Barney Frank will push to legalize marijuana

By Libby

I've been meaning to get to this one all weekend. Nicole Bell flags a story on Barney Frank's excellent intentions.

“I’m going to file a bill as soon as we go back to remove all federal penalties for the possession or use of small amounts of marijuana,” Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, told Maher.

“I finally got to the point where I think I can get away with it,” he said.

Frank said he thinks “its time for the politicians in this one to catch up to the public. The notion that you lock people up for smoking marijuana is pretty silly.”

Nicole thinks it won't go anywhere.

I am totally for legalization of marijuana, but I have to differ with Frank on this: to think that at this time with this administration that you could get away with a bill legalizing pot actually is what sounds silly.

I'd agree with her that the chances are slim to none of such a bill getting to the floor, much less passing in an election year, but in terms of Frank's personal strategy, it makes complete sense.

Barney is a long time advocate for marijuana policy reform and there is a large constituency in MA that supports legalization, or at least decrim. Further, marijuana reform is a hot issue in the Commonwealth this year. He has nothing to lose by bringing it forward and he will only endear himself further to an active and growing reform movement in the Commonwealth.

I don't know if he's facing any serious competition in a reelection bid, but he's smart to position himself to be able to tap into a well organized community of activists who will surely support his campaign. Besides, he's right. It is silly to be jailing tens of thousands of Americans for ingesting a natural herb.

Oh btw, we accidentally tossed those hard drives into the ocean

By Libby

It's not exactly suprising news, but it's now confirmed that the White House will not be turning over any of those thousands of damning emails. Why? Oh, just a twist on the classic excuse, the dog ate my homework.

WASHINGTON - Older White House computer hard drives have been destroyed, the White House disclosed to a federal court Friday in a controversy over millions of possibly missing e-mails from 2003 to 2005.

The White House revealed new information about how it handles its computers in an effort to persuade a federal magistrate it would be fruitless to undertake an e-mail recovery plan that the court proposed.

"When workstations are at the end of their lifecycle and retired ... the hard drives are generally sent offsite to another government entity for physical destruction," the White House said in a sworn declaration filed with U.S. Magistrate Judge John Facciola.

I read this and immediately remembered the day I discovered the true meaning of the word punkd. It was over an alleged April Fool joke, except that it was pulled in March and wasn't disclosed until April 4th, but perhaps some of you remember the photoshopped graphic of Rove holding a Coptix folder in Chatanooga.

As I said in comments to that post at the time, I saw an item in a local newspaper about it and the photo was real. Rove was in Chatanooga and so apparently was Bush. What were they doing there? It's hardly a customary whistle stop on a PR tour but it is coincidentally the home of the company that housed the offsite servers that stored the disputed emails. I noted at the time that Congress should have subpoenaed the hard drives before they were destroyed. Too bad they didn't take my advice.

Iraq, aims and evaluation

I am an evaluator and analyst by training and profession. When I have an initial meeting with the stakeholders who want me to do an interim or a post-facto outcome evaluation of a big project I ask three initial questions.

1) Is it okay to park where I parked?
2) Where's the coffee?
3) What were the reasons/objectives that this project/program was started and what are the desired end-states?

The third question allows me to start building an analytical framework to see whether or not the project was able to achieve desirable outcomes. Any action has to be fitted into a matrix of past history, surrounding environment, capabilities, constraints, worldviews, resources, and value based outcomes. Actions should be taken that further goals, and these goals should fit into a comprehensible and coherent strategy of change. Benchmarks, way points, quick-look dashboards, indicators of some sort should be built into every phase of a project so that the basic question of 'does this action make sense in relationship to a larger goal' and ' is this doing what needs to be done' can be asked and quickly answered.

A good indicator of a program in trouble is one in which the benchmarks frequently and randomly change, low accountability is rampant, individual actors are engaged in activities that are mutually contradictory to any strategic outcome and evaluation does not occur or is a farce. This basic policy analysis framework can and should be applied to most public policy problems and programs, including an analysis of the war in Iraq.

Tigerhawk, a proud 24%-er is kicking the goal posts so far that soon American football will be played on a cricket pitch as he engages in both objective re-setting and evaluatory punting

other than to say that the many contemporaneous objections to OIF -- including fatuous assertions by presidential candidates and their surrogates that it was the greatest foreign policy mistake in American history -- will shrink into nothingness upon the full rendering of the verdict of history. That will depend on one result and one only -- whether the Persian Gulf and the Arab world are much changed in the time elapsing before the writing of that history and whether that change has a salutary impact on the many in competencies of that region, or not. And who will write that history? A young scholar who was born too late to have experienced the passionate arguments and sharp politics of the last five years.

