Punched in the stomach
When I opened The New York Times today, I felt like someone had punched me in the stomach. The headline of the lead story announced that "The Democrats Seem Ready to Extend Wiretap Powers."
What, I asked myself, won't they deny the Bush administration?
I'm hardly naive. I realize that most of them are worried about being viewed as soft on terror and getting re-elected. But they are complicit in creating an authoritarian infrastructure that could one day be used against any and all of us. That, of course,is the long view, which is not the way they think. For them, it's the short-term goal of getting re-elected and damn our democratic traditions.
I also know that no sitting president wants to lose a war on his or her watch. So how and when will the Iraq war ever end? Sometimes, when I ask myself this question, I can see American helicopters lifting off from the Green Zone, while U.S. bases are permanently staged with the Kurds.
Memories of demonstrating against Democrats who lied, deceived and lied again during the Vietnam War, still haunt me. I do not trust them, even though I was truly happy --for a few weeks--after the last election.
But they have not just disappointed. They are spineless. They have capitulated and I am one of those odd Americans who cares so deeply about our civil liberties, our civil rights and our moral credibility around the world, that I am viewed as a dissenter, rather than as a profoundly patriotic citizen.
"It's time to take to the streets," my friends and I say to each other. Not violently, of course. But on October 27th, when United for Peace sponsors 11 massive demonstrations around the country, I won't be home whining about the Democrats, I'll be out expressing my outrage at both parties, demanding an end to this war and letting the Democrats know that they have more to lose if, in the name of seeming tough on terror, they keep giving up precious democratic principles.
At stake is nothing less than our democracy itself.
You feel punched in the stomach; I feel punched in the gut. My gut tells me that currently there is no difference between the political parties. Neither speaks to us, the people. They mumble tacit approval of the reigning elite.
The media has already elected Hill'n'Bill and I feel disenfranchised about being anti-war, pro-Constitution and spiritually connected.
I'm afraid the voter turnout will be next to zero next November, which will hurt us again for another four years. Our so-called democracy no longer exists.
Our great country is just okay these days.
October 9, 2007 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Biggo..........why bother?
It makes little sense to stand in long lines battling being disenfranchised just to vote for a Democrat who acts exactly like a Republican once he/she gets into office.
I'm sitting this one out - and encouraging friends and family to do the same.
October 9, 2007 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think your disappointment (and many others as well) stems from a misperception of who the Dems really are. The Dems are more liberal on issues concerning the social safety net and economic equity, but not on several others.
There are two fundamental philosophical positions in this country. The first is that the capitalist/consumerist system is the only way to organize economically. The second is that the way to preserve the US standard of living requires a strong military sector and a robust foreign policy. This flows from the first idea. A capitalist/consumerist system requires access to cheap raw materials and finished goods. Since these deals don't treat both parties equally the need for force (implied or actual) is required.
The Dems, and most of the public, are unhappy with the current wars, not because they opposed the (unstated goals), but because we lost. If things had gone smoothly and the oil was flowing no one would be concerned about conditions in Iraq. We can see this in many other areas of the world, Nigeria comes to mind.
So, it's not that the Dems are spineless, it's that they really don't disagree with goals of the present admin. Everyone talks about "terrorism" and bringing democracy to the entrapped, but what really concerns them is international trade. One only has to look at areas where we don't have an interest such as Darfur and Burma to see that our humanitarian concerns are minimal.
One will do much better understanding the actions in congress if one gives up the idea that the Democratic Party is full of frightened civil libertarians, it's not. There may be a few, but they are a small and ineffectual group.
What makes Kosovo stand out is that the intervention seems to have been motivated by actual humanitarian concerns and not US self-interest. This is why the action is seen as so aberrant by the right. Doing things for the reasons we say rather than our true motives isn't something they understand.
Chalmers Johnson has written extensively about the military/industrial/congressional complex and how it is the driving force for much of US policy. He and other analysts see no way to reform the system, since congressmen are bought by the siting of projects in their districts. The system is out of control and there are no ideas on how to change direction. Expecting some congressman to act against his own interests and those of his district is unrealistic.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
October 9, 2007 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree and support your arguments, but while we can blame the politicians they are not the real problem. The real problem is a populace that rarely votes and the ones doing the voting are not doing their homework before showing up at the polls. Voters are the true checks and balance to our political system and by and large American voters have simply checked out in recent years.
October 9, 2007 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, the politicians are the problem. Enough people voted last time to swing the house and senate. Nobody was put in office to expand wiretapping programs. No Democrat campaigned on that platform.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 9, 2007 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be picky, but:
What, I asked myself, won't they deny the Bush administration?
