Glenn Greenwald is a “Far Leftist Idealogue”

Me too:

Here’s what I learned today about democracy and ideology as a result of my debate with Ed Kilgore and having read the comments to the piece I wrote about targeting Blue Dogs:

• If you believe in the Fourth Amendment, an end to the Iraq War, the rule of law for government and corporate criminals, a ban on torture, Congressional approval before the President can attack Iran, and the preservation of habeas corpus rights, then you’re a fringe, dogmatic Far Leftist ideologue, the kind who ruined the Democratic Party in 1968 and wants to do so again.   
• Even though the country is overwhelmingly against the Iraq War and intensely dislikes George Bush, it’s necessary for Congressional Democrats to support the Iraq War and accommodate George Bush’s demands so that they can remain popular and be re-elected.   
• If you oppose politicians who support laws that you think are destructive and wrong, then you’re an intolerant purist who hates dissent and doesn’t believe in democracy.   
• If you try to defeat in elections those politicians who support the things you don’t believe in, then you’re similar to — basically the same as — Nazis and Stalinists, because targeting politicians for electoral defeat who espouse views that you think are wrong is comparable to murdering political dissidents and requiring purity of thought.   
• Recruiting primary challengers to run against Democratic incumbents — and running ads to inform voters of what their Representatives are doing in Congress — is anti-democratic in the extreme.   
• Being a Good Democrat means embracing, welcoming and supporting members of Congress who support unnecessary wars, the evisceration of the Fourth Amendment, the abolition of habeas corpus, the use of torture, and protections for lawbreakers — as long as they place a “D” after their name when voting for those things.

Read the rest here

Strange Bedfellows

Joan Walsh “Betrayed by Obama”:

I actually have some sympathy for Obama. He was never the great progressive savior that his fans either thought he was, or peddled to their readers. While Arianna Huffington and Markos Moulitsas and Tom Hayden were hyping him as the progressive alternative to Hillary Clinton, Obama was getting away with backing a healthcare bill less progressive than Clinton’s, adopting GOP talking points on the Social Security “crisis” and double-talking on NAFTA. So why shouldn’t he think his “friends on the left” will put up with his abandoning other progressive causes?

I share Ms Walsh’s view of Obama.  Always have.  But, of course, the responsibility for the passage of the FISA legislation is not Obama’s alone.

Glenn Greenwald:

Historians writing about the Bush era were given a great gift yesterday — an iconic headline that explains so much of what has happened in this country over the last seven years:

Senate bows to Bush, approves surveillance bill

Their rationale for doing that is that it prevents the Republicans from depicting them as “weak,” because nothing exudes strength like bowing.

[…]

Yesterday’s episode also illustrates why I’ve been so ambivalent about campaigns such as those to demand that John Yoo lose his tenure. Although Yoo ought to be far outside of the mainstream of American political thought, he simply isn’t. The Democratic-led Congress yesterday just passed a bill by a wide margin that institutionalized Yoo’s signature theory — namely, that when the President orders something, then it is legal and proper, even if it’s against what Congress calls “the law.”

Why should we pretend that John Yoo is some sort of grotesque authoritarian aberration when his defining belief in presidential omnipotence is, to varying degrees, shared by the leaders of both parties? Yoo has long been mocked for his belief that the President — simply by uttering the magical phrase “National Security” — has the power to break the law, but Congress, yesterday, just passed a bill grounded in exactly that premise.

There are many things that one can say about what the Democrats did yesterday. Claiming that they showed how “strong” they are, or avoided being depicted by Republicans as “weak,” isn’t one of them.

[…]

John Cole makes the always-important point that to say that Democrats “surrendered” on this bill gives them too much credit in many cases. While some Democrats vote for measures like this out of standard, craven political fear, many — perhaps most — do so because they simply believe in the National Security and Surveillance State.  

On a more positive note, Howie Klein writes about (and lists) the 12 members of Congress and Congressional candidates who will receive $1,000 checks each from our Blue America fund for having stood very firm on the FISA bill. The list begins with Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd, and includes members of Congress from red states who nonetheless voted against the bill (Sen. Jon Tester of Montana); vulnerable freshmen who voted NAY (Rep. Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire); House members who are running for the Senate in tough states yet also voted NAY (Tom Allen in Maine and Rep. Tom Udall in New Mexico); and challengers who have been outspoken against telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping (Darcy Burner in Washington, Jim Hines in Connecticut and Rick Noriega in Texas).