He is arguing that we can not evaluate properly for at least another ten to fifteen years (figure a 10 year old in 2003 will be finishing up his dissertation when he is between 27 and 30) and only if we assess against one, often unstated, metric of success that was not central except to a bunch of fringe bureaucratic infighters. And also while we ignore any concept of opportunity cost. Wow, Tigerhawk had a reputation a couple of years ago as a 'smart' warhawk.

Let's go back to the tape and see what the stated war aims were. Let's see what case Congress thought it was authorizing, what President Bush stated in his biggest address to the country concerning Iraq, and what was stated the night the war started. I think this is a fair collection of documents to read to discern the stated intentions of the United States government.


From the March 19, 2003 pre-war speech by President Bush ---

My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the
early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to
defend the world from grave danger....
The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Okay, so we got the precursor of 'fight them over there so they don't come here' as well as fear mongering on WMDs. We also get a hint of liberating the Iraqi people, although as soon as they wanted early local elections in the summer of 2003, we quashed that notion of local autonomy. But the primary stated purpose of this war was disarm Iraq. Iraq was already effectively disarmed years ago and the UN was able to verify that this process was nearing completion. Whoopsie!

From the 2002 Joint Authorization to Use Military Force (CSPAN PDF)

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

The pre-amble full of Whereas... is not legally binding but it mostly contained statements on disarming Iraq, enforcing UN sanctions or allegations (cleverly worded of course) on the connections between Iraq and Al-Queada. Again, this is being framed as a war of self-defense against a terrifying threat of a secretly re-armed Iraq.

Let's move to the next selection to see what the stated war aims are.
2003 State of the Union

America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm. We're strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world.....
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families....
If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him....
And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom.

Again, the war aims here are disarming Iraq and assisting the United Nations in enforcing its resolutions and sanctions. Nothing is written in the official war aims as promogulated by both Congress and President Bush in his two biggest speeches about the war concerning the creation of a cascade of positive externalities (which btw we aren't seeing) in the entire region.

Furthermore his analytical framework excludes both opportunity cost and the closely related concept of the counterfactual which are some of the core tenets of anything that vaguely wants to be called high quality policy analysis. As an whimper of begging for intellectual mercy, Tigerhawk and the sentiment he expresses of neglecting the next twenty years so that it can be properly analyzed while continuing on the same path is a joke, and not even a particularly funny one at that.

Point and click activism of the week

By Libby

I don't know how I get on these lists but Democrats.com, who bill themselves as the aggressive progressives, have a point and click petition you can sign that will be sent to your Congresslizards in the House and Senate on the side bar of this page, where you can also participate in an interesting fax-in asking them to bring the troops home.

I only sent a personalized message with the petition because I'm working through next Wednesday and don't have easy access to a fax and copier at the moment. If you do have time and access, I think the fax-in graphic idea sounds like great fun and a sure way to get their attention. In any event, signing the petition is a good two minute activism action for this week and a great way to commemorate the five year anniversary of this ill fated occupation.

Congress fouls consumers for corporate fairness

By Libby

Congress just held a hearing on credit card tricks and traps. The corporations and their lobbyists were allowed to speak for hours and dish out reams of statistics without disclosing the source of their data. Four citizen panelists that were supposed to testify in rebuttal didn't end up speaking because of an eleventh hour requirement that was conjured up in order "to be fair" to the corporations.

The people who had been invited to testify had flown in from around the country with their credit card bills in hand, only to learn that they couldn't talk unless they would sign a waiver that would permit the credit card companies to make public anything they wanted to tell about their financial records, their credit histories, their purchases, and so on. The Republicans and Democrats had worked out a deal "to be fair to the credit card lenders." These people couldn't say anything unless they were willing to let the credit card companies strip them naked in public.

Is there anybody who doubts these people would be subjected to worst sort of disclosures about their personal lives if they had signed the waiver? This brings to mind a story I didn't get around to blogging a couple of weeks ago about how Comcast blocked the public from attending a public hearing.

There was huge turnout at today’s public hearing in Boston on the future of the Internet. Hundreds of concerned citizens arrived to speak out on the importance of an open Internet. Many took the day off from work — standing outside in the Boston cold — to see the FCC Commissioners. But when they reach the door, they’re told they couldn’t come in.

Comcast — or someone who really, really likes Comcast — evidently bused in its own crowd. These seat-warmers, were paid to fill the room, a move that kept others from taking part.

They arrived en masse some 90 minutes before the hearing began and occupied almost every available seat, upon which many promptly fell asleep (picture above). One told us that he was “just getting paid to hold someone’s seat.” He added that he had no idea what the meeting was about.