I think you meant "Will they EVER deny the Bush administration ANYTHING?"
Jan
October 9, 2007 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
THANK YOU RUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are absolutely right, but these Democrats are worse than those that lied and deceived regarding Viet Nam. Much worse.
Over and over again these past 7 years the cowardly DINO's of Washington DC have been presented with instances where the choice is clear: do the right thing regardless of the consequences or choose the course of cowards and capitulate to the demands of a tyrant and enable him to establish a police state in our beloved country. I hold them in such utter contempt I cannot fully express it in writing. What they have done over and over constitutes, in my opinion, the worst sort of treason.
Thank you again!
October 9, 2007 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely right. I didn't stand in the pouring rain on election day, holding a candidate sign, encouraging folks to go vote, so the Democrats could capitulate and throw away my rights.
I don't endure ridicule at my very republican polling place when I ask for a Democratic primary ballot for these politicians to shred the constitution.
Nope. Not going back for more.
October 9, 2007 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
David
Hold on. Those who drafted the House bill for the Democrats think it is good, though some fear it will be watered down in the Senate. This is not all over; in fact, it's hardly begun. Read the whole Times article and this link:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/9/105935/112
October 9, 2007 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on! Republicans fight, Democrats accommodate Republicans. With only one party fighting for anything,it is not surprising we are now at one of the most miserable points in American history and the slope is down from here.
October 9, 2007 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Adding to the problem of some of the surveillance approvals is that they are briefed to only 8 members of Congress, who cannot discuss the substance with professional staff, have staff present, or, in some cases, even take notes. How many members are going to be subject matter experts in high-tech intelligence?
Clearly, NSA and the DNI do use subject matter experts in developing the programs and proposals.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 9, 2007 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the darkest, more paranoid recesses of my mind, I've started to wonder if they're actually thinking long term and thinking therefore that they are giving these powers to themselves.
If you assume that a Democratic president is a pretty sure thing next time around, then expanding these powers for Bush is also expanding them for a Democratic president.
And it seems to me there's enough people in this party enamoured of power as the solution to most anything that they would rather expand it and then hope to capture it rather than curtail it to what should be its Constitutional limits.
October 9, 2007 4:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was able to get thru to C-SPAN's Washington journal today and I said the Congress' poll numbers are in the toilet, and they're there because the Democratic base and the independents are giving them failing grades. I said its possible that the Democrats may be flirting with minority status in both Houses and may also lose the White House due to low voter turnout by Democrat's base and Independents in 08.
Its also looking possible the least that might happen is they lose seats in both Houses....ooops, there goes the Senate.
Then results of the Democrat takeover of Congress is to send a tsunami of negative reinforcement to the base and the Independents.
October 9, 2007 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn’t feel like I was punched in the stomach but had just received that thousandth cut. Yes, the House bill sounds like a reasonable amendment to FISA and requires some disclosure of the TSP, but for that reason, will probably never get anywhere.
What a ridiculous thing to say with a Dem controlled congress. But if the Dems are true to form, they will cave again to the WH. At least the Republicans don’t pretend to be trying to end the war or roll back these infringements on our liberty. When the Democrats should be moving to impeach the bad actors they are tasked to oversee, instead they seem to be moving to immunize them against impeachment.
They may also immunize the telecoms, ably represented by DI McConnell, from lawsuits and prosecution for past illegal activities. It has been established, through congressional acquiescence, that the President is above the law. Now we’re going to extend that to big corporations. Let's not forget that members of congress have no idea of who or what or to what extent this illegal spying that they are going to retroactively legalize has encompassed.
Just as with the MCA and denying habeas corpus, this would be an affront to the constitution and rule of law and a desperate attempt to pardon those who have committed crimes. The Protect America Act was pure Big-Brotherism and they are looking to expand it now. Have they no principles to stand on? Have they no shame?
October 9, 2007 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
CommonDreamer's got it right.
That's the lure that Bush is using to trap the unwary Dems.
What they aren't thinking about (you know how weak minds are captured by shiny objects) is when Hill is hammered in 2013 about not having ended the war, the Dems have raised taxes to keep the government afloat, and the Repugs are shouting about "socialized medicine boondoggles" is that the collective American attention span will have been shortened to only one or two news cycles. Repugs will get it all back in spades (with von Spastic and a crew burrowed in at DOJ).
Then lookout. The permanent Republican majority will have arrived.
