Upon the Gears

Merry Christmas everybody.

And I don’t mean Merry Christmas as Bill O’Reilly says it, a holiday greeting that is one more weapon in the war between the secular and the religious.  I mean it as a wish for happiness during this festival of giving.  I think so many festivals of giving happen in the winter because it is our way of showing, as a people, that we can survive the winter through reliance on one another.  So this Christmas I want you to consider the holiday not as a Christian celebration of Jesus, but a marker of our devotion to one another and our need for family and friends in order to survive the winters of our lives.  Christmas, and before it Yule, can be considered a way of coming together at the winter solstice and saying that we are stronger than the cold.  Well let me say that we are stronger than much more than that.  We are stronger than intolerance; we are stronger than hate; we are stronger than ignorance; we are stronger than apathy; we are stronger than fear; we are stronger than division.

Stay Strong.

I have been asked to more completely define America’s policy on torture.  The title of this post is the policy of the United States according to President Bush.  So…how does this fit with waterboarding and destroyed tapes?  How does our relatively torture-free past fit with the Guantanamo Bays and Abu Ghraibs of today?  After 9/11, the Bush administration has approved various techniques that are described as “coercive interrogation.”  These are supposed to somehow differ from torture. Here is a very good video that talks about this as well as showing an actual waterboarding.

The Bush Administration’s argument breaks down like this:

1. We don’t torture.
2. If we did torture, it wouldn’t matter, because the people we are holding are not American citizens, and therefore do not have rights.
3. At the same time, they are not soldiers for any particular country, so the Geneva Conventions do not apply.

So…we are left with people who do not fall into any specific category so we can do whatever we want with them.  I guess in order to be a good political philosopher I need to talk about what I think about it.  This warrants a new paragraph.

The classic example used by whatever conservative is closest at the time in torture debates is “What if someone had the location of a nuclear bomb and you needed to get information out of him quickly and you were the President of the United States?”  There is no right answer, seemingly.  Do you want to sacrifice your ideals or millions of lives.  Unfortunately for those who are trigger-happy on the hypotheticals, this situation degrades pretty easily when the facts are examined.  Well, one fact really.  Torture doesn’t work.  It doesn’t make people give true information.  It makes people say anything to make it stop, which may be the truth, but may be just the first thing that pops into their heads.  So would I torture someone in order to stop a terrorist attack of nuclear proportions?  No, because it would waste valuable time and resources on a probable wild goose chase.  This of course dodges the more general question: would you trample the Constitution if you thought it would save lives?  And while I don’t think this is a question anyone can truly answer unless they are in the situation, my judgment right now is that I would not.  Feel free to tell me I am a heartless human being, this is by no means a one-sided issue.  But if you are to put yourself in the shoes of the President of the United States, you have to think foremost about the safety of the nation and its Constitution.  Horrible as this sounds, this nation can withstand the deaths of a million people much more easily than it can stand a precedent of disregarding human rights.

As for how the government has covered this up, there is no excuse.  Obviously there are times when national security is more important than keeping the American people fully informed, but these times do not extend to when the Executive Branch is doing something that many would consider illegal.  The problem is, there is no way to create a set of rules to determine what can be revealed and what can’t.  A lot of the time, we have to rely on our president and our Executive Branch to be responsible.  When we elect a president that is not responsible, we are more or less screwed.  This is why in addition to views on issues, we should be looking at how our candidates view presidential power.  The election process is the only input by the electorate that is sure to have an effect.  Be educated and vote for someone who you trust to protect our country and its Constitution.

My thoughts right now…

We are supposed to be the freest nation in the world, yet we can’t speak out. If we oppose the war, we’re accused of not supporting the troops. If we oppose the government, we’re accused of being unpatriotic…

We live in a nation where the government tells us that we are not making enough sacrifices for foreign policy ventures that they profit from…

We live in a nation where the government can spy on our every move in the name of “national security”…

We live in a nation where religious beliefs can qualify or disqualify one from being elected into office…

We live in a nation where women are losing control of their bodies, and where no one, man or woman, can be allowed to die without some politician rushing to stop them, holding a Bible in both hands…

In the freest nation in the world, we have trouble getting people to vote…

Can we preserve the liberty we have left before it is too late?

…if we just didn’t torture people?  There’s been more controversy lately over the CIA’s destruction of interrogation tapes.  Basically, a lawyer for the detainees is asking a federal judge to make a court enquiry into the destroyed tapes.  Right now, there is a joint task-force of the CIA and Justice department making an enquiry.