Comcast later admitted they had stacked the room in their favor.

A number of people in the audience wore yellow highlighter marking pens on their shirts or jackets; Karr said that was to identify them to Comcast employees coordinating the company's appearance at the event. Khoury acknowledged that Comcast coordinated the employees that it brought to the hearing.

Which reminds me of this post at Cabdrollery that I never got around to flagging that reminds us what really sucked about the bankruptcy bill is that it punished ordinary people but allowed corporations to get away with passing their debts and responsibilities onto the taxpayers.

And the Libertarians wonder why I sneer when they speak of the free market? The only thing free about it is the free pass the corporations get for their relentless malfeasance.

We're winning on FISA

By Libby

Well blow me over with the wind of a butterfly's wing. The House passed a FISA bill today that did NOT include telecom immunity. As my friend Dax would say, just damn. Now it's far from over but it's just a little short of miraculous in my mind that we've come so far and so long in this fight.

I don't pretend to understand the procedural manuevers myself, but this diary at The Great Orange Satan explains how the House effectively forced the immunity supporters into a corner. Considering the long, sorry history of capitulation, I'm trying not to get my hopes up too far, but for the moment, it's fun to watch the White House sputter over the setback anyway.

Don't let anyone tell you that point and click activism doesn't make a difference. If we hadn't kept the pressure on, I doubt I would have been posting this today. Thanks to everyone who took the time to raise a ruckus and didn't give up even when it looked like all was lost.

And special props to the team led by FireDogLake and Glenn Greenwald, for pressuring the Bush Dogs into doing the right thing. Jane Hamsher has the details.

Bush Dogs innoculation votes fail

There are 39 Bush Dogs --- Democrats in Congress who, on big, partisan issues, vote to trust George W. Bush and his judgment against the rest of the Democratic caucus and 80%+ of the Democratic electorate. The Bush Dogs make up 16.8% of the Democratic House caucus. On national security issues, this group allows for conservative control of the process as Speaker Pelosi is operating under a majority of the whole instead of a majority of the majority rule set.

Most Bush Dogs are either Blue Dogs or New Dems, and they have formal internal party caucuses. The first purpose of a caucus is to have members help each other out. This often means electoral assistance with the goal of winning re-election. I have no problem with this, as the CBC, the Hispanic Caucus and the Progressive Caucus attempt to do the same thing with varying levels of effectiveness. People join caucuses on the basis of common identity and goals. So these two groups that vote against Dems believe that this is useful behavior to their own goals.

Why do they vote this way? It can be either that they personally believe in George W. Bush's judgment and vision for a cowering America, which is a harsh indictment of their own judgment. Or they believe that they are in districts which demand these reactionary votes, either from the point of view of voters, or more likely from their probable donor base. In this projected political calculation, a Bush Dog calculates that voting with the rest of the Democratic Party is very dangerous to their future political careers, so voting for Bush is a political innoculation to prevent a strong reactionary Republican challenge.

Yet this strategy is not working. One would expect that if Bush Dogs are voting their districts in voting for George W. Bush's policies and contortions of the Constitution, they would be on average, no more vulnerable to a challenge than most non-packed and stacked district Democrats. The National Republican Congressional Committee has released its initial target list of twenty four Democratically held seats it wants to field first string challengers against.

If the innoculation strategy works, one would expect roughly four Bush Dogs to be challenged, as that is the proportion of the Democratic Caucus that they compose. Instead a third of all of these 'first tier' challengers will be against Bush Dogs, for a relative risk of 2.0 for a Bush Dog compared to a generic House Democrat. That is a signifcant increase in risk if we assume that first tier challengers have a substantially higher probability of knocking off an incumbent than non-first tier challengers.

For the innoculation strategy to still be a viable strategy, one must assume that there are more Bush Dogs who the NRCC looked at and said 'Hmm, he is an entrenched incumbent with great constituent support, amazing fundraising and if only he had voted against telecom immunity we could beat him this year instead of the past eight attempts in a very favorable district....'

I don't think there are that many marginal Bush Dogs where one or two votes matter. So either the political calculation for innoculation is wrong, or their judgement is wrong as exhibited by supporting George W. Bush on a couple of crucial partisan matters.

FISA fight back on the front burner

By Libby

I'm so depressed over this that I avoided posting about it all day. Fortunately that gave Glenn Greenwald time to assemble the sorry facts on the Democrats' hopelessly self-destructive handling of the long expected capitulation on FISA.

Nicole Belle provides the proper outrage and assembles the coverage along with the action links. We probably still have the rest of the week to express our disgust, politely of course, to our faithless Representatives.