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
October 9, 2007 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
sPh
October 9, 2007 5:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reality Check
There is NO real Senate Democratic Majority. The Count is
49 Democrats
49 Republicans
2 Independents
Reid got the gavel because bothIndependents, Sanders (VT) and Lieberman (CT) aligned with the Democrats. Anyone care to venture a guess as to which side Lieberman votes on this? Joe is a Bush Man Date when it comes to the War on Iraq or violations of Civil Liberties, so even in a straight Party-line vote; Cheney comes in and breaks the tie.
The FISA Bill Passed in early August was:
S.1927: A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence information and for other purposes.
Senate Roll Call Vote No 309, on August 3, 2007
Sixteen Democrat Senators voted for S.1927:
The Hartford Deadweight, 'Clueless' Joe Lieberman (Ind-CT) also voted in assent. 43 Republican Senators voted yea, and none voted against it.
House Roll Call Vote No 836; August 4, 2007
House Democrats who voted for S 1927
In the interests of fairness,
the two House Republicans who voted against S 1927:
- Timothy V. Johnson (R-IL)
- Walter B. Jones (R-NC)
186 Republicans voted yea on the bill, and two voted nay.Of note on the Senate Vote is how many Female Democratic Senators voted yes. I did a quick scan of names, so I may have missed a Female Democratic Senator, but my count is 10 total; 6 voted yea on the FISA bill, 2 did not vote, and two voted against it:
October 9, 2007 5:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect they won't wait that long. Why should they wait until 2013 to deliver their masterstroke when all the tools of a police state are in place today? Why risk giving those tools to the opposition party, who could use them against you for four years?
It's the old plotting rule from Creative Writing 101 - if you put a gun over the mantel in Act One, you'd better use it by Act Three.
October 9, 2007 6:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Civil Libertarians are a minority in the Democratic party. Liberalism, progressivism and Libertarianism are separate.
Why did the Democrats win the election? Sure, Tester got some leverage out of the PATRIOT Act. But the Democrats won the election for two reasons: the Republicans were running the country badly, and the War in Iraq is a disaster. Violations of Civil Liberties, though egregrious to some (like me, for example), were not what drove the Democratic victory.
If voters care about FISA, it is probably more because Bush violated it. The PATRIOT Act gave him expansive powers, and then he broke the law because he didn't think it was expansive enough.
The most amusing irony is that many people pretend to be Libertarians but vote Republican. As a previous poster showed, the Republican party is unanimous in its disdain for Civil Liberties. At least the Democratic party has a strong contingent of representatives who are against these kinds of infringements. But with the narrow majority held by the Democrats, unanimity is needed. And to expect unanimity from the Democratic party on these sorts of issues is to vastly misunderstand the voters who elected these men and women.
October 9, 2007 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see what the true Dem progressives (about 70 in the House) are saying.
"The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) issued the following strongly-worded position on FISA reform on behalf of CPC Members:"
[snip]
4. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is indispensable and must play a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with the law. This oversight should include, where possible, regular judicial approval and review of surveillance, of whose communications will be collected, of how it will be gathered, and of how content and other data in communications to and from the United States will be handled.[emphasis added]
[snip}
http://pdamerica.org/articles/alliances/2007-10-05-08-09-19-alliances.php
Strongly worded? "Where possible" is meaningless, not strong. We're talking constitutionality here.
ecotourism
WeGoEco.com
October 9, 2007 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot help but empathize with the Dems who believe that if they back off and weaken FISA, as you well know, the Rethugs will allow or even create an attack, and blame it on Dems for being 'soft on terror'. Please, everyone, think hard about this one. Anyone who doesn't believe that BUSHCO would allow many to die (Katrina) for purpose of political gain isn't living in the America I am.
October 9, 2007 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the Democrats, who I mistakenly believed were in the majority, originally approved this FISA expansion mess, I wrote my senator, freshman Claire McCaskill, with advice that can be summarized: stand up to Bush or there is no reason to hold the majority.
Ironically, I got a response from her office today as the Democrats are preparing to roll over once again. Her letter is infuriating. It contains language I would've expected out of the GOP. She writes, "the Director of National Intelligence sent a letter warning the Senate of the heightened threat of international terrorism," and, "The call to quickly revise FISA in order to reflect developments in telecommunications technology was echoed by four Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee," so she concludes, "I chose to heed these urgent warnings." The letter does not say, "Have I scared you, yet?" but it might as well.
She then goes on to lament that she voted for the Rockefeller-Levin bill "but it failed to gather the 60 votes needed to pass," but she voted for the Bond-McConnell version, "which did receive enough votes to pass." She then tells me that a bill passed the House and was rushed to the President, "who quickly signed the bill into law." The narrative is presented in such a way where I think she wants me to thank her for protecting me.
