Old News: The USA Has Been A Police State Since 1787

Last week the FBI raided the homes of anti-war activists in multiple states simultaneously, prompting Paul Craig Roberts to write a searing column called "It Is Official: The US Is A Police State".

I caught excerpts from Roberts and comments on his work from Chris Floyd, in "Domestic Disturbance: FBI Raids Bring the Terror War Home".

I don't disagree with anything Roberts or Floyd wrote about this story, and I would recommend both columns. But neither of these very fine writers approached the idea that struck me hardest when I saw Roberts' headline.

What's new about the USA being a police state? Why is it suddenly official now?

That the USA is a police state has been, if not officially official, then at least totally bloody obvious, for my entire life -- and the same is true of Roberts, and Floyd, and you (dear reader), and your parents, and their parents. For all our lives, we have lived in a police state that calls itself a democracy, and the cover story has been so effective that even some of our leading dissident writers are now just discovering the truth behind it.

Lest we forget: Forty years ago, in the midst of another generation's undeclared, unjustified, unwinnable and unpopular war, unarmed anti-war protesters were gunned down in broad daylight in public, and not one of the shooters who committed the crime was even tried.

In the decade leading up to those shootings, four civic and political leaders, all of whom posed threats to the established order, were also gunned down in public. The victims included a sitting President and a US Senator, yet no justice was ever served for any of these murders.

During the same period, countless civil rights activists and anti-war protesters were viciously assaulted, and some of them were also killed. Sometimes the crimes were committed by "law enforcement officials" themselves; at other times the crimes were committed with the silent approval of  "the law".

From the 1930's through the late 1950's, the nation's "law enforcement" officers brutally crushed anyone they could find who had sympathy for communism, socialism, or any other "-ism" that didn't begin with "capital". None of this is secret. None of it is news.

All through our history, Americans whose skin wasn't quite white enough have been hassled, assaulted and ruthlessly murdered, often by the police whose lives depend on the taxes we all pay, and who are supposed to be protecting all of us. Most of the perpetrators of these crimes have never been brought to justice.

This pattern of official injustice -- supported more often than not by the police themselves -- has been going on for as long as you care to look. It runs as deep as American history itself. Though it may be pleasant to forget it, the USA is nation whose history includes -- nay! is a nation that was built upon -- genocide, slavery, lynching, and other forms of public terror, all with the open support of "the authorities".

A careful reading of American history shows that the basic problem here is not the current administration's disregard of the Constitution, nor the disdain for the Constitution shown by previous administrations. As Jerry Fresia points out in "Toward An American Revolution", the problem is the Constitution itself.

The Articles of Confederation, by which the "United States of America" came into being, guaranteed direct democratic representation at the national level, in a government which could be swept from power quite easily when and if the voters of the country were displeased. The most powerful men in the land -- slaveholders, mostly -- found their riches, their status and their privilege in jeopardy, and feared for what they were pleased to call "an excess of democracy".

So they banded together and wrote the Constitution, which set up our current system of "representative" government, under which the President is elected by an Electoral College chosen by the State legislators, rather than directly by the people; under which it takes three election cycles to change the entire Senate; under which countless federal officials -- including every justice on the Supreme Court -- are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, with nary a word from the House of Representatives, which is, at least in theory, the only part of the federal government over which the voters are meant to have any immediate influence.

Then, through a series of incidents that today would be called "terrorist attacks" (as long as they were perpetrated by Muslims), the authors of the Constitution inflamed enough other powerful men to ensure the ratification of the new Constitution -- quite against the wishes of the "common people" of the day -- setting the course which we now travel, and which the best of us (including Chris Floyd and Paul Craig Roberts) rightfully despise.

Rather than guaranteeing direct democratic representation and fair and equal rights to all citizens, the Constitution set up a federal government with the power to put down "insurrections", and a mandate to protect interstate and international "commerce". In our present-day terms, it empowers a deeply entrenched government running a police state at home to support a commercial empire abroad.

Those who support the Constitution, who pine for a return to "Constitutional law", who rail against one administration after another for taking "un-Constitutional actions" and passing "un-Constitutional laws", have a legitimate point. Life in the United States would certainly be better for a very large number of people if the civil rights granted in the Constitution -- limited tough they may be -- were strictly observed.

But we would still have the same problem. The federal government would still be owned by the most powerful men in the country, and would still be geared to putting down "insurrections" at home while supporting a "commercial" empire abroad.

That was the whole point of the Constitution in the first place. This is why we are where we are today. As Chris Floyd pointed out some time ago, "the purpose of a system is what it does". And what our current system does, its purpose, is still congruent with the wishes of the "Founding Fathers".

I fear that, if our leading dissident writers continue to miss this point, the best we could possibly accomplish -- even if we all stood together against the abomination that is our federal government -- would be a reversion to the root cause of our current problems.

And that's not going to be good enough.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Surprises Everywhere

"Hope for the best, but expect the worst," said my mother, the Winter Matriarch. Her advice has come in very handy lately, under the volcano of impending tyranny. My expectations are continually being met -- and quite often exceeded! Thus ...

George Bush says Karl Rove is protected under Executive Privilege and orders him not to testify before Congress, despite -- or maybe because of -- a subpoena he received last week. So Rove's aide shows up and ducks all the questions on his behalf.

The BBC says British troops are stressed out.

More than 1500 "Liberal bloggers" are expected for the second annual YearlyKos Convention. The press and seven of the eight declared Democratic candidates will be there. Joe Biden and I will be elsewhere.

The South African cricketers are getting set for a visit to Pakistan but nervous about security and asking for the list of venues to be reviewed.

"They are not comfortable with Peshawar," PCB [Pakistan Cricket Board] sources said.

Australia's A side are due to visit Pakistan in September. If the South Africans are nervous about security, what must the Australians be thinking? Hint: How many South African troops are involved in the GWOT?

You heard it here first.

Former Secretary of Defense Ronald H. Dumsfeld and some other current and former brass were questioned by a congressional oversight panel which learned nothing of value; the New York Times ran a "news" article (or here) which buried all the key questions in the introduction, like so:

With Donald H. Rumsfeld seated at the witness table, the chairman of a House committee investigating the bungled aftermath of the friendly fire death of Cpl. Pat Tillman told a packed Capitol Hill hearing room Wednesday that the time had come for some answers. What did Mr. Rumsfeld and other top Defense Department officials know about Corporal Tillman’s accidental killing by American forces, he asked, and when did they know it?

They're still trying to unravel the coverup, and asking "Who knew what when?" But no attention at all is paid to the central question: What happened to Pat Tillman? This is the standard operating procedure, exactly what the media -- even much of the supposedly dissident media -- have done since Tillman's murder. Damned "Liberal media."

Larisa Alexandrovna reports that the Bush administration has been covertly arming Gulf states since 2004.

The administration has also kept secret a court ruling that its illegal surveillance program is illegal.

Bush has declared a state of emergency based on some unspecified threat to the government of Lebanon and claimed even more anti-Constitutional powers.

A Marine has been convicted of murder in Iraq.

