As the Resistance Becomes Class War

 Tom Sullivan at Digby:

While You're Not Looking, Bush is Grabbing More Power

While you're distracted - either laughing hysterically at Caribou Barbie and Droopy Diapers McShame, or frantically stuffing all your cash into a mattress - Smirky/Darth is pushing through Congress their biggest dictatorial power grab yet.

Forget the Patriot Act - the real stealth legislation has always been AUMF, and the proposed "reauthorization" is a four-alarm bitch.

Seven years ago Thursday, Congress passed a statute in response to the horrible attacks of 9/11, inflicted on our nation the week before. That law became the basis for sweeping assertions of government power, including warrantless wiretapping, detentions in the continental United States and at Guantanamo Bay, targeted assassinations, extraordinary renditions, and coercive interrogations. Now, in the few days it has left, the Bush administration wants to expand this law. That would be a mistake.

SNIP

Although you would not know it from comparing the public responses to these two laws, the Bush administration has depended on the AUMF, not the Patriot Act, to authorize its boldest practices. Now, President Bush and his supporters in Congress are seeking a new AUMF because even conservative judges on the federal courts have trimmed the exaggerated readings that the administration has given the 2001 law.

SNIP

But reaffirming or expanding the AUMF would pose a number of dangers. The AUMF broadly states that the president may use "all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent future terrorist attacks. That breadth of language led the administration to claim the AUMF authorized a vast range of practices, such as warrantless wiretapping, that Congress never had any inkling of when it passed the law. Only some of those programs have come to light; we know little about what else lurks under the auspices of the AUMF.

The AUMF also has no time limit. The consequences are revealed in the administration's claims that it can detain an individual indefinitely in the war on terror, even after he has completely served the sentence imposed on him by a jury in a military tribunal. A law giving the president perpetual war powers is an anomaly in our constitutional system. Moreover, the AUMF gives Congress no ongoing oversight role in the war on terror. It does not mandate that the administration report to Congress on what it has done.

The AUMF has avoided political scrutiny because nobody, including members of Congress, knows what it allegedly authorizes. In many cases, including its warrantless surveillance program, the administration has never publicly acknowledged the policies it bases on the AUMF.

The new legislation before Congress would reaffirm "that the United States is in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad." In addition, the new bill would explicitly confer broad and novel preventive-detention authority on the president. It also "reaffirms" that "the President is authorized to detain enemy combatants in connection with the continuing armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, regardless of the place of capture, until the termination of hostilities."

SNIP

The phrasing of the new legislation has several aims. First, "reaffirm" acts as if the president already had this authority for detentions that are now being challenged in court, when in fact he didn't. Second, the language about "continuing armed conflict" and "associated forces" expands the scope of the original AUMF—those who attacked us on 9/11—to any number of interlinked groups around the world. Third, "regardless of the place of capture" would give the president authority to detain people right here in the United States, a power that has been hotly contested in the court cases of Jose Padilla and Ali al-Marri. And, fourth, "until the termination of hostilities" would provide for indefinite detention, purportedly preventing courts from imposing any sort of time limits.

Seven years ago, the AUMF made sense as an immediate response to 9/11. But now it can no longer be the legal foundation for the war on terror. Rather than doubling down by expanding the law, Congress should work with the next administration to lay out a clear statutory framework for what powers the president has, who exactly we are engaged in armed conflict with, and how long these powers may be used. Two must-haves: a sunset provision and detailed reporting requirements so that Congress knows what the president is doing in implementing the law. In fact, the Patriot Act just might serve as a pretty good model.

Read the whole thing.

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.

Who's Afraid of the Fourth Amendment?

The determination of Democrats in Congress to hand dictatorial powers to Smirky-Darth and amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms who spied on innocent Americans is far more complicated that it appears, as Glenn Greenwald makes clear.

But in addition to cowardice, corruption, political calculation, plain stupidity and old-fashioned bribery and blackmail, the FISA debate was for a moment or two distinguished by the rarest kind of passionate rhetoric in defense of American Democracy and the Constitution.

Chris Dodd went to the Senate floor last night to speak against the FISA bill and delivered one of the most compelling and inspired speeches by a prominent politician that I've heard in quite some time. He tied the core corruption of the FISA bill's telecom amnesty and warranltess eavesdropping provisions into the whole litany of the Bush administration's lawless and destructive behavior over the last seven years -- from torture and rendition to the abuse of secrecy instruments and Guantanamo mock trials -- with a focus on the way in which telecom amnesty further demolishes the rule of law among our political class.

That speech signals that the small minority in the Senate devoted to stopping this bill have made this a priority. Small, vocal, passionate minorities in the Senate -- backed up by vocal, passionate and engaged citizens -- can do much to prevent a bill's quick and painless passage. Dodd's speech can be seen and/or read here.

As salon commenter Wabanatta put it:

"Damn, a speech like that reminds me of when actual patriots roamed the halls of congress."

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.