There is a paragraph about how this is only a temporary measure and that there will be another review. Then there is this line, "I can assure you I will be one of the Senators working hard to re-establish the constitutional protections that have been eroded by this President and this temporary FISA legislation."
And I can assure you all here, that she will be getting a followup letter from me telling her not to cave and then another asking her why she caved.
Man, this is almost too much.
October 9, 2007 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no opposition party.
October 9, 2007 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
May I suggest a few things for the followup?
Were these four members technically qualified to interpret the significance of these recent developments in telecommunications technology? I'm incline to inquire if they could even name the developments.
Was the threat and need briefed to members alone, or to independent technical experts, with the appropriate security clearances, who advise the Committee?
There is, I recognize, a conflict of interest for people that have to maintain TS/SCI clearances. In past Administrations, the need for independence has been recognized, but I could easily picture this one retaliating. Still, there are retired officials and the like who could make a very strong protest if their clearances were pulled.
In point of fact, I'm not convinced that every detail need be at the compartmented security level. Communications security has evolved, and NSA is not the only source of expertise. To demonstrate that reality, when the US decided the Data Encryption Standard, typically for unclassified-but-sensitive data, was hopelessly obsolete, there was an open call for new encryption techniques. The winner came from two Belgian researchers, and the new Advanced Encryption Standard, with NSA-provided keys, is now approved for at least TOP SECRET information.
Before NSA gets too huffy and puffy, inquire if they remember SKIPJACK, their proposed solution for public security, and its replacements.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 9, 2007 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
What an arrogant, cockamamie response!
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 9, 2007 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope we all understand that all of this is a consequence of our acquiescence in calling what is going on today a "war". Members of Congress, accepting that we are a "nation at war" feel obligated not to hamstring the "commander in chief". They feel certain, with good reason, that they will spend the entire next election cycle fighting off charges of treason if they do anything but bend over for Bush.
How much better it would be to acknowledge the reality that we are not at war. Of course the Republican dominated news media knows this too, so they would never accept the fact that there is no war going on now. For them fiction is much better than truth.
Hoppy in Sacramento
October 9, 2007 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't let them off the hook like that. If you do, the whole thing devolves into "You steal violate my civil rights because you're afraid of somebody calling you names if you don't." Not good.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 9, 2007 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's all in Orwell's 1984.
October 9, 2007 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Add Iraq to Katrina inside those parentheses.
October 9, 2007 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The US is not only at war (undeclared) but there is a declared state of emergency:
Executive order:
Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act . . . Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001 . . . must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2007.==GEORGE W. BUSH--Sep 12, 2007
Of course the US applies different standards to other countries (aren't we special):
Fiji's military-led government has said it will lift a month-long state of emergency . . . The imposition of the state of emergency was condemned by the European Union, the US and Fiji's Pacific neighbors, Australia and New Zealand.(Oct 5, 2007)
On October 9, 2007, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice helped persuade Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf to hold off declaring a state of emergency,
October 9, 2007 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
<bragmode>We may be small, but all four Rhode Islanders, Congressmen and Senators alike, voted against the nefarious bill </bragmode>
aMike
October 9, 2007 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
For what the legality is worth, the US, in Iraq, is, in the Geneva Convention sense, the Occupying Power. You can't be an Occupying Power until you are Occupying, a status that begins only after a War ends.
Presidents have done weird things with "Wars". JFK didn't bother checking on what would be the abbreviation for War On Poverty, and may have lost some Italian votes. Ford avoided War, but Stop Inflation Now either encouraged or discouraged people. Still, nothing much approached Carter's declaration of beating inflation as the Moral Equivalent Of War, and then discovering the abbreviation.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 9, 2007 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very funny, Howard! (I mean that.) But, the huge difference today is that back in those other "wars" the news media just giggled and ignored it. Today, the media push the war meme at every opportunity. No one who pays the average amount of attention to the news would be aware that any war we might have been in ended as Saddam was pushed out of power. The media never tires of using the word "war" anytime Bush speaks, is on TV, is pictured, is discussed, or is even a casual thought. Members of Congress know this very well, and know exactly what they face if they point out the facts. Carter was treated as a joke, even though compared to Bush, he was a religious text. JFK was much admired but I don't recall any press play for us being a nation at war during his term. Ford was, of course, viewed as a clown by the press, and again he was in fact a far more serious and engaged President than Bush on his best day.