USA Today has yet another appalling human-interest propaganda piece.

When Steve Yelda, a 17-year-old Iraqi high school student, visits the Al-Ameer market, he heads straight for the Pringles display case.

"The taste," Yelda said, "is incredible."

Watch out for all the salt, Steve. In Baghdad there's no running water, or very little; some people have had none for weeks; they have electricity a couple of hours a day if they're lucky; daytime temperatures have been approaching 50C (120F) and the search for ice has become deadly.

In perhaps the biggest surprise of all, Feds Look the Other Way While United Fruit Company Peddles Death and Corruption in Latin America. As Chris Floyd points out, this story "could have been written any time in the last 100 years or more".

This -- all this! -- is the fruit of our hard-earned tax dollars at work, not to mention a broken electoral system, a corrupted congress, a predisposed supreme court, a lapdog media, a touch of transparently false-flag terror and an endless repetition of the emergency phone number "coincidentally" embodied in the date of same; and it's all brought to you by an administration whose nature is becoming increasingly obvious every day, even to those who are, shall we say, less sensitive to such things than others.

But still life goes on, almost as normal.

And all the people trapped in the lies seem like they'll be happy to replicate the fiction forever, or until it consumes them. We all know which will come first.

Meanwhile the people shedding the lies seem like they'll be unhappy forever, or until something else finally comes along and consumes them. We're going to find out more about this soon ... too soon, in my opinion.

Last but certainly not least, signs of serious trouble have been appearing in several crucial nodes of the blogosphere.

Just one surprise after another, as the last vestiges of reality slip away...

When Catastrophic Emergency Hits, The Decider Will Decide Everything

I've been trying to figure out how to write about all this but now I don't have to.

Mark Morford | SFGate dot com
Bush Declares Self 'Mega Decider'
New documents ensure Dubya will rule America, should calamity strike. Free balloons!

It's just one of those obscure little unreported-upon conspiracy theory-ready hunks of floating White House detritus, a couple of odd, sticky, foul-smelling documents no one really wants to touch and no one knows quite what to make of, probably means nothing, probably being misread anyway, all a bit overblown and strange and not all that important and not all that different than the way things are now.

Unless, you know, it's not. Unless the violent twinge of queasy paranoia crossed with that uncontrolled bout of colon-clenching sighing you experience is deadly accurate and your radar for all things sinister and Rovean is right on target as you read about the delightfully titled National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51 and the Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20, wherein it is calmly and furtively revealed that, in essence, George W. Bush owns your sorry ass.

Or, to put it another way, it looks like the Bumbling One just gave himself ever more power. Power to control and dictate the entire government, power to really spread the gospel of happy GOP incompetence, power to command the entire wobbly American universe should some sort of epic -- or not so epic, as the case may be -- calamity strike the homeland.

The entire column is worth reading. Hint, hint!

[Morford's links]

The White House
NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51
HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20

leo fender | Daily Kos
The mechanisim to end democracy?

Spencer S. Hsu | Washington Post
Bush Changes Continuity Plan
Administration, Not DHS, Would Run Shadow Government

Lee Rogers | Global Research dot ca
Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency

American Civil Liberties Union
How "Patriot Act 2" Would Further Erode the Basic Checks on Government Power That Keep America Safe and Free

[Other interesting links]

Douglas Tonks | Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Myself to Death
Connecting Some Dots

Viewed in one light, that's fairly alarming, and I've wondered to some extent why this isn't getting more attention. Apparently a number of readers of Talking Points Memo wondered the same thing, so TPMMuckraker took a look. Their conclusion is that it's not such a big deal. They point out that Clinton had a similar plan and interview a number of experts from the ACLU and various places suggesting that, if not this one, some kind of similar plan needs to be in place. The Clinton directive put FEMA in charge in similar circumstances, and during the Clinton administration, that wasn't a bad idea. Nowadays, though, you'd after wonder how much any of us want to turn to FEMA in case of catastrophic emergency.

On the other hand, this is the Bush administration we're talking about. The new directive might indeed make sense if we were to presume good faith on the part of the government. But I'm not sure good faith has been operative in the administrative branch for years now. While this might not be an obvious power grab on the surface, if such a circumstance were to arise, it seems to me that we have to assume the Bush administration will try to grab whatever power it could get its hands on. The Bushies don't deal with us at face value, and we have to stop dealing with them at face value.

HighCrimesandMisdemeanours
I thought Bush stole 2000, but there is PROOF he stole 2004

Bush, Rove, Griffin, and Goodling need to be called to testify UNDER OATH now! Before he invokes Presidential Directive 51

The Must-Do List -- First Steps On The Road To National Sanity

I've been nodding and smiling at something I've been reading on the Editorial page of the New York Times, and thinking "These are some of the first steps on the road to national sanity".

Now I could be wrong; I've been wrong before, and to tell you the truth, sanity is not exactly my strong suit. But I've got a deadline, so let's look at the piece together anyway...

It's called "The Must-Do List" and it starts out like this (with emphasis added):

The Bush administration’s assault on some of the founding principles of American democracy marches onward despite the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections. The new Democratic majorities in Congress can block the sort of noxious measures that the Republican majority rubber-stamped. But preventing new assaults on civil liberties is not nearly enough.

Five years of presidential overreaching and Congressional collaboration continue to exact a high toll in human lives, America’s global reputation and the architecture of democracy. Brutality toward prisoners, and the denial of their human rights, have been institutionalized; unlawful spying on Americans continues; and the courts are being closed to legal challenges of these practices.

It will require forceful steps by this Congress to undo the damage. A few lawmakers are offering bills intended to do just that, but they are only a start. Taking on this task is a moral imperative that will show the world the United States can be tough on terrorism without sacrificing its humanity and the rule of law.

Today we’re offering a list — which, sadly, is hardly exhaustive — of things that need to be done to reverse the unwise and lawless policies of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Many will require a rewrite of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, an atrocious measure pushed through Congress with the help of three Republican senators, Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham and John McCain; Senator McCain lent his moral authority to improving one part of the bill and thus obscured its many other problems.

The bulk of the editorial consists of sections with the following headings:

Restore Habeas Corpus
Stop Illegal Spying
Ban Torture, Really

Close the C.I.A. Prisons
Account for ‘Ghost Prisoners’
Ban Extraordinary Rendition

Tighten the Definition of Combatant
Screen Prisoners Fairly and Effectively

Ban Tainted Evidence
Ban Secret Evidence
Better Define ‘Classified’ Evidence
Respect the Right to Counsel

The concluding paragraphs are mostly quite good, in my view:

Beyond all these huge tasks, Congress should halt the federal government’s race to classify documents to avoid public scrutiny — 15.6 million in 2005, nearly double the 2001 number. It should also reverse the grievous harm this administration has done to the Freedom of Information Act by encouraging agencies to reject requests for documents whenever possible. Congress should curtail F.B.I. spying on nonviolent antiwar groups and revisit parts of the Patriot Act that allow this practice.

The United States should apologize to a Canadian citizen and a German citizen, both innocent, who were kidnapped and tortured by American agents.