The only problem is, the CIA is the one that did the destroying and the Justice department under this administration does not have a good track record when it comes to protecting civil liberties.  There is what you might call a conflict of interest, where it is in no one’s interest for the public to find out what is going on.  If only we had some sort of branch of government that was mostly independent and could investigate the incident without fear of consequences….  So the question is will the judge bite or will he go with the Justice department argument, that a court inquiry is “unwise and imprudent.”  Of course, no reason why, it’s just sort of generally unwise.  So unless this judge decides to launch an inquiry, I think we can just about wrap this story up right here.  The CIA-Justice department team will find one to two mid-level CIA employees who misunderstood something their boss said out of context and not to them and took initiative that in this case did not coincide with the goals of the Agency.  This employee/these employees will issue statements of regret and resign.  Things will go back to normal.

 Go back to sleep American people, the government is still protecting you.

Well, the Republican Presidential field looks like it is about to shrink once again. Sources close to Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) have revealed that he is planning on dropping his bid for the White House, leaving only eight men standing for the Republican nomination. Tancredo is the fifth candidate running a national campaign to drop out of the race, after Democrat Tom Vilsack and Republicans Jim Gilmore, Tommy Thompson, and Sam Brownback, and his polling numbers have never traveled far beyond the 1-2% range. While it would be nice to think that Tancredo’s failure to gain any momentum is a repudiation of his radical anti-immigrant platform, his low name recognition and sloppy debate performances are likely more to blame. Tancredo insists that his presence in the race actually forced more mainstream candidates to lean harder to the right on immigration issues, and looking at the harsh rhetoric from former immigration moderates such as Mike Huckabee and John McCain, it’s not hard to imagine that his presence likely played a factor.

Tancredo has already announced that he will not be running for a sixth term representing his Colorado district in the House of Representatives. However, he has left the door open for a possible Senate run, either in 2008 to replace the retiring Wayne Allard or in 2010 against incumbent Democrat Ken Salazar. Therefore, let’s take a look back at Tancredo’s most-loathsome moments as a warning for the future:

• In 2006, two days before the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Tancredo attended a barbecue given in his honor and hosted by the League of the South, a neo-Confederate group advocating Southern independence. He gave a speech denouncing the “cult of multiculturalism” in a room decorated with Confederate paraphernalia, including a large Confederate flag draped over his podium.
• Later that year, he once again caused controversy when, in an interview for the right-wing website WorldNetDaily, he referred to the city of Miami, Florida as a “Third World country”. This caused Florida governor Jeb Bush to respond with a letter dismissing Tancredo as “naive” and citing educational statistics to show that “Miami is a wonderful city filled with diversity and heritage”. Tancredo’s sarcastic rebuttal stated “I certainly understand and appreciate your need and desire to try and create the illusion of Miami as a multiethnic ‘All American’ city. Indeed sir, one of us is naive”.
• Multiple times, Tancredo has insisted that the root cause of Islamic terrorism is the fundamental nature of Islam, stating in a May Presidential Debate that the terrorists are “trying to kill us because it’s a dictate of their religion”. Most odiously, Tancredo has continually articulated his belief that a good deterrent to such terrorist attacks would be for the United States to bomb the Islamic holy city of Mecca.
• In November, Tancredo aired the most loathsome, fear-mongering political advertisement of this campaign (watch it here). It argues for increased border security by referencing Islamic terrorism and showing scenes of world-wide terrorist attacks, including one of a bleeding child. The ad ends with the phrase “Tancredo… before it’s too late”. This follow-up ad equates immigrants with radical, violent street gangs, again featuring scenes of horrible violence.

So Tancedo isn’t exactly a great guy.

So who will his exit help most? His base of support was very small, so his absense won’t shift anyone’s poll numbers very much. The candidate who comes closest to his xenophobic rhetoric is Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), whose poll numbers are even lower; even if all former Tancredo supporters go to Hunter, he’ll still have a very hard time cracking 4%. If any front runner will profit, it will probably be Fred Thompson; Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain all have questionable histories when it comes to dealing with illegal immigrants from the perspective of a far right voter. However, there are rumors that Tancredo may endorse Mitt Romney for the presidency despite Romney’s support of several sanctuary cities when he was the governor of Massachusets. This would go a long way toward dispelling conservative concerns about Romney’s record, and the increased credibility this would give him as the most anti-immigration candidate could help him beyond just the army of former Tancredo supporters.

Regardless, I’m glad to see this bigoted extremist disappear from the political scene, even if it is only for the time being. As the great-grandson of an illegal immigrant from Mexico, I can only say don’t let the door hit you on the way out, Senor Tancredo. Hasta luego.

Protection Agency.  Those are the second two words in that name.  EPA for short.  But I’m not going to call it the EPA, nor should anyone.  I feel as though the use of these three letter acronyms for government agencies have caused too much forgetfulness when it comes to the actual purpose of the agency.  Take, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency: I want to refer to them by their full name in order to accentuate the bitter irony of their recent actions.

For those of you who have no idea what I’m talking about, it involves the recent decision by the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY regarding state emissions rules.  The ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY has decided that any state that wants to create emissions standards for auto companies can go to hell.  I mean, really, why would you want to go past the current federal emissions standards, which will be 35 miles to the gallon by 2020?  Not only is this one more example of the Bush administration being a thin facade for the very worst excesses of corporate cronyism, it is a flagrant abuse of states’ rights.  A federal agency telling state governments what standards they can apply to the corporations within their states?  Hey, Ron Paul and the other states’ rights lunatics, feel like protesting?  (Crickets chirp)

Our planet is heating up.  Scientific fact shows it, there is no disagreement in the scientific community over it, the only ones who are fighting change are those who are too lazy to change their lifestyles or too greedy to risk losing money or too stupid to see the facts that have been thrown in their faces again and again and again.  If the Bush administration does not want to help the country solve this problem, I only hope it isn’t disturbing their sleep at night.

But don’t stop us from helping, you shameless lobbyists, you corporate lap-dogs, you Oval Office offal.  Don’t keep those who actually want to make a difference from holding corporations to a shred of environmental accountability.  Just because you’ll be dead before we have to wear SPF 50 everywhere doesn’t mean you can sell our future to the CEOs you bring over for dinner.

Thoughts?

These are good times for Connecticut Democrats. While one of our senators continues to justify our decision to expel him from our party, the other continues to show the amazing leadership and respect for the Constitution that is all too lacking in Washington lately. Are our Democrats finally resolving to stand up against George Bush’s agenda? Well, some are. And, in this case, that’s all it took.

The battle centered around the latest expansion of FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The controversy surrounds whether or not to include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who helped the Bush administration to illegally spy on American citizens. Basically, if such a provision is included, then any unconstitutional invasions of our privacy that the telecom companies are guilty of will go unpunished and, in all likelihood, undiscovered. “But,” you may be thinking, “isn’t the Constitution the ultimate law of the land? Why is this even a controversy?” If so, then where exactly have you been for the past seven years?

The Republicans claim that any unconstitutional activities were ordered by the President to strength our national security after 9/11 and that companies should not be punished for following government orders. There are several problems with this argument. First, evidence suggests that the illegal spying actually began prior to 9/11. Second and most importantly, withholding amnesty does not automatically mean inflicting punishment. It will certainly mean court cases, but if it comes out that the Bush administration illegally coerced the telecoms into lawbreaking, then the telecoms can clear their names and the focus can be shifted into punishing those in the administration guilty of coercion. In reality, it is highly unlikely that big corporations will well-paid lawyers did not know exactly what they were doing and how illegal it was. This brings us to the heart of the problem. There is no logical way to look at telecoms and not strongly suspect that both the Bush administration and the companies are guilty of unconstitutional action. The knee jerk reaction from the Republicans is to defend their corporate interests and their corrupt president over the Constitution.

There are two current FISA proposals being considered in the Senate. The one from the Intelligence Committee includes amnesty for the telecoms, and the one from the Judiciary Committee does not. The choice of which to bring to the Senate floor rested in the hands of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and while it is nice to imagine a world in which he would do his job and act like a proper opposition leader to the administration, reality does not work that way.

It is here that Chris Dodd (D-CT) enters the story. Dodd distinguishes himself as an ardent defender of the Constitution and, as a Senator for 26 years, a genius when it comes to Senate procedure. He was disgusted with the idea of providing immunity to the telecom criminals, and he stated strongly that he would oppose any bill that did so. When the Intelligence Committee bill was released, Dodd informed Harry Reid that he was going to place a hold on it. A hold, while not an official part of the Senate rules, is respected by tradition; it keeps a bill from coming for a vote on the floor. The respect that is reserved for the idea of a hold is so great that earlier this year, Reid allowed Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) to hold a very important bill regarding protection for corporate whistleblowers despite the fact that Coburn is a member of the opposition party. However, Reid evidently does not have the same respect for one of the most senior members of his own party; he ignored Dodd’s hold and scheduled debate on the Intelligence committee bill, even though he could have just as easily chosen the Judiciary bill.

