The Blue State

Gonzales thinks defenders of habeas corpus are "superficial"

Rumors are flying that the Democrats want to repeal the Bush-McCain Military Commissions Act that suspends habeas corpus for any individual that the Administration considers a threat.  In a speech at the Air Force Academy on Saturday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales attacked those who oppose Bush's prisoner policy that suspends habeas corpus:

Gonzales told about 400 cadets from the Air Force Academy'spolitical science and law classes that some see the program as on theverge of stifling freedom rather that protecting the country.

"But this view is shortsighted," he said. "Its definition of freedom— one utterly divorced from civic responsibility — is superficial andis itself a grave threat to the liberty and security of the Americanpeople."

No, Mr. Gonzales, what is superficial is the notion that you can trade freedom for temporary security.  When you suspend habeas corpus, you allow the terrorists to change our system of laws -- therefore they win, not us.

Chris Dodd wants to repeal Military Commissions Act

As progressives like Keith Olbermann and numerous blogs have been pointing out, the Military Commissions Act that was passed this fall suspended habeas corpus for anyone that the government considers to be a threat to national security.

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), a possible 2008 presidential candidate, has introduced legislation that would repeal the Military Commissions Act.  Dodd's Senate page, via the Agonist, goes through the bill itself:

• Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees
• Narrowsthe definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directlyparticipate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawfulcombatants
• Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials
• Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable
• Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions
• Limitsthe authority of the President to interpret the meaning and applicationof the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject tocongressional and judicial oversight
• Provides for expeditedjudicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determinethe constitutionally of its provisions

“We in Congresshave our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair thedamage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, topreserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanismto improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror,”Dodd said.

This is in response to the Military Commissions Act, which Bush and McCain compromised on -- except it was not really a compromise at all.  Hopefully this bill passes, so we can get back into the habit of restoring constitutional law in this country.  In Article I, Section IX of our constitution, it says the following:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended,unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety mayrequire it.

There isn't a rebellion.  We are also not being invaded by terrorists.  Dodd's measure would restore habeas corpus, and also restore some of our standing with the rest of the world.  Then again, in the mind of Dick Cheney, wanting to work with other nations to fight terrorism is second tier compared to invoking a unilateral foreign policy.

(Video) McCain endorses very detention policy he once mocked on SNL

A few years back, Arizona Senator John McCain hosted Saturday Night Live.  In one scene he played the character of then Attorney General John Ashcroft, and joked about wanting to keep Americans in jail for months at a time for no reason.  It turns out that the Military Commissions Act, which McCain voted for and was signed recently, would allow the government to do just that:

Watch Video Clip - on Youtube

--- Partial Transcript ---

MCCAIN AS ASHCROFT: "As Americans, we will never truly be free until each and every one of us is afraid of being thrown in jail.  And thanks to the tips program, we have been able to detain tens of thousands of potential American terrorists for months at a time for little or no reason."

That line sure got a laugh then.  But is it funny now?  The Military Commissions Act would outlaw habeas corpus if the government believes that certain individuals pose a threat.  This is the deal that John McCain struck with President Bush.  Some deal, huh?

Watch Keith Olbermann's commentary for more.

If Bush gives a cold shoulder to the Baker Commission

A few very brief points can be made about President Bush's Iraq policy from what we have learned over the last 48 hours, and a sobering conclusion can be drawn:

1. President Bush said on Friday that he is willing to adjust U.S. "tactics" in Iraq.
2. To back up what the President said, Press Secretary Tony Snow told reporters on Friday that the U.S. would not be willing to adjust the "strategy" in Iraq.
3. The Baker Commission was specifically designed to advise on strategy.  Baker hinted this week that the strategy might need to be changed.

Because James Baker's bipartisan commission is advising on strategy, and because the Bush Administration has said there will be no change in strategy, then it is plausible to conclude from all this political positioning that the Bush Administration is setting the stage to give the Baker Commission the cold shoulder.