Oh yes, and it is time to close the Guantánamo camp. It is a despicable symbol of the abuses committed by this administration (with Congress’s complicity) in the name of fighting terrorism.

I agree with every point except the last.

In July of 2005 I expressed my disagreement with those who were saying we should close Guantánamo, and since that time I have not seen any reason to change my mind on this point.

Why do I disagree? At the risk of quoting an unreliable source, the piece was called "Unpopular Thoughts About Popular Causes" and the relevant passage ran:

I was [...] asked last week to promote an effort to force the administration to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, which is, of course, notorious for reports of torture as well as the issue of indefinite confinement without charge or trial or right to appeal or contact with family or a lawyer. Who could support such a thing? Even if the prisoners [whom the administration chooses to call "detainees"] weren't being abused, who could support such a thing??

"Close Gitmo", goes the cry. And who could resist? This was not spam; the plea came from an online friend, whose work I admire. But I was not moved.

Regular readers of this space will know that this cold and lowly blogger rails against the administration's policy of ever-spreading torture chambers above all else ... still the Winter Patriot does not support the movement to "Close Gitmo".

Why? First of all because of the reasons that are usually given by those who want Gitmo closed. "It gives propaganda opportunities to America's enemies" and so on. Maybe I could think about supporting the movement if I heard a lot more of "THIS IS WRONG" and a lot less of "THIS MAKES US LOOK BAD". But not likely.

It's deja vu all over again: and I've seen the same mistake before, too. Most recently it was a little boy picking his nose. His mother reprimanded him, saying: "Stop that; it's disgusting. Who wants to see that? I don't want to see that! If you want to pick your nose then go up to your room and pick your nose where I don't have to look at you." But the father said: "Knock it off! Don't pick your nose; it's disgusting."

You see what I'm saying? If they close Gitmo and keep torturing people in Abu Ghraib, Bagram, other places we don't even know about; plus ships at sea or anchored at Diego Garcia; plus so-called "extraordinary rendition", where people are kidnapped and shipped to foreign countries to be tortured by proxy ... as long as they do ANY of these things, we should be shouting "Stop The Torture!"

Not "Torture People Elsewhere!"

Not "Do That Where I Don't Have To Look At It!"

But a good straightforward "Knock It Off!!"

As long as they are unwilling to knock it off then I say they should keep Gitmo open. I think if they're going to keep doing these things then they should keep them doing them where we can see them. So the world will know what sort of evil lurks in the hearts of the monsters who have taken over our country.

War In Iraq as Domestic Cover: The "Lightning Rod" Theory of Deliberate Disaster

Thinking people can quickly tire of "historical analysis" which ascribes complex events to simple causes.

Especially vexing is the single-cause school of "analysis". The old "Did Bush invade Iraq for Oil? Or because Saddam tried to kill his Daddy?" trick provides a perfect example.

Similarly unsatisfactory are those analysts of foreign and domestic policy who see all our troubles through the "One Lone Nut" prism; the idea that W is the problem, and that the removal of W is the solution, is dangerously ineffective and unfortunately too popular, in my estimation.

We can get farther with more sophisticated forms of analysis, in my view, and we are well advised to recognize that complex events -- such as wars -- may begin and continue for different reasons, and that these reasons may be complex and interlocking.

Early in 2003, Josh Marshall, writing in Washington Monthly, proposed the notion that the main (unstated, and in fact hidden) goal behind the invasion of Iraq was not to win the war so much as to get the country embroiled in a long and bloody conflict. Sad and strange as it seems at first blush, the congruence between this idea and the reality on the ground has been impossible to ignore, and now -- for me, anyway -- this very strange and sad idea seems to provide the best explanation for many otherwise mysterious aspects of this so-called "disaster".

I've argued as much more than once, here, for instance:

The people running this war never intended to "win" it and they still don't. Their object has always been to become entangled in a bloody mess and stay there as long as possible. Why do you think we started -- and stayed -- with too few troops? Remember "Mission Accomplished"? That was a celebration of finally being entangled, nothing more or less.

The so-called sectarian violence that's going on now is actually state-sponsored terror, and the state in question is called "USA". The situation in Iraq is steadily deteriorating thanks to a semi-secret Pentagon program which established, trained, equipped, and motivated the death squads that now wreak havoc on a daily basis.

On the home front, the propaganda war continues unabated. This administration has lied so often and the media have relayed the falisty as truth so faithfully and relentlessly that ideas full of common sense are no longer even permitted a place in the national discourse. The political climate is such that even those Senators who most vehemently oppose the war dare not vote against it. As a result, the path of action now favored by the majority of the people in this so-called democracy is deemed unworthy of discussion.

Forgive me for quoting myself; as you can see I've been laying some of the dots down side-by-side without actually connecting them.

The view from Iraq -- as expressed for example in the excellent Iraqi blog Baghdad Burning -- raises similar questions:

2006 has been, decidedly, the worst year yet. No -- really. The magnitude of this war and occupation is only now hitting the country full force. It's like having a big piece of hard, dry earth you are determined to break apart. You drive in the first stake in the form of an infrastructure damaged with missiles and the newest in arms technology, the first cracks begin to form. Several smaller stakes come in the form of politicians like Chalabi, Al Hakim, Talbani, Pachachi, Allawi and Maliki. The cracks slowly begin to multiply and stretch across the once solid piece of earth, reaching out towards its edges like so many skeletal hands. And you apply pressure. You surround it from all sides and push and pull. Slowly, but surely, it begins coming apart -- a chip here, a chunk there.

That is Iraq right now. The Americans have done a fine job of working to break it apart. This last year has nearly everyone convinced that that was the plan right from the start. There were too many blunders for them to actually have been, simply, blunders. The 'mistakes' were too catastrophic. The people the Bush administration chose to support and promote were openly and publicly terrible -- from the conman and embezzler Chalabi, to the terrorist Jaffari, to the militia man Maliki. The decisions, like disbanding the Iraqi army, abolishing the original constitution, and allowing militias to take over Iraqi security were too damaging to be anything but intentional.

The question now is, but why?

In other words, it looks more and more as if the people who have been running the war are not trying to support America's (or Iraq's) interests and failing due to incompetence, but instead they are (not so) secretly working against America's (and Iraq's) interests and doing quite well indeed.

According to this "model", from their viewpoint, the war continues not because they cannot see it is a mistake but because it serves their purposes; This course of action -- from which Bush and others refuse even to consider turning back -- has multiple motives, multiple goals, multiple useful byproducts.

What are the motives? What are the goals? What are the useful byproducts? They may be too numerous to list; some may be too obvious to list; perhaps the best we can hope for is to pick the others apart one at a time.

Lately I can't shake the impression that the disaster in Iraq, as bad as it is (and as bad as it's going to get -- i.e. much worse!), is also serving as domestic cover. Whether it's intended that way is a difficult call, in my view. In other words, it may be tough to see motive here, but there's no questioning the byproduct: The war in Iraq is a lightning rod, attracting the bulk of what little domestic opposition there happens to be, and diverting attention from other disasters that may be even worse.

