown's rationale for his vote. Tom Curry's defense of him at MSNBC fell pretty flat to my ears. "Unlike Mike Dewine," Curry quotes him as saying, "I'm willing to stand up to my party when they're wrong." God... has Lieberman been mentoring him too? Anyway, I want to explain why I'm not writing any more checks to Brown's campaign and why I'm not asking anyone else to do any more than to vote for him on election day-- even if it means holding their noses when they pull the lever, or whatever you do these days with that Diebold crap.

A few days ago I was looking at Brown's 10 point lead over Bush rubber stamp Mike Dewine and I was writing how after January Sherrod and Russ Feingold would be able to help deprogram Obama from all that mentoring Lieberman had filled him with. I imagined the three of them could be a real "can-do" spearhead of progressive values aimed right at the heart of the U.S. Senate.

To tell you the truth, I still hope Congressman Brown wins his Senate race against Dewine. Brown has a better-than-excellent record and he has been an important leader on fair trade and other crucial issues. But, as I explained to his campaign today, we don't compromise on torture. Citing a crass, worthless, sell-out windbag like McCain as an excuse, doesn't make it any more palatable.

Yes, the House passed Bush's torture bill a couple days ago 253-168. And yes, all but 7 Republicans voted for torture. And all the Democrats except for 34 who decided they were Republicans when it comes to torture, voted NO. I basically don't care about fake Democrats who can almost always be counted on to support BushCheney in a pinch-- the John Barrows, Dan Borens, Tim Holdens, Stephanie Herseths, Chet Edwardses, Jim Marshalls, Henry Cuellars, Leonard Boswells, Gene Taylors, Collin Petersons (a fucking co-sponsor, the only Democrat who was willing to give the crooks a fig leaf of bipartisanship, of the doughnut hole Medicare Bill), Jim Mathesons, Harold Fords, Melissa Beans. I do, however, care about Sherrod Brown's vote.

I care for a number of reasons. I expect more, a lot more, from a leader like Brown, whose record has been so sterling and inspiring. But he's violated a core value-- Thou Shalt Not Torture Nor Tread On Habeus Corpus. No exceptions. Is Mike Dewine worse? Don't ask stupid questions. On his best day, Dewine will never be worth a bucket of spit and on his worst day-- 2 days ago-- Brown will always be better than the likes of Mike Dewine. But by voting with the pro-torture camp, basically Republicans and a few right wing or cowardly, unprincipled fake-Democrats, Brown took all the onus off Dewine to join Specter and a few others in the Senate to at least not wreck Habeus Corpus, an amendment that lost by 2 votes.

As Orcinus pointed out so eloquently today, it's important to remember who decides who is and who isn't liable to be tortured: George W. Bush. Sherrod Brown believes that's ok? I know he doesn't. He serves in the same body with Congresswoman Louise Slaughter who mentioned today that "No law enforcement agency ever came before Congress and said new wiretapping powers were needed to secure the homeland. And yet, this Republican Congress has taken it upon itself to roll over on some of our most basic constitutional rights so that the President can have even more power. Today, Republicans are poised to rubber stamp the Administration's latest efforts to legalize spying on American citizens. The Republican line is, trust us-- we're from the government. But after so many lies and distortions, why should we trust this Administration? It has sullied our reputation around the world as the torch-bearer of democracy by authorizing secret prisons, planting propaganda at home and abroad, and fighting attempts to ban torture. The last thing Congress should be granting it is more unchecked power." Trust George W. Bush? All Congressman Brown has to do is think about Iraq. Or think about New Orleans.

My Sherrod Brown/Russ Feingold fantasy is rich with irony considering how the two men handled the Bush Torture Bill. I printed out Feingold's Senate speech and tacked it up on my wall. I hope Congressman Brown reads it. Or maybe he could read what Senator Kerry says about the bill:

We've got to tell the truth about what's happening right now-- right now-- in our country. We must start treating our moral authority as a national treasure that doesn't limit our power but magnifies our influence. That seems obvious, but this Administration still doesn't get it. Still. Right now-- today-- they are trying to rush a bill through Congress that will fundamentally undermine our moral authority, put our troops at greater risk, and make our country less safe.

Let me be clear about something-- something that it seems few people are willing to say. This bill permits torture. It gives the President the discretion to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions. No matter how much well-intended United States Senators would like to believe otherwise, it gives an Administration that lobbied for torture just what it wanted.

The only guarantee we have that these provisions really will prohibit torture is the word of the President. But we have seen in Iraq the consequences of simply accepting the word of this Administration. No, we cannot just accept the word of this Administration that they will not engage in torture given that everything they've already done and said on this most basic question has already put our troops at greater risk and undermined the very moral authority needed to win the war on terror.

I contacted Congressman Brown's office early yesterday morning to let them know I was more than disappointed and that I had angry readers sending me e-mails and that I felt that I would probably not be an effective fundraiser for him any longer. They asked me to read a statement on his website:

Yesterday, Congressman Brown voted for a bill that creates a military tribunal to try those enemy combatants that have been held by the government since September 11, 2001.

This compromise is supported by Senator John McCain, a former POW who fought to ensure that this tribunal lives up to our national standards on human rights.

Unlike President Bush's plan, this compromise measure prohibits the degrading treatment of detainees and specifically lists the types of behaviors that are banned in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

The Washington Post wrote about the legislation, "The compromise legislation does not seek to narrow U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of prisoners, as Bush had hoped."

Those detained have been held for more than 5 years with no opportunity to prove their guilt or innocence.

It will provide that opportunity, so that those who are innocent can be set free and those who are guilty can be punished. 
   
The bill prohibits the use of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of detainees. Because that evidence is often unreliable, it will not admit evidence obtained through torture.

Detainees will be entitled to Combatant Status Review, where they may challenge their detention within the confines of the military tribunal system.
 
And the bill will allow combatants to receive an edited version of classified evidence being used to convict them so that they can respond without putting our national security at risk.

Congressman Brown feels it has taken far too long for a legal framework to be developed – for the innocent who must be freed, the guilty that must be punished, and our homeland which must be secured.

Sherrod is a very smart man, smarter than most members of Congress I've talked to. And he isn't a naive man either. And even if he didn't understand, his brilliant wife certainly does. If he honestly thinks Bush's Torture Bill is a good piece of legislation, that's even more problematic than just admitting, at least to himself, that he voted for it-- alone among progressives-- as a crass political calculation, although who exactly torture appeals to (at least among people who aren't positively wedded to Bush and Dewine) in beyond me. Does Brown believe in the same Republican pile of crap that Dewine believes in? I'm certain he doesn't. He has a long record of accomplishment that shows he doesn't. I wonder if he thinks anyone is going to fall for his spin. No one I know is.