Hoppy in Sacramento
October 9, 2007 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps our media might eventually take heed of our cousins to the north, and that it can be profitable to be entertaining. Still, when the Alliance (Western Conservatives, except in Canada, the "Conservatives" tend to be liberals and vice versa) party split up, its brilliant leader also did not think of the abbreviation of his new cabal: Conservative Reformed Alliance Party.
When discussing "war", is exporting William Shatner and Pamela Anderson the moral equivalent of Fort Sumter?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 9, 2007 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, 'citizen', just put your tracking ID tag
back on, there, and get back to the factory.
If you've got enough energy to rant and rave
on the web, then you can make it through a second shift, today. Mush! LOL
;)
October 9, 2007 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Ford's slogan was WIN (Whip Inflation Now),
October 9, 2007 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It might need legislation (the horror) but if the White House can have staffers with security clearances why not Congress? As you continue to point out, expert advice is needed on this and many subjects presented to the intel committees. If for no other reason, they could explain how stuff works.
October 9, 2007 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the answer to the spineless Dems is to take you ball home and "sit this one out?"
Wow. It makes me want to fight. I'm with Ruth. I certainly won't be "sitting it out." That's just ridiculous. Sit it out so you can just "be above it all?"
Sorry, you're retreating. It's cowardly and unAmerican. I don't think I can take anymore whining from "despondant dems." If you can't fightfor America now, when will you?
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
October 9, 2007 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had the same sickening reaction to that article.
I don't know what to say anymore, but as long as the Democrats continue to collude with the Republicans to preserve extraordinary rendition, warrantless searches, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, secret prisons, funding of mercenaries, extrajudicial detentions, and the unchecked expansion of Presidential war powers, the nausea will continue.
I'm afraid the Constitution is dead. The Republicans killed it and now the Democrats seem happy to bury it. But if the vast majority of the American people and the American press seem not to notice and not to care, who can blame the politicians? We now have an elected monarchy, with a powerless legislature and an irrelevant court. But as long as we Americans have our bread and circuses we seem, for the most part, content.
Long ago, Benjamin Franklin warned us that we "had a republic if we could keep it." I fear we no longer can keep it--and maybe don't even want it anymore.
October 9, 2007 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State,
Just a technical point, we have an unelected monarchy. You can't really call 2000 and 2004 legitimate, honest, fair and open elections.
October 10, 2007 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Dems stink on Habeus
* The Democratic caucus is a majority in the Senate
* The majority sets the rules and the agenda
* Habeus corpus is one of the basic foundation blocks of the USA
* The loss of habeus, voted away with Dem help, means that the government can throw a citizen in jail for years w/o charges, as it did with Jose Padilla
* There has been no substantive defense of habeus by the Dems
* The Dems witlessly failed to craft a separate bill restoring habeus, rather they tried to attach an amendment to the obscenely high Defense Appropriations bill which they always vote for
* When the Repub minority says they don't like something, the Dem majority caves and agrees to a cloture vote
* The idea of holding a cloture vote to avoid an up-and-down vote is a recent discovery of the spineless Dems
* A cloture vote of this nature gives the minority Repubs a bye on having to filibuster
* A cloture vote also allows Bush-dog Dems to vote yea when the know it will fail, because of the high 60-vote requirement.
* The 60-vote requirement, nine over that required to pass a bill on a majority vote (51), means the bill won't get to the floor
* The 'yea' cloture vote on habeus was 56. How many yeas could the Dems have gotten on a straight majority vote on the bill? We'll never know--which is the way the Dems want it.
Thank you Dems for destroying habeus, a fundamental feature of the Republic.
ecotourism
WeGoEco.com
October 10, 2007 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Dems have it backwards, fearing Mister Thirty-two percent. They instead should fear the citizens who rank Congress even lower. But here they go again, sticking it to the citizens. How low can they go?
ACLU Statement:
The ACLU sees one major flaw in the RESTORE Act. As drafted, the RESTORE Act still allows for the US government to collect phone calls and emails from Americans without an individual warrant.
Program warrants - sometimes called basket warrants, sometime called blanket warrants - included in the draft bill are a crucial sticking point. There is no specific target when you use basket warrants, which contradicts the heart of the Fourth Amendment. Essentially, a basket warrant really means no real warrant. (10/9/2007)
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/32104prs2007
1009.html
This means that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
US Constitution
Amendment IV - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
ecotourism
WeGoEco.com
October 10, 2007 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree Republicans are ruthless extremists. You don't fight ruthless extremists without losing a few battles and earning some scars in the process.
The Democrats have to play hard ball. Sure, they can't pass the bills they want, but they can sure refuse to pass any bill the Republicans want.
They can start but refusing to fund the war.