What could be worse? Relentless attacks on our "way of life", from many different angles: a war on science, a war on freedom of information, "normalization" of torture, a class war against all but the extremely wealthy, and attacks against our constitutional form of government, among others. To highlight the latter two items on this short but representative list, a couple of recent pieces from the New York Times:

Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says

Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly...

The wealthiest sliver of America suffers in the most grotesque way: their income is rising faster than their tax rates are falling.

But the rest of us are still stuck with the bill. And meanwhile our government grows more tyrannical all the time.

Some would like to see it stay that way.

New Majority’s Choice: Should G.O.P. Policies Be Reversed?

Republicans are waiting to see what develops, uncertain if Democrats sincerely want to join hands and produce some consensus on public policy. Or, as one senior Republican asked, will Democrats hostile to the Bush administration be more like the scorpion in the fable with the frog, unable to resist the urge to sting even if they hurt themselves?

Democrats acknowledge that with their minuscule majority in the Senate and one in the House that is not much larger, they lack the political muscle to go too far in reversing Bush policy even if that was their chief goal. And they already have their hands full with delivering on their own ambitious legislative agenda, following through on their pledges of bipartisanship and ethics overhaul and avoiding anything that costs the party its chance at the White House in 2008.

Leading Democrats say their best direction is forward, concentrating on establishing a new party legacy rather than obsessing with the perceived failings of Republican rule. The test for the party’s newly empowered leadership and the Congressional membership will be whether they can stick to that path.

Others are not yet prepared to surrender.

The Imperial Presidency 2.0

The Democratic majority in Congress has a moral responsibility to address all these issues: fixing the profound flaws in the military tribunals act, restoring the rule of law over Mr. Bush’s rogue intelligence operations and restoring the balance of powers between Congress and the executive branch. So far, key Democrats, including Mr. Leahy and Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, chairman of a new subcommittee on human rights, have said these issues are high priorities for them.

We would lend such efforts our enthusiastic backing and hope Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin and other Democratic leaders are not swayed by the absurd notion circulating in Washington that the Democrats should now “look ahead” rather than use their new majority to right the dangerous wrongs of the last six years of Mr. Bush’s one-party rule.

This is a false choice. Dealing with these issues is not about the past. The administration’s assault on some of the nation’s founding principles continues unabated.

So as we rail about the war -- understandably, inevitably -- as we consider important questions in connection with the way it is being fought, and the fact that it is being fought at all, as we read bloggers such as Riverbend and try to wrap our minds around the enormity of the crimes committed against the Iraqi people ... in the midst of all this, it does behoove us, I believe, to consider the even more vexing question:

Is this horrible war also serving as cover for crimes that in the long run may be almost as bad -- or even worse?

No More Bridges! Bring On The Gridlock!!

New York Times:

“I see myself, hopefully, as a bridge builder, a consensus person,” said Harry Mitchell, 66, a longtime state senator and former mayor of Tempe, Ariz., who defeated Representative J. D. Hayworth, an emblematic member of the class of 1994. “I can’t be a rabid partisan Democrat and represent this district.”

Oh, yes, Harry! you certainly can! The majority rules, remember?

You have truth and justice and a majority of the voters on your side. What else could you possibly ask for?

And what are you going to do now? Build bridges to tyranny?

Nancy Boyda, who defeated Representative Jim Ryun, the legendary track star, in a district in Kansas that President Bush carried by 20 percentage points in 2004, summarized her mandate this way: “Stop the gridlock, stop the nastiness, get something done. People are tired of excuses.”

Sorry, Nancy. Look at Zogby's exit polls.

We are not tired of excuses. We are tired of corruption. We are tired of wars based on lies. We are tired of abuse of power.

We could use a little gridlock.

We could use a lot of gridlock!

Claire C. McCaskill, who defeated Senator Jim Talent of Missouri in a fiercely competitive race, said: “I’m not from a blue echo chamber. I’m from a state that’s really like America — it’s divided ... The problem with Washington is you have so many senators who are from bright blue and bright red states; they’re not interested in common ground. They’re interested in making each other look bad.”

But what if they really are bad? What then?

Should we spend the next two years trying to find common ground with the criminals who have done their damndest to ruin our country? Should we build bridges to the monsters who attacked their own people on 9/11, and who have spent the past five years trying to cover it up while accusing everyone who can see the truth -- and who dares to speak it -- of treason? Should we make nice with the enablers of torture? Should we give a free pass to those who value their slimy rotten ideology more than the Constitution?

Should we throw away everything we have left, in the certain-to-be-vain hope of a few more votes?

Or should our newly elected leaders actually be leaders? Rather than fearing a backlash from the most ignorant of your constituents, why not make an effort to educate them? The corrupt mainstream media won't do it, so why don't you do a bit of it yourself? Why leave it all to us humble bloggers?

Democratic strategists say [...] the new Democratic majority was elected, in large part, from Republican-leaning districts and states. If those new members vote in a purely partisan way, they — and the majority — will quickly be put at risk.

The Republicans in Washington have abandoned everything that traditional Republicans valued, as has been extremely well documented over the past six years. If the new Democratic members insist on building bridges to radicals who call themselves Republicans, they risk not only their newfound majority, but our future, and our children's future.

Please do your best to make your newly elected representatives aware of this simple fact, before it's too late.

Tell your representatives what you expect: No more crimes against America! No more crimes against Humanity! No more bogus elections! No more wars of choice based on deliberate lies! No more false-flag terror! No more depleted uranium! No more tax breaks for the filthy rich! No more cuts to health care, education and housing!

And that's just for starters.

We need to tell our representatives what's important to us, because clearly they don't know. And if we don't tell them, it will be nobody's fault but our own.

You Have To Know He's Lying, And You Have To Wish She Were, Too

From CBC: Bush and Pelosi make nice as Democratic victory sinks in

U.S. Democratic party leaders and President George W. Bush made conciliatory noises on Wednesday...

You just had to know this was coming. Didn't you?

Bush said "now it's our duty to put the election behind us and work together with the Democrats."

As anyone who has been paying attention during the last six years already knows, when Bushists speak of "unity" they mean "Agree with us or else!" And when Bush speaks of "working together with the Democrats," he means "Bend over!"

Democrat Nancy Pelosi, set to become the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives, pledged to co-operate with Republicans as "the Speaker of the House, not the Speaker of the Democrats."

Talk of impeaching Bush "is off the table," she said.

There is no good reason why impeachment should be "off the table". Impeachment should be the only thing on the table! This so-called president has committed so many impeachable offenses that nobody could list them all in a humble blog post. It would take a whole book. If you don't believe me, ask Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky.

What in the world is wrong with Nancy Pelosi? Her mission should be crystal-clear. Or have we "elected" a bunch of craven idiots?

What she should be saying, of course, goes something like this:

Americans did not elect Democrats because they wanted more of the same. They did not ask us to enable any more abuse, and we do not intend to do so.

We will not tolerate any more crimes against America.

We will not tolerate any more crimes against Humanity.

We will not tolerate any more attempts to degrade the Constitution, to punish legitimate political dissent, or to further empower your so-called "Unitary Executive".

