September 29
This is one of those times when it's late at night but this demands attention. I had thought of several short items, but this is too important. If this isn't somehow reversed, then when the decline of American civilization is traced by future historians, this might be the moment seen as the moment the US abandoned its principles and the slide into dictatorship undeniably began.
The earliest principle of western law is habeas corpus, which is the right of an imprisoned person to challenge his imprisonment. The Republicans, sadly with the votes of a minority of congressional Democrats, have passed a law that removes this right from anyone determined by the government to be an "unlawful enemy combatant". Anyone can be declared an unlawful enemy combatant. Supposedly you have to provide help to terrorists, but the interpretation is up to the government. They can arrest anyone, declare them and unlawful enemy combatant, and they don't have to prove it. Removing habeas corpus specifically means the detained person has no right to go before a judge and have the evidence against him reviewed. If you are this unlucky person, you might not be told the evidence against you. You have no right to have a judge or any other neutral person review the evidence. You can be held in prison indefinitely without charge or trial. I wish I knew how to explain this to raise sufficient alarm.
If you do get to a trial, the prosecutors may use evidence obtained through coercion. That's a fancy way of saying they can beat it out of you. They can also use secret evidence, which means you can be convicted on evidence you haven't been able to see and challenge if it's false. Yes I know, the military commissions are able to try only non-citizens. But citizens lose their habeas corpus rights if deemed an unlawful enemy combatant, and since they don't have to explain why to anyone why you're in prison, innocence is no protection. And now that this fundamental principle of law has been thrown out, why not subject citizens to the rest of it?
From the vote of conservative congressmen in favor of the bill, from the reaction of conservative callers on talk radio, from th reaction conservatives have shown thus far to assaults on the bill of rights, conservatives don't get it. They're letting their fear of terrorists override the fear they should have of the acting president ignoring the Constitution.
Don't worry conservatives, no one will take your freedom from you. They won't have to. You'll hand it over without a fight.
Let me express to Democratic congressmen who voted for this how shocked I am. I would still vote for you because the Republicans are so horrid and the country's situation so dire, but you will get none of my money. You will get none of my volunteer time. I won't defend you in this blog, in letters to the editor, in conversations, wherever you might need defending. If I ever take an interest in your elections, I will support your opponents for party endorsements and maybe even the primaries. I'll give my time and money instead to candidates who realize our freedoms aren't just legal niceties, but are the whole point in resisting Islamic fundamentalists and anyone else who might threaten us.
September 28
NOOOOOOO! The Twin Cities were up for both 2008 conventions, and we got the Republicans! Okay, it probably won't be that bad. The economics are probably the same in terms of the cost to the public and the spending by conventioneers. Security and traffic tie ups will be about the same and who knows, maybe the state will finally get the roads fixed (anytime the Republicans claim any sort of competence, remember the Crosstown Commons). It would have saved me the travel expenses if I can get elected a delegate, but now it will be cheap to attend protests. The only real difference is the Republicans are less open to demonstrations and will limit demonstrators to a fenced off "free speech zone" distant from the convention in St. Paul. Locals will refer to this zone as "Minneapolis".
At least Republicans are still acting like the Republicans we've grown accustomed to. I read today that RNC Cochairwoman Jo Ann Davidson said, "The committee decided that Minneapolis was the best choice." So they're going to St. Paul.
That's funny in Minnesota. They're two separate cities, see. They said Minneapolis when they're going to St. Paul and... oh, never mind.
Seriously though, this would have been the best spot for the Democratic convention since we're a purple state where the Republicans hope to win a presidential election any time now, even without touchscreen machines or Ken Blackwell. We often split our senate seats and 2008 is likely to be a close race which will include a lot of harbored grudges over the way the DFL lost the seat in 2002 after Paul Wellstone's death and the twisting of the memorial by conservative media. We could have Wellstone's successor versus Wellstone's supporter, Al Franken. I'm sure the GOP will feature Sen. Coleman prominently and call the Xcel Center the House the Coleman built. Indeed he was mayor of St. Paul and deserves a lot of credit for it. Or blame, depending upon how you feel about publicly financed arenas. I'm torn on that since I don't like it in theory, but I like having the NHL again. However, since we can't have the convention here, may I suggest Denver over New York, since that's a red state that might be moving purple. Put our convention in the West for the same reasons the GOP wants theirs in the Midwest, to try to compete in a region that tends to support the other party.