They will not do that. The ruthless extremists will get whatever they want because the Democrats will continue to funding what the ruthless extremists want.
October 10, 2007 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
September 19, 2007 - Senate Roll call Vote No. 340: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Specter Amdt. No. 2022
It takes 60 votes for Cloture in the Senate. this is the same process the Democrats used to stop a handful of Bush Court Appointees. The RNC screamed and moaned about an "up or down vote". They were for up or down votes, before they were against them.
All 49 Democratic Senators voted for cloture, as did Bernie Sanders (Ind-VT), and six Republican Senators:
How's your math? That 56 yeas; four short of achieving Cloture, but even though all Democratic Senators votes yea, they got blamed for failing to get the Amendment up for a vote.
There was once a time I derived amusement from watching the ineptness of The DNC , but that was back before I realised the depths of depravity that afflicts the Republican Party. I've also been one to vocally state that anyone who votes for "The Lesser of Two Evils" is admitting that they aided and abetted evil, but I came to a realisation recently. The Democratic Pary isn't the Lesser of Evils;
It Is The Lamer Of Evils
and presently, as the lamer evil, I can vote for them without the stigmata. Still, far too many of y'all are so wrapped-up in your own petty politics, that you cannot even sense what is going on as the media and the RNC bends you over onstage, for the audience, The Conned Citizenry.
If you do not pay attention this time, the right will heap all of the blame upon you again, as they cut-n-runaway from their own culpability. It will be worse that what was done to the DNC with the bundle of lies that was the blame game: {Vietnam, Stagflation, James Carter, and The Fall of the Shah in Iran}.
Well known Conservative David Keane was blaming the Democrats for The War on Iraq before the end of November, 2006:
The stakes are significantly higher this go around though;
The Dreamtime America is under mortal attack.
If this battle is lost, then America will cease to be.
Damn-it Dems;
Every last One of You:
Pay Attention!
October 10, 2007 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I can't find the reference, at one time, being elected to Federal office was considered the equivalent of a TOP SECRET security clearance. Yes, I know all the rules, and technically TS is the highest classification, but it's really not; Sensitive Compartmented Intelligence and Special Access Programs are their own world.
Congress has to accept part of the blame here, or maybe we do. Some of the customs came from an earlier time, when there were public officials beyond reproach, George C. Marshall being one such. When the Truman Committee on the Conduct of the War started nosing around something called the Manhattan Project, Marshall called on Truman and essentially said, "I give you my word that this is proper -- and it is so sensit6ive I ask that you leave it alone." Truman did, and really was briefed on nuclear weapons after becoming President. Now, both Truman and FDR were Democrats.
In what was perhaps even more impressive since it directly impacted party and elections, Marshall learned that FDR's 1944 rival, Dewey, had learned, at least, of the US successes in breaking Japanese codes. Dewey was convinced that the Japanese had realized we had done so, and was going to make a campaign issue of it. While some maneuvering was involved, Marshall had a letter hand-delivered to Dewey and his closest advisor. The letter started by saying that Marshall was doing this on his own initiative, and that FDR was not aware of it. Marshall told Dewey that the Japanese were not aware, and that the intelligence still being gained was desperately important. He asked Dewey not to make it an issue, and Dewey agreed.
If you know you have George Marshalls, some of this might work. Unfortunately, that seems as distant as the Knights of the Round Table.
In later years, some old-time committee chairmen told prospective briefers they didn't think they needed to know the details. That, I believe, was irresponsible. It may have been an artifact of Members who had grown up without much technology around them.
For whatever historical reasons, Congress has accepted that the most sensitive material, sensitivity determined by the White House, will be briefed to only 8 members: the Speaker, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the House and Senate minority leaders, and the Chairman and ranking minority members of the "appropriate" committee (typically Armed Forces or Intelligence). Notably, Foreign Relations members rarely, if ever, are briefed.
Here and there, a member will have deep knowledge of one subject or another, but that cannot be reasonably expected. I had the pleasure of being a technical advisor, in his first civilian job after retirement, to a former NSA Director. We enjoyed talking history and politics, but he gave me, without ever getting into truly sensitive matters, a fascinating perspective on senior governmental officers in sensitive areas.
His earlier intelligence background had been as a reconnaissance pilot, but, when he became a colonel, he gave up his wings, because he felt his reactions had slowed, he didn't have time for staying current, and he had other priorities. Still, he said, he could have a real feel for what an electronic intelligence ferret aircraft, probing the USSR and China, would encounter. On the other hand, he admitted that the newspaper cryptograms were sometimes too much for him, but his skill, he felt, was finding the right managers who would find the right cryptanalysts.