We will do everything in our power to punish the perpetrators of the crimes against America, and against Humanity, that have been committed by you and your administration during the past six years. This includes stolen elections, it includes lying to start two wars, and it includes the crimes of 9/11, the coverup of those crimes, and the shameless and relentless exploitation of those crimes for partisan political purposes.

We will do everything in our power to see that justice is done. We will do everything in our power to see that the perpetrators of these crimes are punished -- to the fullest extent of domestic and international law -- no matter what high offices they currently inhabit.

If that means nooses, no problem. We can get nooses. If it means cells at Abu Ghraib, no problem. We can get those too.

Make no mistake, sir. Justice will be served.

The American people -- and the people of the world -- deserve nothing less.

Of course, if she actually did say that, she could never fly again. But I really wouldn't mind seeing her walk.

Foreign War + Domestic Terror = Martial Law

Daniel Ellsberg (among others) has been talking for quite some time about a possibility which I have been thinking about but not mentioning. Why not? I didn't want to be alarmist; I hoped Ellsberg was wrong, and I didn't want to give the enemy any good ideas.

But it appears more and more likely that Ellsberg may be right, and the pieces of which he spoke keep falling into place. So we may as well talk about it; indeed, my Honesty in Blogging clause demands that we do so.

Problem or Solution?

Here's the problem, (or maybe, depending on your point of view, the solution):

Free Elections = Gitmo | The Hague | Nooses

but

Foreign War + Domestic Terror = Martial Law

and

Martial Law > Free Elections

Free Elections means Gitmo or The Hague or Nooses

If we had free and fair elections -- if everybody were entitled to vote, and if all the votes were counted properly, and if we had anybody to vote for -- most of the current administration, including all the top figures, and many of their friends and business associates would be in danger of arrest, trial, incarceration and perhaps even execution on charges pertaining to multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity, but only if they were unlucky enough not to be hanged for treason first.

Foreign War plus Domestic Terror makes Martial Law

However, if they could stir up another foreign war -- perhaps a nuclear war -- and if there were a big terrorist attack at home -- something that made 9/11 look like a picnic in the park -- the combination of wartime hysteria and terror-generated fear would give them a plausible pretext for the declaration of martial law.

Martial Law trumps Free Elections

Once martial law were declared, elections would be a formality. In a society where anyone who opposes the government goes to a prison camp, who would vote against the rulers? And what if they did? Nobody would be making sure the votes were counted properly anyway.

Foreign War

The foreign war could be global but it could also start small(er); for example it could "simply" be against Iran and that could start any day now.

American naval maneuvering continues apace and Ellsberg once again sees the signs of an upcoming fabricated "incident" which would provide a pretext for attack, probably nuclear as well as conventional.

Or at least that was the standard analysis until North Korea did or did not conduct a nuclear test and/or did or did not apologize for it and/or did or did not threaten to conduct further nuclear and/or conventional testing and/or nuclear and/or conventional attacks on South Korea in the near and/or subsequent future.

So ... What shall it be? Iran? North Korea? Both? Who knows? I can't be sure, can you? But there is no doubt that the media have been working hard to paint both Iran and North Korea as somehow deserving an attack from America.

Domestic Terror

The terror attack at home would certainly be synthetic, and could come anywhere, anytime, as our so-called protectors relentlessly remind us. Personally I've been having a bad feeling about Chicago, ever since the '68 convention to tell you the truth, and I wouldn't want to live within 5,000 miles of the Windy City anytime soon.

Martial Law

Countless reports like this one have been mostly ignored, while greater attention has been paid to more visible abuses, such as the so-called USA PATRIOT act(s) and the more recent so-called "Anti-Terror" legislation.

Now the Insurrection Act has been rewritten and the Posse Commitatus Act has been gutted, removing the constraint against using American military forces for domestic purposes and making it easier than ever for the so-called president to declare martial law.

Timing

Less than two weeks before the midterm elections, where do we stand? The GOP money and their increasingly transparent propaganda are flying fast and furious and can only get worse in the next week or so. Will this make the elections close enough to steal? It's anyone's guess.

The voting machines are in place for some seriously off-kilter results but whether they can steal enough votes in enough places -- against increasingly mobilized opposition -- is another guess. This guess is a tough one -- especially with hard-core Republican support for the president seemingly evaporating.

Therefore, all available distractions will be in play, but if the evil one doesn't like his chances, he always has this other option.

The problem (for us) and the solution (for him) lie in the fact that -- checks and balances notwithstanding -- the Constitution of the United States is at this point only an old piece of paper, most of the best parts of which have been shredded already.

No Wonder There's Nobody To Vote For

On Wednesday, as you may remember, The Lancet released a report estimating at roughly 655,000 the number of dead Iraqis who would still be alive had the USA had not invaded, destroyed, and continued to occupy their country.

So-called conservative supporters of the so-called president have been making specious claims such as that the number is absurd on its face and that the process by which it was obtained was flawed. As if, I suppose, a number such as this would have to absolutely correct to have any value. It's an estimate, for crying out loud, and it was announced as such. Nobody ever said it was absolutely correct.

So-called liberal opponents of the so-called president have been pointing out that the people attacking the report are doing so without any evidence or logic to support their claims, and defending the report, its methodology and its conclusions. All this is remarkably easy to do, since the report seems quite solid and the attacks against it seem so flimsy.

I haven't read up the entire left side of the blogosphere on this, but I have checked out most of the usual suspects, including Gandhi at Bush Out and Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory, and I've seen all sorts of discussion from all sorts of angles. And rightly so, in my opinion. There's clearly a lot to talk about. Greenwald makes as much sense as anyone I've read on this topic lately. But I really don't think he gets it.

Counting Iraqi deaths

Nobody disputes that the survey used scientific methodology to reach its findings, although everyone recognizes there is inherent uncertainty in counting the number of civilian dead in a war zone, and even the researchers themselves acknowledge a huge margin of error.

Fair enough. Better than that. But...

Whether entirely accurate or not, there is no question that there are tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians at the very least who have died as a direct result of our invasion and, in that regard, the study underscores a critically important point about the nature of our ongoing occupation. In most wars, the number of dead on the "other side" is a secondary consideration. If anything, the objective often is to inflict as much damage as possible on the enemy's population in order to force their government into submission. In many traditional wars, especially modern wars, a high death toll would be an indicator of success, not failure.

But the opposite is true with the war we are waging in Iraq. Ever since the "threat" rationale for the war vanished (that Saddam had WMDs which would be used against us), the principal, if not exclusive, "justification" for the war was that it would improve the situation of the Iraqi people. Achieving that, so the argument goes, is both morally right and a significant boon to our own security, since improving public opinion of the U.S. in the Muslim world is critical to enhancing our influence and undermining Al Qaeda recruitment efforts. That rationale transforms Iraqi anger towards our war effort from what it would be in most normal wars (an irrelevancy, or even something to be desired) into the greatest impediment to "victory."

What is this talk of "victory"? Kudos for the quotation marks, but what does "victory" mean in this context?