September 24
Something that has been distressing to this liberal is how even though, as I commented yesterday, it was predictable the acting president and his party would seek to dredge up some sort of terrorism crisis, nothing could be done to prevent or counter it. Not being able to prevent it is just the ability of an incumbent president to use his bully pulpit and his ability to control the news cycle somewhat by choosing when stories are initiated. It's the not being able to counter it part that's more distressing. It seems leading Democrats have again chosen the losing strategy of trying to focus on other issues. What they didn't learn in 2002 or 2004 is that even though Republicans may be viewed more favorably than Democrats on just one issue, that issue is terrorism and security. I could see changing the subject is the one issue was road construction, or who can better run national parks. Terrorism however trumps all other issues time and again, so even if they have the advantage over us on just one issue and not by much, that's enough. If we can't counter Republican arguments on terrorism, and look like we want to talk about it rather than being forced to talk it like when Republicans have to talk about corruption, it will continue to work against us.
So I hope every Democrat, every liberal, or just everyone who wants the Republicans out this election will make the most of a gift handed to us, the news that the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) states in no uncertain terms that invading Iraq has made terrorism worse, not better. Notice something too about the time the report was written. It was finished back in April, but only now are we hearing about it, and that's because of leaks. As you ponder that, as whether we would have heard about the April NIE earlier if it had supported Republican claims that invading Iraq reduced the threat of terrorism. I suspect we would have heard about the April NIE back in April.
A sidelight that interested me was that the Minneapolis Star Tribune, though a favorite whipping boy of the punditry of the right for its alleged liberal bias, put the story on page A6 instead of the front page and reprinted only half the New York Times story. All Things Considered showed better judgement in making this the top story. I also noticed, as a sign I'm not the only liberal who realizes how big this story ought to be, that Air America added the story to its front page, even though they don't normally update on weekends. Unfortunately for Twin Cities newspaper readers, the Pioneer Press made the story tricky to find on its web site, and that came as a mention in a story misleadingly headlined, "Experts see lower threat from al-Qaida".
September 23
It was predictable, when Labor Day passed and the election season got going for even the mildly oblivious, that the acting president would suddenly make a big issue of terrorism and something would have to be done immediately. The something turned out to be an urgent need for Congress to pass new laws legalizing torture and creating commissions to try suspects with rules that would make most dictatorships comfortable. The issues of secret prisons, secret evidence, incommunicado detention etc., are very important, which is how Democrats have been drawn into the debate. However, let's not forget the culture of corruption that has made many voters sick enough of the Republicans to answer yes to the question on my bumper sticker, "Had enough?"
Look at the stories that have broken in just the last few days:
- The FBI has had to triple the number of agents working on corruption among lobbyists and government officials in Washington, and they still can't keep up. There are 2200 ongoing cases nationwide.
- The US Education Department's Reading First program broke the law to steer money to favored publishers.
- The secretary of HUD, Alphonso Jackson, was cited by HUD's Inspector General for pushing aides to grant contracts according to how much bidders supported the acting president. And Jackson calls it full exoneration.
- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has released their list of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress. It's just the most corrupt, not all of them. 17 of 20 are Republicans. Spokesman Melanie Sloan has been saying this reflects the Republicans having all the power, but speaking as someone pretty knowledgeable on US history, it's never been this bad except maybe during the Grant administration.
- Republican US Representative Bob Ney, one of the most powerful members of the House, has agreed to plead guilty to corruption charges. He has steadfastly maintained he was innocent and a victim of liberal Democrats and the liberal media. Liberals must have brainwashed him to take bribes too.
I didn't include this story in the bullet points because strictly speaking it doesn't involve lawbreaking, but it does show the same disregard for the law and a callousness towards victims of injustice. The candidate for attorney general of New York State, Jeanine Pirro, is a county district attorney. Her office received a letter from a convict who claimed he was wrongly convicted and sentenced to life for a rape and murder, and he asked that the DNA evidence be examined. He got a terse reply essentially telling him to get lost. Her successor granted the test and Jeffrey Deskovic was exoneration and spending half his life in prison. Take note in light of the debate over trials for terrorism suspects that he was convicted based on a coerced confession.
Remember Nov. 7 is the chance to get these callous crooks out of office. Go register to vote right now if you aren't registered. If you thought you registered but haven't received confirmation, follow up. My wife and I both found on primary day that we weren't registered, even though we had filled in the form on the drivers license application. I don't know whether the screw up was the Secretary of State's office or the same Department of Transportation that screwed up the Crosstown Commons project, but I know they're both run by Republicans up for reelection.
Also volunteer for a candidate you support. Offer to put a sign in your lawn. Make a small donation. Down there at the bottom of the page I have a rotation of links to campaign sites for good congressional candidates.