Meanwhile, McJoan has the latest on the corporate lobbying and discovers the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) is opposed to immunity. I find that a little encouraging. I think there's still some chance we could derail this backroom deal if we push back hard enough one more time.

Mukasey to Congress - what crime?

By Libby

'Shocking' news! AG Michael Mukasey refuses to pursue contempt charges against Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers for failing to comply with a Congressional subpoena. Employing his much touted brilliant legal analysis, our highly ethical, 'non-partisan' protector of the the royal ass rule of law deduces that if the president says they don't have to appear, well then, they just don't have to appear. Because you know in a monarchy representative democracy, the president is the law.

Fortunately, Eli at FDL finds that Pelosi was prepared for this unprecendented departure from legal norms.

Anticipating this response from the Administration, the House has already provided authority for the Judiciary Committee to file a civil enforcement action in federal district court and the House shall do so promptly. The American people demand that we uphold the law. As public officials, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect our system of checks and balances and our civil lawsuit seeks to do just that.

In perusing the reactions to this latest development in the White House War on The Constitution, I found this comment by Xenos at Balloon Juice most interesting.

My local congressman refuses to support impeachment, in spite of his constituents harassing his office constantly for a year now. He won’t give anything more than simple answer on the subject, but also will not deny rumours that he has told people the real reason why the House won’t impeach is that they have been threatened with martial law if they do. Was Mukasy placed there as part of a deal with Schumer and Fienstein that Mukasy gets to play these games for a year, but will block a Bush putsch that is in the works?

Sounds farfetched? Maybe, but when you consider what happened to former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, it sounds a little more plausible, doesn't it?

The Gitmo Tapes - Lies Of Omission

By Cernig

Just over a week ago, the Seton Hall Law’s Center for Policy and Research published a report that said military records and statements showed over 24,000 tapes had been made of interrogations carried out at Guantánamo Bay. The same day, a Washington Post article following up on that report said that many of those recordings might have been taped over, destroying valuable evidence. That article was based upon a court filing "by Guantanamo's commander, Rear Adm. Mark H. Buzby, who said video surveillance recordings in several areas of the facility have been automatically overwritten and no longer exist".

However, in an email and a comment to the versions of my posts on the subject over at At-Largely, Michael Ricciardelli - one of the co-authors of the Seton Hall Law report - wrote "to point out and highlight what the Military actually said, and didn't say--as opposed to the inferences and conjecture that have been drawn from what they have said." He says Buzby's statement and the press coverage of them "have misdirected and now obfuscate the issue" by confusing surveillance security tapes with tapes of the interrogations themselves. That means that the 24,000 tapes should still exist, somewhere.

Michael wrote (bolded parts are partly mine, partly his from his emailed version):

There seems to be some confusion stemming from the Military (there's a surprise) and the press concerning the "automatic over-writes" on the video recorders in hallways and common areas in Guantanamo. These cameras (think in terms of the video cameras in convenience stores-- but more sophisticated) were said to have recorded "day-to-day" "mundane" life at Guantanamo. According to the Military, every certain number of days these "hallway" and "common area" monitor recording systems automatically taped over themselves( i.e., were "overwritten").

These statements came from a declaration of Rear Admiral Mark H. Buzby, United States Navy on February 8, 2008 (case 1:05-cv-00023-RWR Document84-4; Washington Post, February 14, 2008). Importantly, these "hallway" and "common area" monitor recordings are specifically NOT video recordings of interrogations-- And the Rear Admiral is exceedingly careful to NOT say that they are in his declaration; though, perhaps, it could be anticipated that because of the way the declaration was made the media would confuse the two separate and distinct issues. Which is to say, that the responsive statement's by Rear Admiral Buzby have misdirected and now obfuscate the issue. As such, some of the media reporting has failed to make clear this distinction between the "day-to-day" video recording and the video recording of interrogations. This distinction, however, is readily apparent if one looks to the partially redacted text of Rear Admiral Buzby's declaration.

Paragraph 10 reads:

10. This declaration is not intended to provide a complete catalogue of all video and/or audio recordings made of detainees held at JTF-GTMO, although I am informed, and believe, that it is a complete discussion of those JTF-GTMO video and/or audio monitoring systems that included a standard recording feature as to which recorded data was automatically overwritten at specified intervals.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. (emphasis added)

8 Feb 08 Mark A. Buzby
Rear Admiral, United States Navy
Commander, Joint Task Force--
Guantanamo

No one wants to be subjected to perjury charges. Importantly, Rear Admiral Buzby specifically states that his declaration is "not intended to provide a complete catalogue of all video and/or audio recordings made of detainees held at JTF-GTMO." Also, he never mentions interrogations in his declaration. His declaration states that it refers to recordings of "day-to-day" occurrences i.e., "hallway activity," and common area activity such as "eating, praying and recreating." Importantly, interrogation does not come under this aegis.