While he had a technical degree, it was old. By the time things got briefed to him, the issues were risk, benefit, and cost, and he was a wise old owl who could balance the big picture. He had trusted staff that would advise him. When I worked with him in a computer networking research center, he'd often ask me simply to stand up and explain an issue to the questioner, or, on other occasions, give him a high-level education.
He taught me a great deal of cutting to the chase of what he needed to know, and I was impressed by his ability to retain just what he needed.
When senior intelligence officers depend on staff, it's unrealistic to assume that Congress doesn't have the same need. Congress does, however, have to be absolutely draconian about leaks, including expulsion of Members, and serious consideration of criminal prosecution of leaking Members or staff.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
PS -- I'm braindumping on a couple of intelligence disciplines, SIGINT and MASINT, on Wikipedia. The articles need to be split into smaller ones, and smoothed out at level of detail, but they may be of interest. I've focused more on who does what, especially in SIGINT, rather than how it is done. MASINT had to have more detail, as it involves lesser-known (hell, incredibly obscure and complex) techniques.
October 10, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't think of recent ones, but there have been in the past, and, if Congress is going to push for better access, it needs to have a clear argument. Things may have gotten sufficiently circular that nothing is leaking because no one is getting anything worth leaking.
IIRC, there were problems with the Church Committee. The all-time worst was one during WWII, when a Congressman returned from a Pacific inspection trip and announced our subs were getting away because the Japanese were setting their depth charges to go off at too shallow a depth. The guess is that statement cost about 10 submarines and crews.
There was a flap when Vito Marcantonio wanted a seat on Armed Services. He didn't get there such that he could leak.
Come to think of it, Mike Gravel stood up all night, reading 4 volumes of the Pentagon Papers received from Ellsberg. The other 40 or so volumes have never been declassified, although there's generally a 25 year declassification rule. I suppose they could fall under some of the exemptions, such as human sources.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 10, 2007 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The link David provides above does an excellent job of clarifying the situation. That Times lede is a bit misleading. This thing is definitely not over, and the House bill is not a cave-in to the administration. One constructive thing folks who are wringing their hands about this can do is mebbe show Rep. Nadler some love.
October 10, 2007 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
And maybe the court isn't quite so irrelevant as I said in my original post . . .
Maybe the right modifier would be "irrelevant when not pernicious"
October 10, 2007 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
workerbee,
What's your plan, genius? How do you propose that we "fight for America"? Don't just be a troll--contribute something besides criticism. Stop YOUR whining and wrote something worth reading, if you can. What's your plan?
October 10, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
My recollection does not include a famous and damaging leak being ascribed to Congress. Recently, the White House has picked up some accusations, there was Daniel Ellsberg, and there were in-house intel leaks to other states.
October 10, 2007 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read Chris Hedges book about American Fascists to see what a nutcase Ken Blackwell, who ran the Ohio 2004 election, is.
October 10, 2007 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll get no argument from me regarding the importance of habeas corpus to a free people. I clearly stated on this website over a year ago my beliefs regarding detainees, and the rights they are entitled too, simply because they are human, which Mr. Bush stole tyrannically. I am still comfortable with my assessment; just as I am baffled by your refusal to accept a 49-0 Senate Democrat vote to end debate on an Amendment to restore the detainees' habeas corpus rights at face-value, and to instead cast dark-shadowy speculations of hidden intents that are moot, simply because only six Republican Senators stood to defend the Natural right against usurpation.
You engage in unprovable hyperbole, and dodge around placing proper accountability where it belongs: The Senate Republicans. The only shadows I perceive in any of this are the ones which cloud your agenda; the masquerade costume that is the rectitude of your intents. You claim to support the restoration of habeas corpus, but you do not directly attack those presently involved with obstructing that goal; instead fantasising what ifs insubstantially within the realm of the unreal.
Worse, you also engage in distortions sprinkled with ad hominem name calling, claiming that the Democrats "witlessly failed to craft a separate bill restoring habeus, rather they tried to attach an amendment to the obscenely high Defense Appropriations bill which they always vote for." This is not the truth, although I cannot discern whether the allegation is 'witlessly' uninformed, or diabolically dialectic. In just the Senate, there are still three active bills which were crafted to explicitly restore habeas corpus. There are others in the House.
Here are three Senate Bills that remain active, which would restore habeas corpus rights. S. 185, The Specter bill has the best chance.
Sponsored by Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [DE]
Latest Major Action: 7/25/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT]
Latest Major Action: 2/13/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Sponsored by Sen Specter, Arlen [PA]
Latest Major Action: 6/26/2007 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 220.