If so, the Congress might want to pursue a resolution that slowly cuts off the funds for the war over a one-year period.  Remember, the Legislative Branch controls the power of the purse, not the President.  If the Democrats take control of Congress, this is a bold policy stance that should be taken.  If President Bush and the idealists in his Administration are not willing to accept reality-based strategic advise from a bipartisan panel that includes his father's former Secretary of State, then Congressional action needs to be taken to take back control of our foreign policy.

I can even foresee a scenario where, in a year or so from now, the Congress begins cutting off war funds and President Bush keeps spending money, ultimately sending the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether the Executive Branch has the constitutional authority to allocate money for itself without Congressional approval.  In a nutshell, the Supreme Court would be deciding whether the war would continue.

Again, this is a far-out scenario.  But sooner or later, the Congress will start cutting off funds, and a constitutional fight will erupt.  Of course, if Bush actually pays attention to the Baker Commission, then we won't have to go through this divisive process at all.  But do you really think Bush would abandon Dick Cheney for Baker?  I really think not.

Imagine a third term for Bush

Bipartisan legislation has been introduced in the House that would repeal the 22nd amendment -- giving presidents the right to serve more than two terms:

Twoof the most passionate congressional advocates of such a move – Rep.Steny Hoyer, D-MD, and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI – have teamed up tosponsor a resolution that would represent the first step toward thatchange in the U.S. political system.

"Thetime has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and notbecause of partisan politics," explained Hoyer. "While I am not asupporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policyreasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution asaltered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush'slast term even if the American people should want him to continue inoffice. This is an undemocratic result."

UntilPresident Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to his fourth term duringWorld War II, there was no such restriction in American law. Atradition of presidents serving two terms only began with GeorgeWashington.

"Wedo not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold ourPresidents accountable," said Hoyer. "Sufficient power resides in theCongress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny."

I really would not mind seeing a Bill Clinton v. George W. Bush match up -- even though that would be impossible because George W. Bush has worn out his welcome in the Republican Party.  Even aside from that, I tend to agree with Hoyer that is should be up to the people to decide.  Even though I am quite opposed to the current increase in Executive power, I am very much a populist when it comes to presidential elections.  If the people want a president elected for a third term, then give it to them.

Bush might get Congressional pardon

Arlen Specter (R-PA) has a wiretap bill that is pending a vote in the U.S. Senate.  The bill would allow electronic surveillance of Americans for up to seven days without a warrant from the FISA court.  This alters the 1978 Foreign Surveillance Act, which strictly outlawed domestic warrantless wiretaps.

Even more importantly, because the bill would make domestic warrantless wiretaps partly legal, the Administration officials that have broken the law up to this point would be granted immunity.  MoveOn.org is raising awareness about this bill, and wants users to sign a petition to stop the vote:

This week, the Senate is planning to quietly hold a vote that wouldpardon President Bush for breaking the law by illegally wiretappinginnocent Americans. So far, Democrats and some Republicans are holdingstrong against the bill, and there are good chances to stop it ifenough of us speak up.

This is good news for President Bush, just in case the Democrats take back both the House and Senate.  However, there are few who think that Bush would be impeached even if a huge shift in Congressional seats took place on election day.

That isn't stopping a few local groups from putting impeachment on the ballot:

• The Badger Herald is reporting that Wisconsin Rapids is considering whether to put an impeachment referendum on the local ballot.  The Wisconsin Common Council President opposes it.  "If [the voters] want a referendum, that’s fine, let them have one,”Paterick said. “To me, I think the opposite — if we weren’t in Iraqright now, we might be getting bombed here."  Okay, that's about enough of that rhetoric!
• 38 U.S. House Reps. are supporting a bill that would create a Select Committee devoted to studying whether President Bush conducted any impeachable offense.  But 38 Reps. is probably all the support that bill will get.  There are more than 200 Democratic Reps. all together, and there is virtually no support for impeachment at all.
• Meanwhile, the conservative National Review blog is trying to scare people into thinking that if the Democrats take back the House they will impeach Bush.
• The Spectrum, a Southern Utah newspaper, is trying to stop the GOP scare tactic about impeachment.  The newspaper explained that the Democrats don't want to impeach Bush; and even if they did, they need a 2/3 vote in the Senate.  "While it is true that a simple majority is allthat is necessary to pass articles of impeachment in the House ofRepresentatives, a two-thirds vote is required in the Senate to convictan individual and remove them from office."