September 21
Tonight my wife and I attended a fundraiser for Tim Walz, the DFL (Democratic Farmer Labor party -- the Minnesota Democrats) candidate for congress in the first district. The headliner was Al Franken, but Walz has plenty of star power of his own. Walz is a powerful public speaker. I got to have a conversation with candidate with a serious chance of winning which is a conversation that lobbyists pay $1000 for, at least if they want to talk to Republicans. You could tell this was DFL by the $50 requested donation.
My wife got to lobby Al Franken for the return of the "Oy Oy Oy Show", who politely listened even though he appeared to be ready to go home after a long day. I had important words with the state party chairman, whose house was the venue. I think my exact words were, "Where would you like me to throw this empty pop can?". He directed me to a bucket in the pantry. Clearly this was a gathering of the liberal elite.
Seriously, Walz seems like a candidate who can cut into the Republican advantage with veterans. He speaks very effectively about being connected to the same national guardsmen as their football coach, high school teacher, master sergeant in their guard unit, and seeing them off at the plane to Iraq as they leave their crying children. He carries a strong presence as he talks about the Republican Congress cutting funding for treatment of soldiers' brain injuries from $14 million to $7 million, or roughly the tax cut received by the CEO of Exxon. He told a story of meeting a veteran recovering from brain injuries who is separated from his family because they can't afford to travel and he can't get a travel allowance, and similarly of the men in his former unit who were training in the South before going to Iraq and got nine days off around Christmas, but guardsmen aren't given money for travel. As part of a class project, some of his students organized a non-profit which raised the money to send charter buses to bring them home.
When he gave a concise description of what Democrats stand for, he had one memorable line, providing I'm quoting this precisely: "Democrats don't have a problem defining torture." It's not just a pithy line, but defines a core difference between us and Republicans. Following the acting president, Republicans pretend torture and the laws against it, both domestic and international, are somehow unclear, and that there are people who are outlaws in the archaic sense of people outside the law's protection. Republicans forget that the debate over whether it's all right to use torture isn't about who the prisoners are, but who we are. We are at our core people who believe in the rule of law and respect for human rights. Democrats get that this isn't a complex issue. Torture is wrong. Period. And people willing to resort to it shouldn't have power over anybody.
September 19
You may have heard the story that Donald Rumsfeld, the worst secretary of defense ever, threatened to fire the next guy who said he needed to plan for Iraq after invasion. You probably didn't know that the story broke in an interview with one of the planners by a small daily newspaper, the Hampton Roads Daily Press. Reporter Stephanie Heinatz interviewed the commander of nearby Fort Eustis, Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, who was one of the planners of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. One telling quote: "Then, just as we were barely into Afghanistan ... Rumsfeld came and told us to get ready for Iraq." This explains the failure in Afghanistan. It's become general knowledge among observant people that we had enough forces to combine with the Northern Alliance to drive the Taliban from power and Al Qaida from its bases, but not enough to wipe them out and rebuild Afghanistan into a stable state able and willing to keep out the Taliban on its own. This confirms that it was not just inattention, but a deliberate decision to withdraw resources from Afghanistan with the war still raging in order to prepare for invading Iraq. This cock-up alone would cause resignations of responsible officials in most governments, but not the accountability-free administration of the acting president.
The other telling quote: "We thought this would go pretty fast and we'd be able to get out of there. We really didn't anticipate them to continue to fight the way they did or come back the way they are. Now we're going more toward a civil war. We didn't see that coming." He was speaking of Iraq. I didn't know how Iraq would go either, but I knew this: wars almost never go how those who start them predict. I can easily tick off examples of wars that went differently than expected by those who started them, but I have no examples where predictions were right. There are probably a few examples looking through all human history, but I ask readers to try to think of any. If you do think of any, check your history because you're probably wrong. That's how I knew the war wouldn't be a cakewalk, wouldn't be over in a few weeks. These aggressors however still won't admit a mistake, and seem not to have learned a thing judging by their anxiety to go to war with Iran or Syria. By the way, on November 7 you can remove their allies in Congress.
September 18
Remember this story from two and a half years ago, where it was reported that Bush opted not to attack Abu Musab Zarqawi because getting Zarqawi might undermine the case for invading Iraq? It sounds a bit like the scene in "The Path to 911" which caused the most controversy because it showed the Clinton administration declining to capture Osama Bin Laden even though they had him surrounded. The difference of course is Bush's blunder happened while Clinton's, specifically Sandy Berger's, blunder was made up. Realize that it was true believer neocons who lied in the movie about someone else doing what they really did.