None of these are going anywhere without a successful Cloture Vote to close debate, which requires 60 , not 51. Again, we are back to my original point in all of this, that it is not the Democrats who are blameworthy here, but is instead the Republicans.
Care to proffer your motivations publicly at TPM Cafe?
October 10, 2007 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simply standing and stating; "NO, this is not right, because we are Americans", is a productive action in a political society of, by and for the people. It is an essential element in the necessary groundswell of dissent, irrespective of partisan concerns. It also provides comfort and support for other Friends of Liberty. It is empowering to know you are not alone.
This is a battle being fought in defense of America's soul. If it is also to be The Dreamtime America's Alamo, then I will to remain at its ramparts until the bitter end, and will to curse the evil.
For those who remain, there will be no blame.
October 10, 2007 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
NascarD: "The link David provides above does an excellent job of clarifying the situation. That Times lede is a bit misleading." Thanks for that. I realize I was snookered and, indeed, looks like we all were.
There's a pattern there, too. The GOP sets the media line, in which if anything is bad it's because both parties do it and anyhow the Democrats are flip-floppers. Then, to make it worse, that plays into a liberal blogger's fears that liberalism is not properly represented in politics, and thus we become complicit time after time in the dynamics. In fact, we take pride in it. And then we wonder why the "craven" Democrats always lose....
As always, I'll make an exception for Lieberman, who the media can't stop calling a Democrat, and Clinton, who can't flip-flop because she can't say anything in the first place.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
October 11, 2007 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
PCA post #1:
PCA post #2:
PCA post #3:
Will the real PCA please rise?
The facts remain. The Dems have the majority in the 110th Congress, and the destructions of habeus and the protection against unwarranted search have been reinforced by this Congress. Blaming Republicans for the failures of the Democratic Congress on these matters, as on the wars, is noble but irrational.
October 11, 2007 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
PCA--thanks for filling in for workerbee--this way I can kill two birds with one stone
Some people are not content with "simply standing and stating", they want to do something. In a democracy the ONLY recourse (short of violence) is to with-hold support, financial and elective (voting), from the elected miscreants, correct?
Of course you're free to fault them for taking action in this matter but at least they've chosen to do something more than making statements, which obviously have had little effect. So who's really at fault?
October 11, 2007 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, you ill-tempered lout, demonstrating, voting, and getting involved are all "doing something."
Apparently learning to read for comprehension would be "doing something" in your case.
I plan on working IN our system of government to affect positive change. Your plan of pissing and moaning and "sitting it out" accomplishes nothing whatsoever.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
October 12, 2007 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm concerned that the system is so corrupted by money, the military-industrial complex, right-wing Christian domionists, etc. that working within it accomplishes pretty close to nothing also.
October 12, 2007 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least you see the domionists, and understand the threat. They are subversive, and work their ill from within. The evangelicals are minor league in comparison, because with them, there is always the rapture. Not so with the dominionists; they desire to bring hell into reality on earth, and believe they are preordained to rule it.
There are indications of a new day dawning though.
Don't sell Americans short tlees2, the people need to know, but the majority would and will be vehemently opposed if the knowledge is given to them.
As to working from within: are you mad? It is the existing framework from which the present was spawned. The two-party system only benefits those at the top, not its members. It is both self-serving and self-perpetuating. It needs to be torn asunder, and the ground upon which its foundations stood salted, to assure that the monstrous liberty sucking slug is dead.
Count the friends, provide them cover whenever possible, and target the enemies. Failure is not an option; the else is incomprehensibly foul.
October 13, 2007 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You fund only the safe withdrawal of the troops.
October 16, 2007 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be difficult for Reid to go that route. I presently live in Nevada, was born there, and have lived in the state on and off my whole adult life.
The reason it would be difficult for Reid to just defund the war is because GW would then play chicken with the soldiers, and Reid isn't someone who would exchange pawns, when the pawns are other peoples' children. The Bush Administration would though, and they are known to be very brutal. They may even roll your spouse to get back at you.
If the Congressional Dems did defund the war, and then the Bush Admin let the troops get bloodied a bit for it, do you honestly believe that there would not immediately be a cacophony of media pundits blaming the Democrats for it?
Face reality, you're probably not evil enough to play by their rules to the bitter end, and if you are, then I wonder about the existence of your soul. It isn't fair, but they have to be beat using different methods. If you won the marathon, because you used an innovative short-cut through the sewer treatment plant, you're the winner, but you're also full of s**t.
October 16, 2007 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink