The Presidency and Precedents

What hath Obama wrought?

Conor Friedersdorf:

Despite all these instances of the U.S. accusing innocent people of crimes against America, sometimes torturing them and imprisoning them for years on end, President Obama is sufficiently confident in federal officials, including the CIA -- one of the least accountable, least transparent branches of government, and one with a less than perfect record getting accurate intelligence -- that he regards it as good, prudent policy to pronounce death sentences upon American citizens, in clear violation of the 5th Amendment, without even a safeguard as basic as a classified trial in absentia and a judge to do due diligence on the alleged evidence. And this extraordinary power, with its obvious potential for catastrophic abuses, is vested in one man who'll leave office in one or five years, to be replaced by an as yet undetermined politician -- perhaps Rick Perry, who presided over Texas when it executed the likely innocent Cameron Todd Willingham, despite a trial with forensic testimony and a years long appeal process.

President Obama has perhaps forever changed the relationship between the United States government and its citizens, setting a precedent as damaging as anything a modern president has done, and the appropriate reaction, whatever one's partisan or ideological orientation, is shock and anger at his hubris and imprudence. Depending on the GOP nominee in 2012, I may well decide that I can't vote for him or her in good conscience. But today, as Obama celebrates the extra-legal assassination of an American, and sets the precedent that the president can kill citizens without due process if he or she pronounces them a terrorist, I know that I cannot in good conscience cast a vote to re-elect him. If you're even a little bit of a civil libertarian, and this didn't cost Obama your vote, I'd ask you to ponder this question: What transgression would?

Dueling Statistics

Couple of interesting maps I came across today:

The first comes from the Guardian and shows a state by state breakdown of firearm homicides.

The second comes from information provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and ranks states by the numbers of gun control laws they have on the books.

So...what's up California?

Obviously, it's foolish to assume that a correlation between the number of gun control laws on the books and the prevalence of gun violence necessarily implies a causation. Clearly, a larger state like California is always going to have more homicides than a smaller state like Montana.

That said, if you adjust the first map to show firearm murders as a percentage of overall murders, you get some rather interesting groupings: California continues to have as high or higher numbers than many states that have lax laws and small populations regardless of the number of laws California has on the books.

2012 Watch - Quote of the Day Edition

Frankly, there really wasn't much to say about last nights debate. A couple of quick thoughts though:

1) Though I'd rather see the nation run by a rock or a twig or a parrot or a can of beans, I think that Perry's defense of allowing the children of undocumented immigrants access to cheaper in-state tuition was spot on. There is no good reason to deny children that were brought somewhere through no fault of their own, a chance at improving there lives. He characterized it as heartless and I agree. I'd go further and say that it's destructive: the last thing any country needs is a population of two year olds doomed to spend the rest of their life in second class status.

2) The GOP booed a soldier. The sexuality of said soldier is irrelevant. They booed a soldier and they're probably gonna have some 'splainin' to do.

And finally, your Quote of the Day concerning the debate. From Reason:

Speaking of dogs, that’s who this debate was for. Literally. The Fox News anchors who moderated the showdown announced early on that they’d changed the time’s-up sound from the last debate after multiple complaints that the previous ding sounded too much like a doorbell—and was freaking out viewers’ puppies.

I was wondering about that Google bonk noise...

2012 Watch - Good News, Bad News Edition

It's unusual for me to give kudos to FOX news but...I'm happy that they've decided to give time to (extreme longshot) presidential candidate, Gary Johnson tonight. I agree with the Guardian. He's simply too rational and realistic to fit in to the general GOP zeitgeist:

But in the eyes of debate gate-keepers, what sets Johnson apart are his views on social issues (as well as his libertarian position on immigration). On these, he has more in common with the rest of America (which is lackadaisically libertarian when it comes to other people's drug use and sex life) than with the rest of the GOP. And while our antiquated and unfair primary system (which has a lot in common with the debates) means that only candidates who can appropriately mouth the social conservative views of the Republican base have a chance at the nomination, poll after poll indicates that these are not the issues that will decide who actually becomes president. However outside his path to the GOP convention, Johnson's inclusion in the debates leading up to it could pull the discussions themselves further towards relevancy.

Meanwhile, front-runner Rick Perry has released this piece of apocalyptic lunacy:

Buffalo Soldiers

Not a very nice thing from the Cherokee Nation:

TULSA, Okla. — One of the nation’s largest American Indian tribes has sent letters to about 2,800 descendants of slaves once owned by its members, revoking their citizenship and cutting their medical care, food stipends, low-income homeowners’ assistance and other services.

The Cherokee Nation acted this week after its Supreme Court upheld the results of a 2007 special vote to amend the Cherokee constitution and remove the slaves’ descendants and other non-Indians from tribal rolls. The 300,000-member tribe is the biggest in Oklahoma, although many of its members live elsewhere.

Certainly, I understand that they have economic issues the same as anyone else but revoking the citizenship of people who have held it for generations? Since the end of the Civil War? Surely, there are better ways to balance a budget.

Change

Glenn Greenwald takes a look at a devastating report from the ACLU on civil liberties during the Obama administration. What are we looking at here? It is not hyperbolic to call it W's third term:

But the primary cause of this Bush-Obama continuity is the vigorous embrace by both Presidents of the same theory of war and Terrorism -- the unlimited global battlefield and the President's resulting unconstrained power to act anywhere in the world without limits -- which was once so controversial during the Bush presidency but has now become mainstream, bipartisan consensus.

Which explains quite nicely Obama's assertion that as the executive, he can target an American citizen for execution, far from any battlefield with a complete lack of Congressional or judicial oversight.

Power corrupts:

Either way, this creeping unchecked authoritarianism marches forward unabated, and is now -- rather than the province of the right-wing GOP -- fully bipartisan consensus.  I really don't understand how progressives think they'll be taken seriously the next time there is a GOP President and they try to resurrect their feigned concern for these matters; they'll be every bit as credible as conservatives who pretend to be deficit-warriors and defenders of restrained government only when the other party is in power.  

But even that ultimately matters little: so entrenched is this institutional militarism, secrecy, surveillance and authoritarianism that even if there were greater public debate over it like there was during the Bush presidency, this system would hardly be affected, let alone threatened.  Governments and other power factions -- especially ones threatened by the prospect of social unrest and upheaval -- do not relinquish this sort of authority unless compelled to do so.

Life Immitates "The Wire"

Stringer Bell is spinning in his grave. I can't imagine how he didn't come up with this?

Can You Hear Me Now?

Not that I don't think that it's important that the leader of the worlds strongest superpower be able to remain in touch with people but still this is pretty interesting:

The New York Times reports that Martha's Vineyard evidently gets almost no cell service at all. Unless the President is vacationing there. Verizon wheels out cell towers on trucks to accommodate the man.

Thoughts on Affirmative Action

Interesting post up at "Slate" in which the daughter of a Jewish woman whose parents survived the Holocaust, an African-American conservative father whose parents were both civil rights workers who is married to an African-American that comes from a long line of Christian, gun-toting, so called "Cajun Cowboys" fails to qualify as a viable diversity writer for TV sitcoms.

Just so we're clear on her background...

Takeaway:

When I look back, I have to laugh at my failed attempts to be hired as a diversity writer.

Sour grapes? Perhaps, a little. But the process confirmed my suspicions about the dehumanizing aspects of affirmative action. Even if I had gotten hired, would it have been OK for somebody to inquire about the color of my father's skin in an interview for a sitcom, or to point out the ratio of white blood to black blood coursing through my veins?

As diverse as I am, I couldn't seem to make myself over as a diversity candidate. I couldn't be the stereotype they wanted.

Worth reading. Personally, this is the sort of thing that I tend to back away from because as a white male (undeniably, objectively a member most definitely of a privileged class), I tend to feel that I'm not in a position to weigh in on questions like this. That said, I would note that affirmative action initiatives often are put together by people just like me.

2012 Watch

(Yet another) Man Who Would be President: Enormously well known and oft talked about Representative Thaddeus McCotter has thrown his hat into the ring. Largely known for his tireless support of that bill that did that thing for those people that one time, he's expected to surge to the front on the GOP field on name recognition alone.

Also, he has a guitar that looks like an American flag. So there's that.

Back to the Future

Conor Friedersdorf reports on a bit of political deja vue:

In Barack Obama's rise to national prominence, when he criticized the Bush Administration for its false claims about WMDs in Iraq, its torture of detainees, and its illegal program of spying on American citizens without warrants, he owed a particular debt of gratitude to a New York Times national security reporter. In a series of scoops as impressive as any amassed during the War on Terrorism, James Risen reported in 2004 that the CIA failed to tell President Bush about relatives of Iraqi scientists who swore that the country had abandoned its weapons program; the same year, he was first to reveal that the CIA was waterboarding detainees in Iraq; and in 2005, he broke the Pulitzer Prize winning story about the secret NSA spying program.

These scoops so embarrassed and angered the Bush Administration that some of its senior members wanted Risen to end up in jail. They never managed to make that happen. But President Obama might. He once found obvious value in Risen's investigative journalism. Its work that would've been impossible to produce without confidential sources and an ability to credibly promise that he'd never reveal their identities. But no matter. The Obama Administration is now demanding that Risen reveal his source for a 2006 scoop about CIA missteps in Iran. If he refuses to cooperate, which is his plan, he faces the possibility of jail time.

Somewhere, Dick Cheney is smiling.

Quick Link

Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks that Obama's undeclared, blatantly illegal war in Libya is well...blatantly illegal.

The Road To Hell

The road to Hell is certainly paved with good intentions. Unfortunately, it's also paved with good Presidents. Obama has finally consented to explain why the Libyan war is not really a war or hostile action or anything, but really some sort of exotic camping trip that in no way requires him to abide by the rules set forth in the War Powers Act.

In a 32 page report, his administration generously devotes an entire paragraph to explaining why they're not blatantly breaking the law. A White House official sums up:

“We’re not engaged in sustained fighting. There’s been no exchange of fire with hostile forces. We don’t have troops on the ground. We don’t risk casualties to those troops,” said one senior administration official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity during a conference call arranged by the White House. “None of the factors, frankly, speaking more broadly, has risked the sort of escalation that Congress was concerned would impinge on its war-making power.”

This pablum deserves to be attacked.

First of all, we most certainly are engaged in sustained fighting by virtue of the fact that we're providing enormous amounts of support and materiel to our NATO allies (at a predicted cost of $1.1 billion assuming hostilities end by September). Though I may not be a lawyer, my understanding is that there are myriad laws on the book covering this sort of thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that when you willingly provide support to others, you're known as an accomplice and just as responsible as anyone physically involved in actions. Saying that we're "not engaged" ignores this principle.

Granted we have no troops on the ground as yet (we'll see how long that lasts once Libya becomes a power vacuum). However, this is no longer the Napoleonic era. War cannot and must not be defined merely by the presence of soldiers on the ground. It's inarguable that war has gained a few more dimensions since an Italian airman first thought to drop grenades on Turkish soldiers from his biplane back in 1911 (coincidentally enough, in Libya). This official would have us accept a definition that is at loggerheads with the past hundred years of violence. Was Pearl Harbor somehow not an act of war because there were no Japanese soldiers on the ground in Hawaii?

The second problem with this formulation is that it's based solely on physical risk. On the one hand this ignores the enormous actual costs of the adventure in terms of treasure. Just as significantly however, it ignores moral culpability. Like most countries, America's foreign policy is (very broadly, I admit), represented abroad by the carrots offered up by our diplomatic corps and the sticks wielded by our military. In either case though, these are the representatives of our country. Whether it's Clinton offering aid to post-tsunami Japan or a drone being piloted by a CIA operative, these are the things that people look to as the face of America. There is a solemn duty and responsibility to consider what face we put forth regardless of whether or not there is any actual physical risk. If Congress has the right to approve or reject a potential ambassador to Burkina Faso, it most absolutely has the right to approve a bombing campaign regardless of whether or not any American lives are at risk.

I started this post by noting that "the road to hell is paved with good Presidents". Let me expand on that by saying that I believe that Qaddafi should go. I believe that the people of the world have a right to live without fear of autocratic madmen and that the United States can and should have (an albeit limited), role in bringing about that happy day. The campaign in Libya is in fact a just one, meant to remove a tyrant from power. I will give Obama the benefit of the doubt. But what of the next campaign and what of the next President? If you're willing to entrust Obama with the great and terrible power to wage war carte blanche, will you grant the same authority to his successor? To return to the Pearl Harbor analogy; don't you think that in retrospect, the Japanese would have really preferred to have a parliament that was capable of reigning in the imperialistic fantasies of their prime minister?

The Future

Leonard Cohen on the future:



Harlan Elison on the future:

They want to hire, they meaning whoever is hiring, wish to hire 19-year-olds who think vampires are a brand new idea. They wish to make everybody your age think they are the age of those young women who pose contrapposto in the ads. They are the ones that have closed down every business, everything but McDonalds and BP and Verizon. They draw us all daily into a tighter knot. Everything has become so complex and there’s so little money that they now manage to bring us to the end times in America. I do not see any hope or joy or vigor. I love my country but there’s nothing I can do but hang on, and by hang on it’s get through tomorrow, and so I do.

Me on the future:

Well, at least they're hiring!

Seen But Not Heard...Or Seen for that Matter

Oh how nice...

Bin Laden is dead and his ideas are being fatally attacked as people across the Arab world take it unto themselves to unseat their autocratic governments without resorting to terrorism or medieval philosophies.

Meanwhile, the Jews have started a newsletter apparently edited by their own version of the Taliban:

Perhaps the ultra-orthodox Jews behind Der Tzitung newspaper could learn something from the Wahhabi kingdom. Last week, the blog, Failed Messiah, noticed that there was something missing from the Hasidic newspaper’s version of the iconic Situation Room photo taken during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. In place of Hillary Clinton, Der Tzitung had Photoshopped in an empty chair. Staffer Audrey Tomason was removed as well. It turns out that, due to “laws of modesty,” the newspaper forbids pictures of women. Thus the editors literally scrubbed Clinton and Tomason from history, violating the terms of use attached to the photo, which prohibited manipulating it in any way. The Jewish daily Hamodia took a simpler approach, simply cropping Clinton and Tomason out of the shot.

When All's Said and Done

Besides the Archbishop of Canterbury, there's been a notable lack of protest from critics of targeted killings in the wake of the death of Bin Laden. Because...well, honestly, it's Bin Laden for crying out loud! Not exactly a figure commanding great compassion, to say the least. It's easy to argue against the assassination of someone unless it happens to be a really, really terrible someone.

Democracy in America lays out the bottom line:

The silence of the usual critics of "illegal", "extrajudicial", targeted killing in the wake of America's killing of Osama bin Laden might reflect hypocrisy, sure. But this can be tough to distinguish from resignation to the fact that Mr Obama didn't submit his case for executing Mr bin Laden to some global civil authority because there isn't one and he didn't have to—because America's the biggest kid on the block and, ultimately, what America says goes. And, if it comes down to it, Britain, France, Italy, Russia and other powerful governments hope America will indulge their own kill-squad adventures with similar approving silences. Of course, if some aggrieved faction in the future seeks retribution through the targeted killing of one of these countries' leaders,

that will be raw vengeance, that will be terrorism, that will be an international crime, because, like it or not, that's how it works.

Alternate Histories

Also, the Easter Bunny was saved from Liberals

I know that many Republicans would like to lay the credit for the death of Bin Laden at the feet of George W. Bush.

I understand guys...Really, I do. It's so important in difficult times like these to sometimes suspend reality and just believe!

Fortunately for the true believers out there, Salon was kind enough to provide an alternate history:

President Bush announces the news to the nation on May 24, 2006, immediately following the East Coast airing of the finale of "American Idol." He appears in military fatigues and, for some reason, spurs. Behind him, an oversize Osama bin Laden "Wanted" poster, with the word "LIQUIDATED" stamped on the terrorist mastermind's face. The camera pulls back to reveal that the president's East Room audience is in fact made up entirely of firefighters. The Marine band plays "Stars and Stripes Forever" as the president speaks, forcing Bush to address the room, and the nation, through a bullhorn.

"America has won the war on terror," Bush shouts. "Tonight, I am proud to say, Osama bin Laden is in hell." The president explains that the terrorist mastermind was "taken out" by American forces in Afghanistan, along with the entire senior leadership of al-Qaida. Crowds spontaneously gather in celebration outside the White House, with handmade signs ("THESE COLORS DON'T RUN," "LET'S ROLL") in plain view of cable news cameras set up beforehand according to a White House communications office suggestion. A professional-quality sound system blares Lee Greenwood. Then, fireworks.

Thrilling night-vision footage of a daring firefight in a labyrinthine cave is immediately provided to news channels. All of them air it, without noting that the video was edited by the Pentagon prior to release, and its contents unconfirmed.

In background briefings to national security journalists, the Pentagon credits the kill to one lone unnamed but slightly Schwarzeneggerian special forces officer acting on intelligence procured by one lone unnamed but remarkably Jack Bauer-like CIA officer who personally "interrogated" the al-Qaida courier until he revealed bin Laden's whereabouts.

Keep the faith people! 

Good Night

Osama bin Laden is dead.

If you're not watching the news, there's a crowd of people gathered outside of the White House cheering this. As they should. Everybody should celebrate the death of one of history's greatest mass murderers. That said, though this is an event well worth celebration and praise, things should be kept in perspective:

All Americans celebrate the news that we have been waiting to hear for over nine and a half years: Osama Bin Laden is dead. The operation that resulted in his demise is a credit to the prowess and professionalism of the men and women in our military, and our intelligence and law enforcement agencies. All Americans — and the world — owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

Bin Laden’s death does not end the threat posed by al Qaeda and its affiliates, but it goes a long way toward delivering justice for the victims of the 9/11 attacks, and al Qaeda’s other acts of terrorism. Importantly, the operation appears to bear resemblance to earlier operations that captured the 9/11 plotters Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh. The details should remind us that some of the most effective counterterrorism techniques do not rely on tens of thousands of troops stationed indefinitely in distant lands.

It is now clear that unrelenting pressure has severely weakened al Qaeda. Its capacity to harm Americans has been degraded for years, and yet we continue to dedicate tens of billions of dollars to combating terrorism in all forms. Here’s hoping that this evening’s welcome news contributes to an evolution of U.S. counterterrorism strategy that avoids costly and counterproductive policies, and that, going forward, we will always balance our efforts to advance American security with the need to preserve our essential rights and liberties.

Guilt by Association

Today's New York Times features a rather staggering profile of "economist" Gary North. Mr. North is a proponent of what's known as "biblical economics". Through some sort of magical transfusion, he is described as a libertarian.

And as noted atheist and godmother of libertarianism, Ayn Rand spins in her grave howling, let's take a moment to look this piece over (I suspect her ghost hasn't been this displeased since reviews of "Atlas Shrugged" started coming in).

Granted, his economic positions are broadly libertarian in that they argue that services and responsibilities fulfilled by the state should instead be devolved to the individual. Most libertarian intellectuals would probably reach the same conclusions having read Mises, Hayek, Friedman et al. while he came to them after perusing the mystical writings of a nomadic, desert tribe but that's neither here nor there. The conclusions are basically the same though Mr. North arrived at his via...different means.

But then...

These “Reconstructionists” are believers in Christian Reconstructionism, the philosophy of R. J. Rushdoony, who died in 2001. According to Reconstructionism, a Christian theocracy under Old Testament law is the best form of government, and a radically libertarian one. Biblical law, they believe, presupposes total government decentralization, with the family and church providing order. Until that day comes, Reconstructionists believe the rights to home-school and to worship freely at least provide the barest conditions of liberty. 

Emphasis mine.

Let's be clear: One can share libertarian ideals and not be a libertarian. Everyone has a different 'acid test' for what that might be. I would say however, that advocating for an OLD TESTAMENT THEOCRACY would be a bit beyond the pale for anyone devoted to the principles of economic and civil liberty! The Old Testament hardly has a live-and-let-live worldview.

Quote of the Day

Connor Friedersdorf asks:

"Feel safer?"