My Wingnut Freakazoid Congress-scum is Worse Than Your Wingnut Freakazoid Congress-scum

Dear Hollywood: The above is the title of my enclosed reality-show "treatment" (that's what they call proposals on the Left Coast.)

Please send by return mail (self-addressed, stamped envelope enclosed) a six-figure check as soon as possible. You're welcome.

Episode One: Our First Contestant is six-term Republican Representative Ron Lewis, of Kentucky's Second District. Lewis is infamous for two things:

• Getting personally plucked out of rural obscurity to run for Congress by none other than the Godfather of Kentucky Republican politics, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
• Earning a "power ranking" near the bottom of Congressional republicans in 2006, despite 10 years in office.

But don't think for a minute that Rep. Lewis is not on top of the issues that matter most to his constituents in the Second District, which is plagued by both rural and urban poverty, low education and high dropout levels, epidemics of both methamphetamine AND oxycontin abuse, high unemployment, growing crime, an agricultural economy flat on its back and no hope for alleviation of any of the former.

No, indeedy, Rep. Lewis knows exactly what the good people of the Second District need:

More mentions of god in government documents!

Oh, Hallelujah and praisethelord that Rep. Lewis was there to chastise the godless commies of the federal government for trying to take god away from an Eagle Scout!

(From the email sent today to Rep. Lewis' constituents:)

Earlier this month, Andrew Larochelle, a 17-year-old Eagle Scout from Dayton, OH, requested a flag flown over the U.S. Capitol as a gift for his grandfather. Andrew asked that the official certificate accompanying his flag read: "This flag was flown in honor of Marcel Larochelle, my grandfather, for his dedication and love of God, country and family." However, the Architect of the Capitol, who oversees flag requests, chose to remove God from the inscription, citing a recent policy to ban religious and political expressions on official certificates. Upon learning of this, I joined many of my colleagues in demanding that this policy be changed. It is an outrage that bureaucrats are able to unilaterally eliminate references to faith from public institutions. Each daily session of Congress begins with a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, affirming that we are One Nation Under God. I believe that the traditions of the U.S. House of Representatives should continue to reflect that truth.
Rep. Lewis greets Andrew Larochelle during his visit to the Capitol and to discuss changes in the Architect of the Capitol's policy on flag certificates
The acting Architect of the Capitol, Stephen Ayers, has since agreed to revise guidelines on Capitol flag certificates. Employees of the Architect of the Capitol's office raise and lower flags flown over the U.S Capitol Building during sessions of Congress to meet an estimated 100,000 requests per year. Constituents can purchase these flags at a nominal cost through their Member of Congress. I was honored to meet Andrew Larochelle and his grandfather Marcel at the U.S. Capitol Tuesday morning as they were finally presented with a flag and amended certificate that included God. The American flag is the unique symbol embodying this nation’s culture, values and history. I commend Andrew for successfully fighting to restore an important tradition that has endured in the U.S. Congress for generations.

HA! Let's see YOUR Wingnut Freakazoid Congress-scum beat THAT!

OK, in the first place, I do not believe this bullshit for a minute. I guarantee you that if anyone requested their U.S. Capitol-flown flag certificate mention god, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or even Allah, no one would so much as blink, much less object.

In the second place, shame on them for NOT objecting. Anyone who thinks or even imagines that any mention of any deity whatsoever belongs anywhere within spitting distance of any federal, state or local government entity of any kind, shape or form should be stripped of the right to vote and made to write 1,787 times on the blackboard:

I will not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Road Out of Iraq Leads Through David Vitter

The Rude Pundit gets way too much attention for his Triple-X-rated rants, and nowhere near enough for his dead-on and usually unique political insights.

On Tuesday, he revealed the possible way out for Democrats on Iraq by forcing David Vitter out of office before November.

Read the whole thing, but Rude starts from the premise that the only thing keeping Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats from telling Smirky and Darth to fuck off and die is the threat of Joe Lieberman throwing the Senate to the Republicans (Cheney tie-breaker.) So far, so conventional wisdom. But then Rude makes the leap that could save the dems' ass - and as a bonus, the nation and the planet.

(Excerpt edited from XXX to merely X-rated.)

So Senate Democrats have gotta get rid of the Lieberman factor. With one more Democratic Senator, Lieberman will no longer control which way the wind blows until 2009.

And that's where David Vitter comes back into the equation. The oughta-be-disgraced, whoremongering Republican Senator from Louisiana has been embraced back into the Republican fold, as if he's a big goddamn hero for having kept his crimes hidden until after the statute of limitations had run out on him being arrested for soliciting hookers. Of course it's the basest sexual hypocrisy that Republicans went after Larry Craig because the Idaho Senator's case involved gay fucking and because Idaho's got a Republican governor and Louisiana's got a Democrat.

But here's the deal on Vitter: Republicans only have to stand by him until the end of the year. Louisiana elects a new governor this year, in 2007, with an open primary in October and a general election, if needed, in November. And you can sure as s**t bet a Republican's gonna win post-Katrina and Rita, probably Bobby Jindal. So, in as much as the Rude Pundit does the prognosticatin', Vitter's gone in January, so that no Republican running for President has to deal with questions of Republican sexual hypocrisy (at least as relates to current scandals). And, barring any other surprises, the same Lieberman-centric Senate until 2009.

So here's the deal: Democrats have to go Rove on Vitter. They have only a few months to get him out of there, so it's time to bring out the political demons in a savage way that pussies like Bob Shrum have nightmares about. Get the prostitutes out in front of the cameras, talking to Larry King about how Vitter likes to s**t himself in diapers and then get spanked while getting wiped by big-titted sluts. Get front groups to make ads about what a sleazy motherf***er Vitter is. Get outraged Senators talking to the pumpkinhead of Tim Russert about how it's just impossible to work with a man like Vitter. Take different angles: Barbara Boxer can talk about his exploitation of women, Mark Pryor or Ken Salazar can talk about how Vitter demeans the Senate by his presence and how can they be expected to hold their vomit in while working with a man like that.

Chase that motherf***er out of town and do it for a good cause: to end the war. You get rid of Vitter, you save American lives. Surely Democrats can wallow in the mud for a little while for such a noble end.

Yeah, I know, what makes me think that this time the dems will actually show some spine.

But this time there's no downside, no risk, no way to lose. Attacking Vitter is win-win-win: acquire a real majority in the Senate, marginalize Lieberman, and grow a gigantic set of brass ones.

Hell, get Rahm Emmanuel out of the House to lead the charge - I hate him for a DLC stooge, but that Chicago boy knows how to play dirty.

C'mon, Harry: you have nothing to lose, and literally the entire world to gain.

Falling for the Same Old Line

There are probably 57 different reasons why 16 Democratic Senators (including Jim Webb! - my heart's broken) and 41 Democratic Representatives voted to gut the Fourth Amendment and give The Usurper dictatorial powers.

But if the primary reason was that those 57 dems actually fell - AGAIN - for Rovian fear-mongering, Glenn Greenwald in Salon demolishes that excuse.

Read the whole thing, but here's a taste:

We do not need to wonder or speculate about what might happen if Democrats obstruct warrantless eavesdropping legislation and Republicans are then able to make an issue of it politically. That already happened in 2006. That was Rove's whole strategy. It failed miserably, across the board. And yet the Democratic leadership just permitted, and many Democrats supported, a wild expansion of George Bush's warrantless eavesdropping powers based on a jittery fear of this already-failed tactic, if not based on actual support for these increased eavesdropping powers.

In this post and this one Glenn also makes the point that the 57th Retreating Dems aren't as big a problem as the Democratic "leadership" in both houses, which could have put a stop to the disaster by simply rejecting Smirky's order to pass the law or else.

Takin' Names for 2008

UPDATE Below

I hereby nominate Sixth District Congressman Ben Chandler, D-KY, for the first name on the DINO Hit List to get a progressive primary opponent in 2008.

The treasonous schmuck was one of 41 "Democrats" voting to let the Usurper put the finishing touches on his American Dictatorship.

In January, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave Sophmore Chandler a seat on the powerful Appropriations Committee, as a fairly obvious incentive to get him to vote the straight and narrow on the Democratic agenda.

At first it seemed to work, too. Benny voted in line with the leadership on most of the important votes, most recently co-sponsoring a bill to impeach AG Alberto Gonzales.

But Benny's been a shill for this maladministration since his special election in 2004, and now he's reverting to form.

Look, I understand the importance of not eating our young, keeping the majority, red-state politics, blah, blah, blah.

But a vote that blatantly invites Smirky to shit on the Bill of Rights? An engraved invitation to declare himself dictator-for-life? When bush's disapproval rate is poised to exceed Nixon's? When republicans are running for the exits? When a significant majority of Americans trust DEMOCRATS more than republicans on the war on terror?

What. The. Fuck?

No, scratch that. I don't really care what slimy rationalizations float in Chandler's wingnut brain.

With Democrats like Chandler (and Nick Lampson and Henry Cuellar, the ungrateful bastards), what do we need with republicans?

We - real Democrats, liberals, progressive, members of the reality-based community, bush-haters all - WE got these assholes elected. WE handed them the House and the Senate.

WE brought them into this new Democratic world, and WE can take them out of it.

Next year, people will not only be looking for a way to punish republicans hard, they'll also be looking for a way to punish Democratic Collaborators.

2008 is going to be our best chance to not just grab huge majorities in both houses of Congress, but to replace Democratic Collaborators with Real Democrats.

Check out this vote roll to find out whether your Democratic representative is a collaborator. If he or she voted yes, start recruiting a primary opponent today.

Do it now, before voting Democratic makes you an enemy combatant, Guantanamo-bound.

I am extremely relieved and proud to announce that Louisville's own John Yarmuth, D-KY voted keep the Bill of Rights and deny Smirky a crown.

UPDATE, 7:18 p.m.: Logical Negativism has the full list of House Blue Dogs.