Finally, this afternoon I’m going to interview Jameel Jaffer, the Director of the ACLU National Security Project, regarding the constitutional challenge the ACLU intends to bring against the FISA bill. I will post the podcast later this afternoon when it’s available. It’s important to recognize that yesterday’s defeat is not the end of anything. It should only fuel more resolute and resourceful battles in defense of these core political values.

It’s difficult for “outsiders” like me not to lose faith in the project that is America.  If not for Glenn Greenwald and people like him, for instance, the broad coalition that has formed to keep the FISA crimes before the American public by coordinating the Strange Bedfellows Money Bomb, I’d have to give my “faith” a respectful burial.

Footnote:  My critique of American politics should not be mistaken for a statement of confidence in the political governors of Canada.  There is no reason for such confidence.  The latest evidence that such confidence would be misplaced is the performance of our “leader” at the G8 summit and his continuing lack of concern about the treatment of Canadian child soldier Omar Khadr by the US government and the US military at Guantanamo Bay.  I hold the Canadian government responsible, by their silence and lack of action, for his torture.  Stephen Harper takes his orders from George W. Bush.  We are a colony of a foreign Empire again.  It just has a new name.

It’s sad.  It’s all so sad.  Let’s change it.  YES WE CAN!

Bad Times

The decision of Canada’s Federal Court today to stay the deportation order for Corey Glass was the only good news I got.  Here’s the rest of it [depression warning]:

Democratic led Congress – with the support of those clones, John McCain and Barack Obama – voted to violate the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and cover up the surveillance crimes of the George W. Bush administration – a day that will live in infamy

Barack Obama was a complete sell-out on the FISA bill, voting in favour of it as well as for “cloture” which prevented the filibustre he wasn’t intending to undertake in any case; but Obama’s hypocrisy isn’t really news any more

Glenn Greenwald says:

What is most striking is that when the Congress was controlled by the GOP — when the Senate was run by Bill Frist and the House by Denny Hastert — the Bush administration attempted to have a bill passed very similar to the one that just passed today. But they were unable to do so. The administration had to wait until Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took over Congress before being able to put a corrupt end to the scandal that began when, in December of 2005, the New York Times revealed that the President had been breaking the law for years by spying on Americans without the warrants required by law.

Iran conducted a missile test in response to Israel’s test attack fighter jet flight several weeks ago; and, answering to increasingly hostile rhetoric in the US and UK, Iran promised to retaliate if attacked;  in unison, and without substantial disagreement, John McCain and Barack Obama behaved as though the US was under immediate threat of attack and promised to fight back – whah?

The G8 completely failed the world on making carbon cuts that might, just might, save the planet

Barbara Boxer exposed a cover-up orchestrated by Dick Cheney to prevent the EPA from tackling greenhouse emissions

Japan used repressive tactics against protesters at the G8 summit

Barack Obama assured people who are concerned about his shift to the center that the problem is them – they’re just not listening, he says:  “I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive…”   Ahh, I feel so much better

The Royal Court of Justice in UK considered whether or not “the sounds of slapping and thwacking” at a Chelsea sex party hosted by Max Mosley accompanied a Nazi concentration camp motif or was an occasion on which  “the use of guttural commands in German, an old Luftwaffe jacket and military-style caps and boots had nothing at all to do with Nazi fantasies”.

The Caucus Blog at NYT proclaimed:  “A Trailer Woman Beseeches Obama”

Seven UN-AU peacekeepers were slain in Darfur

The Canadian government knew that child soldier Omar Khadr was being tortured at Guantanamo Bay and did absolutely fuck all about it

In an outburst of road rage, a Toronto man ran a fellow motorist off the road on the Queen Elizabeth Way and killed him

Jon Benet Ramsay’s parents didn’t kill her.  Of course, her mother, Patsy, died before she could be told of her innocence

The trouble with this is, I could go on.

UPDATE:  The ACLU is going to mount a court challenge to the FISA Bill as soon as the Shrub signs it

UPDATE II:  Here’s what PM Stephen Harper had to say about the G8 carbon emission … gee, what are they calling what they did anyway?  Never mind, here’s what Harper said:

The argument that we should do more is an interesting argument, but it can’t be made by those who aren’t doing anything, so I think the pressure will be on them to do something,” the prime minister told reporters …

I’m not kidding.  Look here

Dodd Hates FISA

Sen Chris Dodd on the Senate floor, hating the FISA “compromise”:

Under the legislation before us, the district court would simply decide whether or not the telecommunication companies received documentation stating that the President authorized the program and that there had been some sort of determination that it was legal.  

But, as the Intelligence Committee has already made clear, we already KNOW that this happened. 

We already KNOW that the companies received some form of documentation, with some sort of legal determination.  

But that’s not the question.  The question is not whether these companies received a “document” from the White House. The question is, “were their actions legal?”  It’s rather straightforward-surprisingly uncomplicated.  

Either the companies were presented with a warrant, or they weren’t.  Either the companies and the President acted outside of the rule of law, or they followed it.  Either the underlying program was legal or it wasn’t. 

Because of this legislation, none of the questions will be answered, Mr. President.  Because of this so-called “compromise,” the judge’s hands will be tied, and the outcome of these cases will be predetermined.  Because of this compromise, retroactive immunity will be granted and that, as they say, will be that.  Case closed. 

No court will rule on the legality of the telecommunications companies activities in participating in the president’s warrantless wiretapping program.  

None of our fellow Americans will have their day in court. 

What they will have is a government that has sanctioned lawlessness.  

Well, I refuse to accept that, Mr. President.  I refuse to accept the argument that because this situation is just too delicate, too complicated, that this body is simply going to go ahead and sanction lawlessness.  

We are better than that.

It’s the LAW, stupid!

Quotes of the Day

“Never appease political bullies,” said President Bush to the Israeli Knesset

From Glenn Greenwald at Salon re: the FISA legislation:

The only objective of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer is to have a 50-seat majority rather than a 35-seat majority, and if enabling the Bush administration’s lawbreaking and demolishing core constitutional protections can assist somewhat with that goal, then that it what they will do. That’s what they are saying all but explicitly here.

And Greenwald again, here:

When the history of the post 9/11-era in America is written, it will record that our country was ruled by an administration as radical as it was contemptuous of our laws and basic liberties, but was also aided and abetted every step of the way by a putative “opposition party” too craven and/or supportive even to attempt to impede any of it, let alone succeed in doing so. The very few times when certain of its members tried to take principled stances of the type Britain is now witnessing — such as Feingold’s vigorous opposition to Bush’s illegal spying program, the Military Commissions Act, and excesses of the Patriot Act — the Democratic Party leadership itself intervened to quash them and ensure they failed.

Gotta love it. Go after Obama!

And don’t forget Aziz Huq at The Nation.

Obama & FISA

Thanks Glenn Greenwald:

Numerous individuals stepped forward to assure us that there was only one small bad part of this bill — the part which immunizes lawbreaking telecoms — and since Obama says that he opposes that part, there is no basis for criticizing him for what he did. Besides, even if Obama decided to support an imperfect bill, it’s our duty to refrain from voicing any criticism of him, because the Only Thing That Matters is that Barack Obama be put in the Oval Office, and we must do anything and everything — including remain silent when he embraces a full-scale assault on the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law — because every goal is now subordinate to electing Barack Obama our new Leader.

It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this “compromise” bill is the telecom amnesty part. It’s true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill’s expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions. The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.

[…]

 The excuse that Obama’s support for this bill is politically shrewd is — even if accurate — neither a defense of what he did nor a reason to refrain from loudly criticizing him for it. Actually, it’s the opposite. It’s precisely because Obama is calculating that he can — without real consequence — trample upon the political values of those who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law that it’s necessary to do what one can to change that calculus. Telling Obama that you’ll cheer for him no matter what he does, that you’ll vest in him Blind Faith that anything he does is done with the purest of motives, ensures that he will continue to ignore you and your political interests.

Read the rest.  And don’t let St. Barack off the hook! Geez, at least when Richard Nixon fucked with the Constitution he tried to hide it.