But this isn't just about impeachment, nor is it just about President Bush.  It is about precedent.  If the wiretap bill passes and all Administration officials are granted immunity, then whenever the Administration knowingly breaks a law in the future they can just ask Congress to pass a bill to make it legal.  This sort of thing happens when you have a GOP Congressional majority that does whatever the Executive Branch tells them to do.

Congress should know whether our military is currently in Iran

There are reports, as confirmed by multiple sources, that the U.S. military is already conducting operations inside Iran.  Dare I ask the question: where is the Congressional oversight?

Before I go any further, very few people disagree that an Iranian nuclear arsenal would pose at the very least a short-term threat to Middle East stability.  There is still some debate in the academic community as to the extent that a nuclear Iran would impact global geopolitics and security in the long run.  For example, do domestic political trends in Iran show that the more moderate youth movement is going to eventually take over?  Some disagree, and would argue that ever since the 2003 invasion of Iraq that trend reversed itself and was replaced by a more nationalist domestic sentiment in Iran.  Or would a nuclear arsenal be what the right-wing Iranian government needs to stay in power?  Regardless, there is not a progressive I know that does not want Iran to abandon its unconventional weapons program.

Even with that said, the Administration is setting a poor precedent by refusing to tell Congress what the military is currently doing in Iran.  Yesterday on CNN, retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner confirmed that the U.S. is currently conducting secret military operations in Iran, and has been doing them for 18 months.  That is not the problem.  The problem is that the House Committee on Emerging Threats has been demanding that the Administration come clean to their committee about what is happening inside Iran, and how much taxpayer money is being used.

This comes just days after an alarming article in Time Magazine that reported how the Navy was recently given a "Prepare to Deploy" order by the Pentagon, and was told to be "ready to move by Oct. 1."

If this happened, it would be a dream come true for the GOP with the election now just a matter of weeks away.  But that is a topic for another blog entry.  What concens me -- and what should concern most Americans for that matter -- is the lack of Congressional oversight on this Iranian issue.  If we are going attack Iran, certain Congressional committees ought to be briefed in private about it.  And if we are spending even one dollar quarter dime nickel penny on military operations currently taking place on Iranian soil, that money needs to be appropriated by Congress because the Legislative Branch controls the power of the purse, as it says in our constitution.  Lastly, because the President works for us, it is his job to outline the Iranian threat to the American people before, not after, he uses force.  And he has to outline this threat honestly -- which unfortunately he has shown to be incapable of doing on other foreign threats, such as Iraq.

This development is yet another example of how this Administration has distanced itself from the precedent of respecting our constitutional structure.  We have a separation of power for a reason -- so that an Executive Branch cannot take us to war without some sort of legislative oversight.

Late last night, the U.S. formally called for sanctions on Iran.  As you are reading this blog antry, either right now or a few hours ago Bush completed his UN speech on Iran.  Tensions are increasing.  Proper Congressional oversight is needed now.
-------------------------------------------
Other sites blogging about the Iranian issue: Media Matters, Donkey Path, Suburban Guerrilla, Sweetness and Light, Democrats.com, Booman Tribune, News Hounds, Intoxination, Newsvine, Rawstory.

Specter's bill allows unrestrained spying power each time Congress declares war

Arlen Specter's compromise with Dick Cheney on warrantless domestic wiretaps is really not a compromise at all.  It would completely amend the 1978 Foreign Surveillance Act, which until now indicates that a warrant from the FISA court is needed before spying on Americans in this country for terrorist reasons.

But the bill before Congress, S.2453, would give President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales unrestrained wiretap power for 45 days each time that the Congress declares war.  Read this part of the bill:

Sec. 706. EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President, through theAttorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a courtorder under this title to, acquire foreign intelligence information fora period not to exceed 45 days following a declaration of war byCongress.'.

To add even more power, the President does not have to consult members of Congress any more than once every six months on the issue of electronic surveillance:

`(1) IN GENERAL- In addition to any reports required under subsection(a), the President shall, not later than 6 months after the date ofenactment of this Act and every 6 months thereafter, fully inform eachmember of the congressional intelligence committees (or anysubcommittee thereof designated for oversight of electronicsurveillance programs under this title) on all electronic surveillanceconducted under the electronic surveillance program.

What is going on here?  Why is no one else talking about this?
---------------------------------------------------------
Other sites blogging about this issue: Orinkerr, Blatch, Pennsylvania Criminal Defense, William K. Wolfrum, Cut to the Chase, Madness Counseling, Out of the Mountains.

Dem Report: Constitution in Crisis

I highly encourage all of you to read as much as you can from the new report "A Constitution in Crisis."  The Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee, who will be spearheading the effort to hold the President accountable if we succeed in taking back the House this November, have finalized a report detailing 26 instances where the White House broke the law.

Thank John Conyers, the House Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat, for having the guts to publish something like this.

Click to read the report.
----------------------------------------------------
Other sites blogging about this issue: Bucks Blog, Victoria Kos, Liberty Street, Left Word, My Turn, Alternate Brain, The Blog Brief.

Free press under attack by the courts

One of the most basic characteristics of a free press that ensures that the public will be well-informed about its representative government is the protection of confidential sources.  Some government officials talk to the press in confidence for a reason.  And usually that reason stems from someone intending to do the right thing when a law has been violated by a superior.  Especially with the 5 to 4 Supreme Court ruling this year that whistleblowers who expose government mismanagement can be punished by their bosses, it is more important than almost any other time in our history for confidential sources to be protected.

Sadly though, an appeals court that has historically protected confidential sources ruled today that the FBI can look through the phone records of two New York Times reporters:

A federal prosecutor may inspect the telephone records of two New YorkTimes reporters in an effort to identify their confidential sources, afederal appeals court in New York ruled yesterday.

The 2-to-1 decision, from a court historically sympathetic to claimsthat journalists should be entitled to protect their sources, reverseda lower court and dealt a further setback to news organizations, whichhave lately been on a losing streak in the federal courts.

Thedissenting judge said that the government had failed to demonstrate ittruly needed the records and that efforts to obtain reporters’ phonerecords could alter the way news gathering was conducted.

Thecase arose from a Chicago grand jury’s investigation into who told thetwo reporters, Judith Miller and Philip Shenon, about actions thegovernment was planning to take against two Islamic charities, HolyLand Foundation in Texas and Global Relief Foundation in Illinois.Though the government contended that calls from the reporters tippedoff the charities to impending raids and asset seizures, theinvestigation appears to be focused on identifying the reporters’sources. No testimony has been sought from the reporters, and there hasbeen no indication that their actions are a subject of theinvestigation.

Who is to prevent the FBI from using these phone records to look at other contacts unrelated to the case?

I was not alive when Nixon was president.  But from what I have learned as a history and political science student, there is something very Nixonian about all this.  It is true that this ruling was the result of the courts and not the Executive Branch.  But you can still make the Nixon connection as it purtains to the conservative expansion of government -- specifically designed to confront anyone that opposes the powerful few.  With the Justice Department's constant intimidation of the Judicial Branch ever since 9/11, no wonder the press is in the middle of a considerably long losing streak in the courts.