How does this qualify as a different kind of war? Just because the administration says it is?

As for undermining al-Q'aeda recruitment efforts, what difference does it make? -- or more properly, how can we hope to undermine al-Q'aeda, when al-Q'aeda is connected to ISI is connected to MI6 is connected to CIA?

How can we even talk about undermining al-Q'aeda's recruitment efforts when we have a deliberate plan -- formulated in the Pentagon and operational since last spring, if not earlier -- to infiltrate and incite terrorist groups?

The fact that there were no weapons to eliminate made the war useless.

What do you mean, useless? The so-called weapons were only a pretext -- and a flimsy one at that! This war is being fought for a very clear purpose, and it is extremely useful to certain people, and it's up to people like us to find that purpose and those people, and expose them.

There's nothing at all to be gained by calling this war "useless"? I disagree with Glenn Greenwald about this and so many other things. And that scares me, because he's regarded as one of the best the left side of the blogosphere has to offer.

The fact that we have created extreme, uncontrollable chaos -- which provides a vacuum which the Iranians and Al Qaeda are happily filling -- makes the war dangerous.

All wars are dangerous. The fact that we have created extreme, uncontrollable chaos is bad enough. The fact that we have done it deliberately is infinitely worse.

And the fact that huge numbers of Iraqi civilians continue to die as a direct result of our ongoing occupation and want us to withdraw immediately makes the war completely counter-productive even when measured against the objectives which the administration currently claims are the ones which justify the war in the first place.

But this is exactly my point, Glenn. Why should we measure anything against the objectives currently -- or ever! -- provided by the administration? Why do we need to stay in their frame?

We are not even close to leaving Iraq or even decreasing our troop levels by any meaningful amount. If anything, a Republican victory in three weeks would make it highly likely that the neoconservative dream of still more troops would be fulfilled. The trend of violence and death in Iraq is unquestionably worsening, and not only do we achieve nothing by staying, but the situation in Iraq worsens every day -- not just for Iraqis but for our own security.

This has nothing to do with our own security except in the sense that it is being used as an object of fear-mongering in order to convince us to give up our Constitutional rights in the name of safety and security -- never mind the fact that our true security -- as individuals and as a nation -- is to be found in the zealous protection of those rights!

The invasion of Iraq is one of the greatest strategic disasters in our country's history, and this new survey, independent of morbid and inconsequential quibbles over its accuracy, underscores why that is the case.

We need to get beyond the idea that the invasion of Iraq was a strategic disaster. We need to get some clarity here. The invasion of Iraq was a deliberate and very expensive act of treason -- one of many from this administration.

And as for the study: In my view, the quibbles over its accuracy reflect a reality so grotesque that it is hardly ever mentioned, except sideways, in passing ...

Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method "tried and true," and added that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have."

This viewed was echoed by Sarah Leah Whitson, an official of Human Rights Watch in New York, who said, "We have no reason to question the findings or the accuracy" of the survey.

"I expect that people will be surprised by these figures," she said. "I think it is very important that, rather than questioning them, people realize there is very, very little reliable data coming out of Iraq."

In my view, the most important question that can be asked here -- the one that I have not seen anyone asking -- is: WHY?

Why is there "very, very little reliable data coming out of Iraq"?

It's quite simple, really. Hospitals are notorious sources of enemy propaganda. From hospitals come pictures of dead and wounded people. So we attack the hospitals first. And we keep coming back to them.

After the hospitals are "secured", we turn our attention to the ambulances (to keep wounded people from gathering at the hospitals) and the journalists (to keep the stories of the dead and wounded people from being told), and of course we don't forget the television stations (to keep the stories from being disseminated).

It's all part of a very slick plan which falls under the heading of "perception management" and which so far seems to be working extremely well. The idea is, public opinion is heavily influenced by what the public perceives. Therefore the easiest way to control public opinion by controlling public perception.

Eason Jordan made a mistake a while ago, mentioned a very small part of this twisted reality last year and it cost him his job. Dahr Jamail has been talking about all these things ever since he went to Iraq, and in his view, this is his job. It takes all kinds, I suppose.

Pentagon spokesmen have admitted that part of their job is to make sure you know as little as possible about what's going on in Iraq, and what has been going on there for the past three and a half years, and what has been going on all over the world for the past fifty or sixty years ... or even longer.

The more I read Glenn Greenwald, the more I wish he were talking about this, and about the plan of battle that the USA keeps following in Iraq, and about depleted uranium, and about two more little things that nobody seems to want to talk about, even the best of our so-called "lefty bloggers": that the "terror" we are "fighting" seems to be almost entirely bogus, and that "we" don't seem to have any intention of "winning" the war in Iraq in particular, nor the so-called War on so-called Terror in general.

It's a rare politician who sees the world more clearly than Glenn Greenwald.

No wonder there's nobody to vote for.

Kurt Nimmo says what Glenn Greenwald can't (or won't):

After the Democrats take back the House and the Senate, do you think anything will change? Democrats are onboard with the neocon phony war on terrorism, the occupation of Iraq, the re-invasion of Afghanistan—now that the Taliban are resurgent, not that they ever went away, as resistance to occupation is to be expected, as we can expect the sun to come up tomorrow—and the dismantlement of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the construction of a police state at home. Democrats will change none of this. Democrats simply represent a new management team.

One Day Forward, 900 Years Back : Democracy Murdered In Broad Daylight

Rage And Despair

The New York Times reports:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — The Senate approved legislation this evening governing the interrogation and trials of terror suspects, establishing far-reaching new rules in the definition of who may be held and how they should be treated.
...
The legislation sets up rules for the military commissions that will allow the government to prosecute high-level terrorists including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, considered the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Considered the mastermind"? By whom?

What sensible person could possibly consider Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the mastermind of a plan of attack so far-reaching that it included more than a dozen simultaneous war games, "military exercises" which effectively stripped the Northeastern US of air cover on that fateful day?

But what am I thinking? We're not talking about sensible people here. We're talking about monsters!

It strips detainees of a habeas corpus right to challenge their detentions in court...

And that's that. The president can declare anyone an illegal enemy combatant, the CIA can pick him up and throw him in a secret prison, and that will be the end of that. No evidence need be presented; no appeal will be permitted.

As the bill states: [my emphasis here, unless otherwise noted]

  `(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who--

    `(A) is currently in United States custody; and

    `(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

  `(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien detained by the United States who--

    `(A) is currently in United States custody; and

    `(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'

So all they have to do is sit on somebody -- no charge, no trial, not even an effort to determine whether or not he's been properly detained. If they do that, he'll fall under this provision. And rot in jail forever.

As Glenn Greenwald wrote:

During the debate on his amendment, Arlen Specter said that the bill sends us back 900 years because it denies habeas corpus rights and allows the President to detain people indefinitely. He also said the bill violates core Constitutional protections. Then he voted for it.

The enemies of America who showed their true colors on this bill include Democrats as well as Republicans. Here's Greenwald again:

Jay Rockefeller (who voted for this bill) is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. When he was defending the amendment he introduced to compel the CIA to disclose to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees information about their interrogation activities, he complained that the White House has concealed all information about the interrogation program and that the Intelligence Committee members (including him) therefore know nothing about it. His amendment to compel reports to Congress was defeated with all Republicans (except Chafee) voting against it. He proceeded to vote for the underlying bill anyway, thereby legalizing a program he admits he knows nothing about (and will continue to know nothing about).

A New York Times editorial described the bill this way:

Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies. Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.

Captured in error? ... or simply sold into captivity!

The Pakistani tribesmen slaughtered a sheep in honor of their guests, Arabs and Chinese Muslims famished from fleeing U.S. bombing in the Afghan mountains. But their hosts had ulterior motives: to sell them to the Americans, said the men who are now prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Bounties ranged from $3,000 to $25,000, the detainees testified during military tribunals, according to transcripts the U.S. government gave The Associated Press to comply with a Freedom of Information lawsuit.

A former CIA intelligence officer who helped lead the search for Osama bin Laden told AP the accounts sounded legitimate because U.S. allies regularly got money to help catch Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Gary Schroen said he took a suitcase of $3 million in cash into Afghanistan himself to help supply and win over warlords to fight for U.S. Special Forces.

You don't believe the AP? Read this:

PRESIDENT Musharraf of Pakistan says that the CIA has secretly paid his government millions of dollars for handing over hundreds of al-Qaeda suspects to America.

The US government has strict rules banning such reward payments to foreign powers involved in the war on terror. General Musharraf does not say how much the CIA gave in return for the 369 al-Qaeda figures that he ordered should be passed to the US.

The US Department of Justice said: “We didn’t know about this. It should not happen. These bounty payments are for private individuals who help to trace terrorists on the FBI’s most wanted list, not foreign governments.”

Notice how nobody denies that it happened; they simply claim not to have known about it. If it didn't happen, surely somebody would say so, wouldn't they? Hell, yes! They would say it didn't happen even if it did!

But I digress. Here's the NYT editorial again:

These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

I won't bore you with more excerpts from the bill itself. You can read the whole thing here.

More from Glenn Greenwald:

[I]t is fair to say, given how lopsided this vote was (both in the House and the Senate), that the Republicans are the party of torture, indefinite and unreviewable detention powers, and limitless presidential power, even over U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

Sure, Glenn, but let's be fair: more than a quarter of the Democratic Senators voted for it too. And the rest of them have sat there with their mouths shut for the most part. Not only for the past week, but for the past six years. So this is not strictly a Republican problem.

Back to the NYT news report:

“We should have done it right, because we’re going to have to do it again,” said Senator Gordon Smith, a Republican from Oregon, who had voted to strike the habeas corpus provision, yet supported the bill.

The legislation broadens the definition of enemy combatants beyond the traditional definition used in wartime, to include noncitizens living legally in this country as well as those in foreign countries, and also anyone determined to be an enemy combatant under criteria defined by the president or secretary of defense.

It strips detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, of a habeas right to challenge their detention in court, relying instead on procedures known as combatant status review trials, which have looser rules of evidence than the courts.

It allows evidence seized in this country or abroad to be taken without a search warrant.

In other words, it shreds The Bill of Rights (especially the Fourth and Sixth Amendments), makes a mockery of The Constitution of the United States, debases -- probably forever -- the one document which above all others made the USA a symbol of freedom, of enlightenment, of decency, morality, tolerance and equality under the law.

Not that America ever really embodied these virtues -- but it did symbolize them. Once upon a time, long, long ago. Eight or nine hundred years ago -- yesterday. But now -- today -- that's all gone. And all we have left is greed, and filth, and shame, and shamefully transparent lies, and craven politicians who care about nothing, save covering their asses.

The NYT again:

“I believe there can be no mercy for those who perpetrated the crimes of 9/11,” said Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York.

For once I agree with this particular Senator. But I've always wished that -- before we started showing "no mercy" -- we could at least have tried to find out: Who perpetrated the crimes? Who (i.e. which FBI assets) sheltered them? Who (i.e. which US military flight schools) trained them? Who motivated them? And who financed them? Wouldn't we like to know?

Given the very simple fact that we do not know the answers to these questions, the bill in question is a grotesque travesty of ... What am I saying? Even if we had the answers to those questions, this bill would still be a grotesque travesty!

"Grotesque Travesty" Is An Understatement

Glenn Greenwald again:

Opponents of this bill have focused most of their attention -- understandably and appropriately -- on the way in which it authorizes the use of interrogation techniques which, as this excellent NYT Editorial put it, "normal people consider torture," along with the power it vests in the President to detain indefinitely, and with no need to bring charges, all foreign nationals and even legal resident aliens within the U.S. But as Law Professors Marty Lederman and Bruce Ackerman each point out, many of the extraordinary powers vested in the President by this bill also apply to U.S. citizens, on U.S. soil.

As Ackerman put it:

The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.

Similarly, Lederman explains:

this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all.

A Tiny Flicker Of Hope

In my twisted and frozen little mind, I harbor a tiny flicker of hope -- that this draconian legislation can somehow be used against those who begged for 9/11 to happen, who made it happen, who have striven endlessly to reap political benefit from a national tragedy, and who now -- once again -- have shamed us all, destroying our birthright in the process. And then, once they have all been hanged for treason, that this bill -- and every other anti-American, anti-democratic bill passed in the last five horrible years -- can be summarily repealed.

Of course I'm dreaming. But am I dreaming in technicolor? Surely not! For there are only two colors in this nightmare: scarlet and black; blood and darkness.

Thunder On The Mountain

As all four or five of my regular readers will surely have noticed, I rarely run out of words. I can usually go on and on and on ... but not this time. I have reached my limit. For this and other -- better -- reasons, I'll leave the last word to Chris Floyd: [emphasis in the original]

Who are these people? Who are these useless hanks of bone and fat that call themselves Senators of the United States? Let’s call them what they really are, let’s speak the truth about what they’ve done today with their votes on the bill to enshrine Bush's gulag of torture and endless detention into American law.

Who are they? The murderers of democracy.
Sold our liberty to keep their coddled, corrupt backsides squatting in the Beltway gravy a little longer.

Who are they? The murderers of democracy.
Cowards and slaves, giving up our most ancient freedoms to a dull-eyed, dim-witted pipsqueak and his cohort of bagmen, cranks and degenerate toadies. For make no mistake: despite all the lies and distorted media soundbites, the draconian strictures of this bill apply to American citizens as well as to all them devilish foreigners.

Who are they? The murderers of democracy.
Traitors to the nation, filthy time-servers and bootlickers, turning America into a rogue state, an open champion of torture, repression and terror.

Who are they? The murderers of democracy.
Threw our freedom on the ground and raped it, beat it, shot it, stuck their knives into it and set it on fire.

Who are they? The murderers of democracy.
If there was an ounce of moxie left in the American system, these white-collar criminals would be in shackles right now, arrested for high treason, for collusion with a tyrant who is gutting the constitution, pushing terrorism to new heights and waging an unholy, illegal war of aggression that’s killed tens of thousands of innocent people and bled our country dry.

There is no honor in them. There is no decency, no morality, no honesty – nothing but fear, nothing but greed, nothing but base servility. Cringing, wretched little creatures, bowing to the will of a third-rate thug and his gang of moral perverts. This is their record. This is their doing. This is the shame they will have to live with. And this is the darkness, rank, fetid and smelling of blood, that now covers us all.

Read it and weep! Read it and scream!! Then listen to Chris read it at Gorilla Radio, courtesy of Atlantic Free Press.

Judge Calls NSA's Covert Spying Program Unconstitutional, Orders It Stopped Immediately (updated thrice!)

Administration Gets Stay Of Execution, Pending Appeal; Meanwhile They're Trying To Pass A New Law To Make It Legal: But The Tricky Little Question Never Mentioned In Today's News Has Not Escaped This Nearly Frozen Blogger

Today (Thursday), in Detroit, a federal judge ruled that the illegal covert spying program put in place by the Bush administration is unconstitutional and ordered the administration to stop it immediately. But the administration has given every possible indication of its unwillingness to comply.

According to an article by Tom Brune, in Newsday this evening:

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the controversial program violates privacy and free speech rights, the separation of powers, and the law passed to govern domestic surveillance.

Brune also reports:

White House spokesman Tony Snow said, "We couldn't disagree more with this ruling."

If you remember pre-totalitarian America, you'll recall that court rulings were once considered the law of the land, regardless of whether or not the White House agreed. But things are very different now. So different, in fact, that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is theoretically in charge of seeing that justice is done in this country, heaped contempt on Judge Taylor's ruling, saying:

"We will continue to utilize the program to ensure that America is safer."

Safer from what? Our Constitutionally-protected freedoms?

According to the decision rendered by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor,

"The public interest is clear, in this matter ... It is the upholding of our Constitution."

Further,

"There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution," she wrote.

"It was never the intent of the Framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights."

Ahhh, the Bill of Rights. How quaint. Right, Alberto?

Brune points out that the administration may be able to wiggle out of the ruling by using a very shifty strategy for their appeal.

[S]ome constitutional experts questioned whether Taylor's ruling will survive the government's appeal to the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati, Ohio, and possibly to the Supreme Court.

Those courts could simply reject the case by saying the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the lawsuit, since they cannot prove the government eavesdropped on them because it is a state secret, the experts said.

If they can't get the case dismissed on that technicality, they will most likely be forced to fall back on their favorite time-tested techniques: denial and obfuscation.

According to David Stout in the New York Times,

Mr. Gonzales said he remained confident that the program was constitutional, and that Congress had given the president all the authority he needed when it authorized the use of military force after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Thus covert spying is conflated with the use of military force, allegedly to protect the country.

The dirty little secret in all this has been protected by the mainstream media, but as Abraham Lincoln so correctly said, "You can't fool all the people all the time."

Tom Brune:

The New York Times revealed in December that after the Sept. 11 attacks President George W. Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to intercept the international calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists between contacts here and abroad.

David Stout:

The judge’s ruling is the latest chapter in the continuing debate over the proper balance between national security and personal liberty since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which inspired the eavesdropping program and other surveillance measures that the administration says are necessary and constitutional and its critics say are intrusive.

I've read many other accounts telling essentially the same tale: that the administration initiated this covert illegal spying program after September 11, 2001; that the program is essential to preventing "another 9/11"; and that we might have been able to avoid 9/11 altogether if the program had been in place before then.

But can we be so sure?

Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say

The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.

The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation's largest telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers. The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages.

"The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,"' plaintiff's lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. "This undermines that assertion."'

Consider the implications: If the secret illegal spying program was in place before 9/11, then it could not have been instituted in response to the attacks of that day. And therefore it can't properly be called part of the War on Terror.

What, then, could be its purpose?

If it's not part of the so-called War on so-called Terror, then what is it part of?

The undeclared War on Political Dissent in America?

I'm just asking!

NOTES: Both Tom Brune's piece in Newsday and David Stout's report in the New York Times have been changed since I first read them.

Unlike what happened to the New York Times article which I quoted in a piece yesterday, these changes are superficial and do not significantly change the meaning of the report. Or do they?

Newsday has changed its headline from "Judge orders halt to Bush's domestic spying" to "Domestic spying declared unconstitutional", and clarified a few phrases. You can find the text of the previous version here.

The NYT piece has the same headline as before, but four paragraphs have been added at the end. Maybe it's an insignificant thing, but the previous version left the last word with Judge Taylor:

“Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this nation apart.”

And the newer version ends on a much different note, from Republican Senator Bill Frist:

“We need to strengthen, not weaken, our ability to foil terrorist plots before they can do us harm,” he said. “I encourage swift appeal by the government and quick reversal of this unfortunate decision."

You can find the original text of that article here.

UPDATE 1: In the interests of full disclosure: This is not the original version of this article. I have removed one passage and changed the wording of another, upon being advised that a source I had quoted was unreliable. I apologize to anyone who read the previous version.

I admire the writers and editors who update their writing in the interests of clarity and/or truth. I think that's what happened to the Newsday article. I know that's what happened to this one.

UPDATE 2: Let's look at the NYT piece again. After their first posting, they added two paragraphs of comments from each side, and they just happened to quote the Republicans last.

Democrats said Judge Taylor saw things the right way. “Today’s district court ruling is a strong rebuke of this administration’s illegal wiretapping program,” said Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin. “The president must return to the Constitution and follow the statutes passed by Congress. We all want our government to monitor suspected terrorists, but there is no reason for it to break the law to do so.”

Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a senior Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said the administration should stop “poking holes in the Constitution” and concentrate on “plugging holes in homeland security.”

But Republicans lined up behind the administration. "America cannot stop terrorists while wearing blinders,” said House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert. “We stop terrorists by watching them, following them, listening in on their plans, and then arresting them before they can strike. Our terrorist surveillance programs are critical to fighting the war on terror and saved the day by foiling the London terror plot.”

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, agreed. “We need to strengthen, not weaken, our ability to foil terrorist plots before they can do us harm,” he said. “I encourage swift appeal by the government and quick reversal of this unfortunate decision."

Two Democrats, then two Republicans.

Does that matter?

The Newsday piece only has one paragraph of comments from each side, but it also quotes the Republican last.

The ruling also touched off partisan political sniping. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate Democratic leader, charged, "The administration's decision to ignore the Constitution and the Congress has come at the expense of the security of the American people."

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman responded in a statement attacking Democrats and the 73-year-old judge, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter: "Liberal judge backs Dem agenda to weaken national security."

What do you think? Do you think that matters?

I can remember reports from the fall of 2004 about "John Kerry for President" rallies where the last paragraph consisted of quotes from Karl Rove.

Does that matter?

When I was debating I always wanted the last word.

Was that stupid?

UPDATE 3: Now that I've been thinking about balance and fairness and so on, I've decided to leave you with two more links -- editorials from USA TODAY:

James S. Robbins, NSA program is vital tool; and

USA TODAY Editors, Wiretap ruling affirms that presidents aren't monarchs.