Also of great importance, in his declaration, the Rear Admiral pointedly does not mention the buildings and rooms at Guantanamo which are dedicated to Interrogation. He does, however, expressly name a number of other physical locations within GTMO to which his declaration pertains. Voluminous research of Government documents has shown that the overwhelming majority of interrogations in Guantanamo occurred at Camp Delta and Camp X-Ray-- compounds specifically set up, equipped, and designated by the Military as the site for interrogations. Rear Admiral Buzby's declaration refers only to "Camps 4, 6, Echo and Iguana." Rear Admiral Buzby's declaration does not mention Camp Delta, Camp X-Ray or any other known interrogation site.

I would suggest, as I imagine would Rear Admiral Buzby, that his declaration pertains to the places and activities, and only the places and activities, which he expressly mentions. As he does not mention the dedicated interrogation buildings and rooms, his declaration thereby does not include video and/or audio recordings in the dedicated interrogation building and rooms. Thus, his declaration does not include a statement regarding the "automatic overwriting" of any videotapes produced at the interrogation sites and does not include the "overwriting" of interrogation videotapes.

In addition, the Rear Admiral states that his declaration is "a complete discussion of those JTF-GTMO video and/or audio monitoring systems that included a standard recording feature as to which recorded data was automatically overwritten at specified intervals." Which is to say that:

a) if the interrogation recording apparatus does not include "a standard recording feature as to which recorded data was automatically overwritten," it is not included in the Rear Admiral's declaration;

b) if the video recordings of interrogations were not "automatically overwritten at specified intervals" they are not included in the Rear Admiral's declaration-- which again, pointedly, is "not meant to provide a complete catalogue of video and/or audio recordings."

c) even if, contrary to everything else Rear Admiral Buzby states (or fails to state) in his declaration, for some hard to imagine reason the video recordings of interrogations were "automatically overwritten at specified intervals," that is pointedly not to say that they weren't also saved onto files and disks or transmitted electronically to the Pentagon's video data repository and clearing house, the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA).

The BSCT SOP, 2005:

Behavioral Science Consulatation Team
Joint Intelligence Group, Joint Task Force-GTMO
Standard Operating Procedures (U)
28 March 2005

6. Mission Essential Tasks

a) Provides consultation to interrogation staff in support of the intelligence collection mission.

b) Monitors Interrogations and other staff-detainee interactions...

9. Other Operational Procedures. The following procedures apply to the daily BSCT operations.

a.(1) Ensure that classified material (files, papers, photos, disks) are properly secured in the safe designated for BSCT use; at no time shall classified materials be left unattended in BSCT offices.


Those video recordings were/are a very valuable asset and resource to the teams of Interrogation Analysts employed at GTMO who could not all be at every interrogation. The Behavioral Science Cosultation Team ("BSCT"), a team of psychologists and psychiatrists charged with coming up with interrogation tactics to employ on detainees "to break them down," the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit ("BAU"), and the myriad other entitities employed by Defense Humint Services (DHS) (including private contractor analysts) ALL had reason to "check the tapes" and study carefully the subjects of their chosen profession. They would have been foolish (if not negligent) not to closely analyze video recordings of interrogations that they had made.

d) finally, video recordings would also preserve as "evidence" the statements that video recorded detainees may have made against themselves and against other detainees ("reliable" hearsay is admissable evidence in the Military "Hearings" and "Trials"). Records of such "evidence" would obviously be necessary in the event of a detainees transfer, release, change of story, or death. Video recordings of interrogations would also be invaluable as a training tool.

As you can see, the obfuscation and misdirection takes some time and effort to unravel, but it is ultimately discernible as just that-- obfuscation and misdirection. Rear Admiral Buzby's declaration addresses videotaping, but that is not to say that it addresses videotaping of interrogations.

In addition, the Military has responded that they were "not required" to videotape interrogations and did not do so "routinely." I would suggest that those statements are as important for what they do not say as what they have said. To say that one was "not required" to videotape interrogations is specifically NOT to say that one didn't videotape interrogations. And to say that one did not "routinely" videotape interrogations is also not to say that one didn't. Importantly, when given the opportunity to refute that they videotaped interrogations in Guantanamo, the Military, pointedly, did not.

Unfortunately, TV Stations and Newspapers seem to have neither the time nor the inclination to make such distinctions as are contained above. Which, I suppose, is where we come in. As such, please feel free to disseminate this post as freely and as widely as you like. Do what you can to shine further light on what are dim days for the Rule of Law.

Michael J. Ricciardelli

So there you have it. The military has not ever said it didn't record interrogations and statements on recordings are deliberately parsed in such a way as to sidestep possible contempt charges while simultaneously giving the misleading impression that no interrogation recordings which might have been made survived.

Yet standard procedure is for interrogations to be recorded and those recordings to be preserved.

Over to you, Congress. Time for some far more pointed questions and less blind acceptance of lawyer-speak.

Democrats still draconian on drug laws

By Libby

My dream of a sensible drug policy in the next administration died a long time ago. As Jeralyn points out, both our leading Democratic hopefuls have godawful positions on drug war policy but she also posts some very good news.

Congress in January cut funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant by two-thirds, from $520 million to $170 million for fiscal 2008. Local agencies say that's a threat to the officers who do much of the law enforcement spadework.

These Byrne task forces are responsible for some of the most egregious miscarriages of justice and violations of civil rights such as Tulia, Texas. They're a waste of tax dollars and do little more than invite corruption by law enforcement. I'm sorry they didn't abolish them altogether but this was a really good step in the right direction.

White House spins itself silly on FISA

By Libby

The WaPo and Newsweek are both promoting the latest White House propaganda on the expiration of the FISA 'fix.' DNI Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey are browbeating Congress and bleating about how the Democrats irresponsibly let the current temporary 'fix' lapse without rubberstamping the administration's preferred criminal cover-up, otherwise known as telecom immunity. They sent a handwringing letter crying over the telecoms reluctance to continue cooperating with the program. Of course, by the time the letter reached the press, the telecoms agreed to keep playing for pay. I don't want to think about what the White House promised them in return.

In terms of silly spin, this is the top ten. Maybe they forgot the reason the atrocious 'fix' expired in the first place was the work of Bush and GOP for purely political reasons. Glenn Greenwald reminds them.

McConnell acknowledged last week that the White House's refusal to extend the wiretapping law was meant to pressure Congress to pass the Senate bill.

So much for putting national security ahead of CYA politics. Even more amusing, since the White House spin has been that the telecoms did nothing illegal and they're just trying to protect the hapless corporations from bankruptcy via frivolous lawsuits, is this admission from the letter.

You imply that the emergency authorization process under FISA is an adequate substitute for the legislative authorities that have elapsed. This assertion reflects a basic misunderstanding about FISA's emergency authorization provisions. Specifically, you assert that the National Security Agency (NSA) or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) "may begin surveillance immediately" in an emergency situation. FISA requires far more, and it would be illegal to proceed as you suggest.

Sounds like a defacto confession of guilt to me. Which makes the lawsuits pretty damn relevant in uncovering the White House's criminality. I guess doublespeak even makes its best practitioners dizzy after a while. I don't know how it can get much sillier than this latest salvo.

On the plus side, it provides great fodder for creative YouTubes encouraging the Democrats to stand their ground and save the constitution. Meanwhile, if you lack the time and equipment to say it with pictures, here's this week's 30 second point and click activism. Sign the latest petition to stop telecom immunity.

I'll hold my breath until you're sorry!

Conservative leaning groups are forming a nice little circular firing squad. This time a decent size sector trade and lobbying group, the National Association of Home Builders, is threatening to withhold its political donations because the federal government has not handed them enough goodies in the past couple of years. Besides ensuring the only long bonds available were mortgages, keeping the regulatory barn door open after the horses were hitched, trotted out of the gate, ridden hard, rubbed down, put away, fed and taken out again the next morning, and getting the IRS residual value interest deduction that they lobbied for, they got absolutely nothing in the past couple of years.

The National Association of Home Builders said Tuesday its political action committee has decided to stop making contributions to candidates for Congress "until further notice."

Since 1990, the trade group has given nearly $20 million to federal candidates, with 35 percent going to Democrats and 65 percent to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

As a progressive I love this action. It marginally weakens Republican fundraising, although I have to ask how much disposable cash the NAHB has due to their entire market segment's current implosion. Even the money that the NAHB gave to Democrats went to conservative suburban/exurban expansion Democrats. This was money that is against my interests within the Democratic Party. A little less corporate suburban expansion cash marginally weakens the Mark Penns and Rahm Emmanuals of the party who argue that the Democrats must blur as many policy distinctions as possible in order to have any chance of running any decently funded candidates against slightly to signifcantly worse Republicans. Cutting the cash flow of the DLC/Bush Dog Democrats improves progressive interests and power in Congress by a marginal amount.

Please let their be a corporate donor strike this cycle; it would be great for my interests

WSJ reaches low for irrelevance

By Libby

Well, we all knew the WSJ would go further downhill once Rupert Murdoch got his clutches on the rag, but this editorial surely sounds the final death rattle of any sense of reason coming from their editorial office. I had to look at the masthead twice to make sure I'd hadn't inadvertently clicked into Faux News. They have of course been cheeringleading for telecom immunity for weeks now but this cheap shot at Obama for voting for the rule of law, takes the definitions of inane and mendacity to a whole new universe of meaning.

Don't even bother to click the link. It's a waste of three minutes that could be better spent in higher pursuits, like taking out the trash. But here's their closing graf to give you a sense of how far they've fallen from meaningful discourse.

The defeat of these antiwar amendments means the legislation now moves to the House in a strong position. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in the Dodd-Obama camp, but 21 Blue Dog Democrats have sent her a letter saying they are happy with the Senate bill. She may try to pass the restrictions that failed in the Senate, and Republicans should tell her to make their day. This is a fight Senator McCain should want to have right up through Election Day, with Democrats having to explain why they want to hamstring the best weapon -- real-time surveillance -- we have against al Qaeda.

I'm sure I don't need to point out how desperate these false memes look. It's sad really but I suppose on some level this pathetic abuse of bandwidth might be used as a primer by future generations who will someday study how once revered media commited suicide, so there is that.

Meanwhile, our last hope to overcome the snakes in the Senate who sold us out again and save the rule of law, now rests in Pelosi's hands. That point at least is true. You know what to do.

Through the looking glass

By Libby

Often times in the last seven years I've felt like we're living in Orwell's vision but this odd synchronicity feels more like Lewis Carroll. Bin Laden's approval rating in Pakistan has dropped to 24% which about mirrors the approval rating for our bi-partisan Congress and reflecting our president's current approval status, 70% of Pakistanis would love to see Musharraf quit his office.

As I often say, life is funny, but it's not a joke.

Mullen Says Army "Significantly Stressed"

By Cernig

Admiral Mullen, the US' top man in uniform, has told Congress that the Army is "significantly stressed" by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan:

"The pace of ongoing operations has prevented our forces from fully training for the full spectrum of operations and impacts our ability to be ready to counter future threats," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in testimony prepared for delivery Wednesday.

..."I am extremely concerned about the toll the current pace of operations is taking on them and on their families, on our equipment and on our ability to respond to crises and contingencies beyond ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said.

Mullen also said violence in Iraq has "substantially decreased," but that Afghanistan is facing "a growing insurgency, increasing violence and a burgeoning drug trade fueled by widespread poppy cultivation."

The real heart of the fight against Al Qaeda and it's satellite groups - the Afghan/Pakistan front - is in crisis while the Army's ability to respond to new threats has been severely limited because it is being drained by Bush's war of choice. Which is what those who favor withdrawal from Iraq have been saying - to rightwing cries of "defeatists!" - for some time now. Is Mullen one of those "phony troops"?

Meanwhile, SecDef Bob Gates can't even begin to guess roughly how many troops will still be committed to iraq in six months or a years time, despite the drop in violence. I wonder if he thinks, as many do, that the Surge's success will be temporary without radical positive action on reconcilliation? It would certainly appear so.

(But honestly, Mr. Gates, describing the Dept. of Defense as "the world's biggest supertanker" isn't going to help the administration's contention that Iraq wasn't all about oil and oil money. You've got a dark sense of humour there.)

Bush Steals Purse

By Cernig

Not content with stripping the Treasury only to hand it to his pals as corporate welfare, Bush has now stolen Congress' power of the purse. According to Bruce Fein, deputy AG to Reagan, in the Washington Times today:

Jan. 28, 2008, is a date that will live in congressional infamy. Congress surrendered the power of the purse over national security affairs to the White House.

President Bush appended a signing statement to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 denying the power of Congress to withhold funds for establishing permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, or to control its oil resources. The statement tacitly averred that Congress was required to appropriate money to support every presidential national security gambit, for example, launching pre-emptive wars anywhere on the planet or breaking and entering homes to gather foreign intelligence.

....The National Defense Authorization Act's restrictions on President Bush in Iraq were no novelty. Congress has repeatedly legislated to constrain the president's projection of the military abroad or has otherwise overridden his national security policies.

...Yet Congress acquiesced. It did not pass a resolution disputing Mr. Bush. It did not threaten impeachment. It meekly surrendered its national security relevance. Under the precedent it left undisturbed, the president could flout congressional prohibitions on spending funds to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, to invade North Korea, to conduct military offensives in Iraq, to install an anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic, or to assist Taiwan against a Chinese attack.

A combination of congressional inertness and imbecility has crippled the power of the purse to check executive abuses and craving for perpetual war. Mr. Bush is now crowned with more power than the Stuart kings.

Welcome to the Sixteeth Century, folks.

The great debate

By Libby

I didn't watch it. I'm going through a major crisis in the family and spent the evening on the telephone. In fact, I've spent more time on the phone in the last week than I have in the year prior. But in perusing the reactions, by all accounts it appears to have been something of a lovefest. My compatriot at The Reaction, Michael Stickings says the Democratic party was the winner. That sounds right to me but archcrone was less impressed and echoes my underlying discomfort.

We are left with a symbolic vote rather than a vote for real progress at a time when progress is needed most.

I can live with either candidate but I'm not thrilled with either of them. Despite all the lofty rhetoric about change, and all the excitement over the historic aspect of choosing either the woman or the black man to carry our banner, I just don't see either of them as offering much more than politics as usual. While I think we need a Democrat in the White House, I don't see the progressive agenda gaining much ground from it.

At this point, I'm still undecided on who to vote for and I'm inclined to focus my energy on getting progressive candidates elected to Congress. My House rep has a decent voting record, so I'm thinking my best move is to try to get Liz Dole kicked out of her comfy seat. I think that would make a bigger difference.

Bush signing statement negates will of the people -- again

By Libby

This flew under the radar this weekend. You remember that Bush made a big stink over the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act saying it would open up the Iraq government to punative lawsuits. I don't know why he bothered to bring it up. He could have just included the provision along with the others he's decided to ignore by sneakily issuing a signing statement.

One such provision sets up a commission to probe contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another expands protections for whistleblowers who work for government contractors. A third requires that U.S. intelligence agencies promptly respond to congressional requests for documents. And a fourth bars funding for permanent bases in Iraq and for any action that exercises U.S. control over Iraq’s oil money.

In his “Memorandum of Justification” for the waiver, Bush cited his Nov. 26 “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship” between Iraq and the United States. This agreement has been aggressively opposed by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress as not only unprecedented, but also potentially unconstitutional because it was enacted without the agreement of the legislation branch.

My compatriot Fogg nailed the crux of that agreement a few days ago.

George Bush's rhetoric is still all about freedom in Iraq and that means the freedom of George Bush to do what he pleases with Iraqis with impunity and immunity from any of the silly laws they pass under the false impression that they are free.

That could also describe the Commander Guy's true attitude about our country. But perhaps this picture sums up the Bush Doctrine and indeed his whole administration most succinctly.

And why do you suppose the Deciderer objects to fraud investigations, whistleblower protections and production of documents so strenuously as to override the rule of law enacted by the people? Do you suppose it has anything to do with this massive fraud?

This is what I mean when I say he can still do a lot of damage in the next 12 months. What's the point of spending all this time and effort to pass legislation when Bush will ignore whatever he doesn't like? The only way to stop him, or at least slow him down, is to start impeachment proceedings immediately.

Mukasey Still Won't Say (Update)

By Cernig

From the NY Times comes the shocking news that Attorney General Mike Mukasey is, after all, just as much a weasel as any other Bush henchling.

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said Tuesday that the harsh C.I.A. interrogation technique known as waterboarding was not clearly illegal, and suggested that it could be used against terrorism suspects once again if requested by the White House.

Mr. Mukasey’s statement came in a letter delivered Tuesday night to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has scheduled for Wednesday its first oversight hearing for the new attorney general. The conclusions of the letter are likely to be a focus of severe questioning by Senate Democrats who have described waterboarding, which creates the sensation of drowning, as torture.

“If this were an easy question, I would not be reluctant to offer my views,” Mr. Mukasey wrote to Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the committee.

“But with respect, I believe it is not an easy question,” he said. “There are some circumstances where current law would appear clearly to prohibit the use of waterboarding. Other circumstances would present a far closer question.”

The letter did not define any of the circumstances.

Now that Hillary is trying for a presidency of her own, we keep hearing afresh about Clenis and his weasel-words. But this administration has taken prevarication on the meaning of commonly understood words to a new height. "Legal", "war", "torture", "person", "democracy" and "victory" are just some of the dictionary of words they've redefined in fuzzier terms to suit themselves.

Maybe if Mukasey had himself waterboarded, he'd have an opinion then.

Update Via Think Progress, who have the vid, Ted Kennedy asked Mukasey today "Would waterboarding be torture if it was done to you?" The weasel then said "I would feel that it was." Which is really the basis of the Bush administration's defense - quibbling over whether what feels like torture to the victim actually is torture (it is, according to international treaties which the U.S. has ratified and thus made the law of the land.) Mukasey then goes on to ramble, in a weasely way, about Ciciro. You'd think he was the kind of liberal academic featured so prominently in wingnut myth, parsing and havering like that.