The "Take the Red Pill Award" is awarded jointly to Pope Benedict and to Islamic fundamentalists in Mogadishu. Benedict receives it for his idiocy quoting a Byzantine emperor denouncing Islam in uncompromising terms, thinking he could be protected by that fact he was quoting someone, ignoring all the context of his remarks, and then duck out of it with a non-apology apology. He quoted Emperor Manuel II, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." It's not hard to see why Muslims would take offense. It's not that the pope was wrong about Islam being spread by the sword, but that's true of all major religions, including the pope's. But look at this apology: "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address which were considered offensive. These were in fact quotations from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought. The true meaning of my address ... in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect." He's sorry for the reactions, not his statement. It's one of those "I'm sorry you're so dumb you can't understand what I said and took offense. I regret you're an idiot". He could have said, "I said that entirely wrong, I didn't make my point clear, it's my fault and I apologize to those offended." The context not mentioned was that he used to be in charge of the Vatican office that used to be the inquisition, he's known to be strict about church doctrine, and it may not have been missed in the Muslim world like it was in the West that Byzantine emperors thought they represented God's will and had no hesitation using the sword to spread Christianity.
Benedict will have to share this award however with Islamic fundamentalists in Mogadishu, including Sheikh Abubakar Hassan Malin, who said, "Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim." Well, that disproves the point about Islam being spread by the sword. Now a nun in Mogadishu has been murdered, probably by fundamentalists encouraged to think God would want them to murder a woman because she was of the same religion as the pope, even when she's devoted her life to the poor of their country. The Islamic militia that now runs Mogadishu did arrest somebody, give them that much credit. But will the leaders of a theocracy speak out against the notion it's OK to kill infidels? Unless and until, they get to share the "Take the Red Pill Award".
September 17
I admit to a mistake in the last entry, September 12. I said, "...from the little I've heard of Alan Fine, he sounds better than most Republicans who actually win." It turns out he's a lying jerk. Before those of you not from Minnesota's 5th district jump away, be aware this is of national importance, because the Republicans plan to use Keith Ellison as a club to beat other Democrats.
Fine's been going after Ellison hammer and tongs since the primary last Tuesday. You might grant the benefit if doubt for his remarks right after the primary on the grounds he was ignorant of his opponent (which still doesn't speak well of him as a candidate) and believed the nonsense he was getting from conservative media. By Friday however, when he repeated the rantings of the right wing blogosphere in debates, he certainly knew Ellison had never been a member of Nation of Islam and that he denies even having met Louis Farrakhan and no one has ever shown the contrary.
I expect Ron Carey knows it too. He's state chairman for the GOP and he called upon DFL (Democratic Farmer Labor party, the Minnesota Democrats) candidates for governor and US Senate to denounce Ellison. This suggests at a minimum Republicans hope to make a statewide issue of Ellison, and they are trying to frame the issue by getting people outside the 5th district to start from the mistaken assumption Ellison is a bigoted extremist racist. If you start from the assumption someone is a bigoted extremist racist, then questions like, "Do you denounce this person?" and "Why does your party pick someone like that as a candidate?" seem reasonable.
My warning to Ellison, and Democrats nationally, is the falsehoods are going to be played up as true and used like the Wellstone memorial in 2002 the rile up those who've heard a little and don't know. The local conservative blog Powerline, which is one of the better known blogs nationally, today repeated much of a Katherine Kersten column from the Star Tribune, where she tries to substantiate the allegations by noting, get this, that the misinformation about Ellison was mentioned in Star Tribune stories years ago. That's right, because misinformation was stated back in the 90's, it can be used for proof today. Notice though that for all the denunciations of extremist statements, they can't quote any, because there aren't any. They best they have are statements giving the god side of anti-semites, for which Ellison has since apologized. Nobody has found an actual anti-semitic or anti-white statement. Demand a quote next time someone denounces Ellison for things he never said.
Nonetheless I predict Republicans will try to make him into an issue, and they will frame it as Ellison is a clone of Louis Farrakhan. Just like they got millions who never saw the Wellstone memorial to think a memorial was used as a partisan rally and thereby get angry at Democrats for being so crass, they will try to get millions of undecided and persuadable voters to think the Democrats in liberal Minneapolis nominated an anti-semitic white-hating friend of Islamic terrorists, and Democratic candidates will have to answer for why they tolerate that, and spend precious campaign time either trying to pierce the falsehoods, trying to dodge the question, and spreading the falsehood by denouncing the extremist statements that were never made. Already, a search on Topix for "Keith Ellison" showed that while most mentions are local, the story has been picked up nationally. Plus apparently he plays for the Buffalo Bills, though I suspect that's somebody else.
