Now that it's become completely clear that former Bush Office of Legal Counsel, John Yoo was aiming at creating tyranny, it's great to see that some home-staters are suing him for trying to tear up the Constitution.
They're still trotting out the buffoons of the George Bush administration.
Now it's chief-of-staff Andrew Card saying that the proper way to show respect for the presidency and the Constitution is to wear a suit while in the Oval Office.
If it were only so simple.
Respect for the Constitution requires adhering to some of its basic philosophy and its principles, many of which were trampled regularly by Bush and his henchmen and women.
More than once in these past few months I've heard the financiers who have torn our economy asunder for their own personal gain called "terrorists." And rightfully so.
Our nation, the world, our way of life is teetering on the brink so that these guys could get facials before their board meetings, and so their families could fly to Courchevel for a skiing vacation.
Undermining our government by destroying its financial base (isn't that what they've done), is treason.
I've heard others who have suggested, seriously, that the crimes against the Constitution by Donald Rumsfeld, John Yoo, Dick Cheney, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and David Addington, among others, could also be called treason.
So what is Barack Obama suggesting the country do about the treasonists and terrorists under our noses?
"We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth. And obviously we're going to be looking at past practices and I don't believe that anybody is above the law." Obama said. "But my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing. That doesn't mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law. But my orientation's going to be to move forward."
And while he plans to close Guantanamo, he's willing to somehow bend the rules laid out in the Constitution to hold, indefinitely, prisoners who have been accused of doing bad, or who have been tortured to admit they have done so:
"It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize," the President-elect explained. "Part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up."
Glenn Greenwald doesn't see this as particularly promising, and I have to agree.
Obama today rather clearly stated that he will not close Guantanamo in the first 100 days of his presidency. He recited the standard Jack Goldsmith/Brookings Institution condescending excuse that closing Guantanamo is "more difficult than people realize." Specifically, Obama argued, we cannot release detainees whom we're unable to convict in a court of law because the evidence against them is "tainted" as a result of our having tortured them, and therefore need some new system -- most likely a so-called new "national security court" -- that "relaxes" due process safeguards so that we can continue to imprison people indefinitely even though we're unable to obtain an actual conviction in an actual court of law.
Worst of all, Obama (in response to Stephanopoulos' asking him about the number one highest-voted question on Change.gov, first submitted by Bob Fertik) all but said that he does not want to pursue prosecutions for high-level lawbreakers in the Bush administration, twice repeating the standard Beltway mantra that "we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards" and "my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing." Obama didn't categorically rule out prosecutions -- he paid passing lip service to the pretty idea that "nobody is above the law," implied Eric Holder would have some role in making these decisions, and said "we're going to be looking at past practices" -- but he clearly intended to convey his emphatic view that he opposes "past-looking" investigations. In the U.S., high political officials aren't investigated, let alone held accountable, for lawbreaking, and that is rather clearly something Obama has no intention of changing.
We've only got one Constitution, and nowhere does it allow us to lock a prisoner up and throw away the key when we don't have legitimate proof of guilt.
("Free speech pen" at the Boston Democratic National Convention, 2004)
As hard as I looked at my pocket-sized copy of The Constitution, I couldn't find a single reference to safety and security at a political convention. No protection of the right to sprinkle balloons and confetti at will. No protection of the right to binge drink until you spew on your t-shirt image of Obama. No protection of the right to walk three blocks to the convention center without hearing someone shouting at you about the abridgment of civil rights.
But, there is this little Amendment, which happens to be the first listed: "Congress shall make no law (that's NO law)...abridging the freedom of press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."
And still, a federal judge has agreed that the city of Denver (aw, c'mon Hick!), and the Secret Service, have the right to lock protestors in caged "free-speech" pens during the Democratic National Convention. She talks about "security" which, sorry Blackwater, isn't mentioned in the Constitution either.
Could be the judge needs a little refresher course on what "no" means.
I let my subscription to The Nation lapse because, with every other piece of reading material that comes into the house, I never seemed to get around to finding the time to make it through The Nation's dense and important prose.
John Hickenlooper is a Wesleyan grad, and still has several friends in town (some of who traveled to Denver to campaign for Hick) who is now Denver's very popular mayor.
Trouble is, the city of Denver, along with the US government, in the form of the Secret Service, is setting up fenced-in, chicken-wired "free-speech" zones of the variety George Bush favors, for protesters, at the convention.
While the constitutional crisis of the moment seems to be the Supreme Court's upending of the second amendment, it's the first amendment that seems at risk here. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly, without restrictions. That means, and Lord knows I'm not a constitutional scholar, that if citizens want to assemble anywhere on public property for peaceful protest, it is their right. And that seems totally at odds with the "free-speech zones" at the convention. Ironically, in a way, the assembled Dems will be gathering to defend the Constitution, by choosing a candidate for president. The ACLU agrees, and is fighting the fencing in court.
I say, if you want to prove you believe in the great document which frames our country, invite the protestors to the floor of the convention for the opportunity to raise their voices as loudly as the Democratic delegates wearing the funny hats.
As for Hickenlooper, he could demonstrate his own regard for peaceful assembly by insisting that all public areas around the convention site remain open for peaceful public protest.
UPDATE: Hickenlooper has designated a daily "parade route" for peaceful protests, although it is proscribed, and stationary protesters will still be consigned to a pen.
Seems the folks in Homeland Security have taken a tip from all those Casinos in Mississippi which, by law, can't be built on land in Mississippi, so they float just a foot or two offshore.
I can hear Cheney now - there is no Constitution on the high seas. Aaargh.
When it comes to battling lawyers who dissemble clear laws to work in exactly the opposite way they were intended, the most useful weapon might be the law itself. I'm rooting for Jose Padilla, habeas corpus, and the Constitution on this one.
A few days ago I feared that a progressive leader I admired was spiraling into despotism, and now his defeat, and his acceptance of the democratic process have me admiring him again.
In the past I've enjoyed Chavez's ballsy confrontations with Northern hemisphere powers, especially those with the Bush administration. Calling W, "the devil" and "Mr. Danger" and distributing low cost heating oil to Americans whom Americans can't find the heart or wallet to help.
But it seems that old chestnuts remain vital for a reason. Power does corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Much of what Chavez has done for the poor of his country is admirable, but to indicate that he must remain in power for the rest of his life to sustain his socialist revolution makes a lie of his trust in the people, and in the power of democracy.
Venezuela is on the dangerous precipice of trading an entertaining, egotistical, ranting, remarkably refreshing leader for a despot. A vote to change the constitution to keep Chavez in power would be the kind of ego and power boost that would make a servant of the people into a dangerous tyrant.
Hey, you either believe in this Constitution shit, or you don't.
Right now it's unclear how presidential candidates Clinton and Obama feel about the abridgment of Constitutional freedoms dictated by FISA. What's more disturbing is that neither will speak directly to the unconstitutional assignment of ex post facto immunity to telecom companies who broke the law.
I've always heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Crimes committed under the veil of "patriotic duty" are crimes nonetheless.
Several important bloggers are urging us to call the offices of Clinton and Obama to make them take a stand on FISA. Take a few minutes and make a call.
One would think that running for election would assume the underlying principle that you're running to uphold the Constitution.
That's not necessarily so these days.
So when Chris Dodd explains that he's running to defend and honor his oath of office, which requires him to uphold the Constitution, it means that the current President, and some of the other presidential candidates, are not quite as concerned as he about the document which is the basis for our government.
The constitution exists to protect the rights and freedoms of the people of this country, not the rights and freedoms of the government, its leaders, or its corporate sponsors.
Dodd's principled stand against the FISA bill should be front page news, but I haven't read a major news account of it yet.
While the head of the Senate intelligence committee accepts new campaign funds from the telecom company, only Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd vow to fight the FISA bill at all costs. They understand what the other senators seem to have forgotten, that the government is designed to protect the people based on law set down in the Constitution, and not that the government must be protected from the Constitution.
As pointed out in an email from Chris Dodd, and on his website, the Senate may take the extraordinary measure of ignoring his "hold" on the FISA bill.
This would be unprecedented, and for many moral and legal reasons, wrong. It's not clear who has the authority to reject his hold (if it's Harry Reid we need to send him packing).
It's time to stand with Dodd on the Constitution, or find someone standing on your neck shouting questions you can't, won't and shouldn't answer.
You might muster a little respect for Al Gonzales if he gave this speech in front of a mixed audience who might respond with something other than standing o's.
Gonzales laid out his disrespect for the Constitution in a speech filled with bravado and treason. I'm not sure why a criminal would admit to his crimes in a public forum, but the hunger for applause when you're about to fade into obscurity must have something to do with it. Is it front page/top story news? He didn't say anything he hasn't said before, so why wasn't it buried with the bra ads on page 17?
When even military lawyers understand that the military tribunals (read kangaroo courts) demanded by the Bush administration are illegal, unconstitutional and un-American, it's time to shut Gitmo down.