Dodd, however, is a fighter, and he would not cave to Reid the way that Reid caved to Coburn and to Bush. He announced that he would filibuster the bill when it came to the floor and began recruiting Senators to support him in this demanding endeavor.

The showdown occurred on Monday. The first vote was for cloture on the motion to proceed; in layman’s terms, it would decided whether the Senate would decide to set a limit on debating whether to debate the bill or not (I know, very confusing, but that’s the way the Senate operates). While a victory here would have made passage of the final bill that much harder, it was not viewed as key by many opponents of amnesty, and several Senators who support Dodd still voted for it. The cloture motion needed 60 votes to pass, and it got 76. 30 hours of debate was scheduled on whether to proceed to debate of the final bill.

Dodd then went to work doing whatever possible to derail the process. He gave passionate defense after passionate defense of the Constitutional principles that had been so wantonly violated and orchestrated a parade of supporters to follow him. Great praise goes to Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) for standing up and adding their voices to the cause. Kennedy’s speech in particular has been widely quoted:

“The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retro-active immunity. No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he’s willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies.”

Noticeably absent from the debate were Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Joe Biden (D-DE). Their votes weren’t missed; all cloture votes require 60 yeas, regardless of how many Senators are present. However, it would have a great opportunity to display the leadership they all claim that they will bring to the White House.

As Dodd’s continued procedural tactics made it apparent that every step of the process would be a fight for the pro-amnesty crowd, Harry Reid’s goal, having a FISA bill passed before the Christmas break, began to look less and less likely. Therefore, he made the decision to suspend consideration of the bill until January, meaning that at least for the time being, Dodd had single-handedly masterminded a successful defense of the Constitution. One of the biggest factors supporting him was the incredible outcry from the American people. Reports suggest that Senators received over 500,000 e-mails from concerned citizens, and the offices of many Senators had busy phone lines all day (I know, I tried calling several times). The victory that was won on Monday proves that the American people still can hold massive influence over legislation if they become concerned enough to make their voices heard.

So where is the FISA bill going to go from here? The battle is far from over; Dodd is already gearing up for another fight in January. However. there are reasons to believe that the tide is shifting toward the anti-amnesty faction. Momentum is definitely on their side, and they have proven that they will not go down without taking advantage of every tactic possible. More importantly, however, public opinion is also on their side, and Harry Reid must be feeling the pressure of his constituency imploring him to introduce the Judiciary Committee bill when debate is restarted. You can help do your part by contacting your Senators through the US Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and demanding that they refuse to vote for any FISA legislation that includes retroactive amnesty. There is still a lot of work to do before we can truly claim a progressive victory, but having a passionate, hard-working fighter like Chris Dodd on our side gives me hope that balance is being restored to Washington and our Constitution is destined to mean something again.

Article II Section I: The President

“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”

Hello, and welcome to Constitutional Conventions. This is a piece I’m going to do when I can’t think of anything else to write about. It consists of me taking an excerpt from the Constitution and going into an analysis/rant (depending on how I feel). Feel free to let me know what your favorite Constitutional passages are (you know you have at least one) and I’d be happy to talk about them. Today, however, we start with the oath of office for the President of the United States.

The oath is astonishingly brief. What is in it is far less important than what isn’t. For example, there is no responsibility to any group. Congressmen are responsible to their districts, Senators to their states, but the president is chosen by the nation and, according to the Constitution, not even by anything close to popular vote. So there is no real constituency for the president; there is no one whose interests he must represent.  His job is twofold—he must execute his office and protect the Constitution. The presidency as written seems pretty simple. The office of the president, however, has increased in size since Washington held the position. There are now fifteen cabinet level departments, up from Washington’s three, as well as a host of lower departments and the Executive Office of the President.  The Executive Branch is still primarily responsible for the execution of the laws made by Congress, but there are a lot more of them now then there were over 200 years ago. Then there is foreign policy, on a world stage where we are a superpower and must consider how every action we take affects the entire world, and countries we’ve never heard of may at any point become vitally important. Our military seems to have more to do than ever, despite the lack of declared wars we’ve had lately. The presidency has grown complicated.

But the second half of the oath remains simple as ever. Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. There is no ambiguity in that statement, no expansion or reduction of duties since the signing of the Constitution. All it states is that it is the duty of our president, the imperative of our president to make sure that no harm befalls our Constitution, that no actions occur against it within our government.

So when you juxtapose this duty with the expectations of the president, you see the fundamental problem. What is expected of the president is constitutionally impossible. The presidential candidates are running on a legislative agenda and they cannot legislate. The only way the president can possibly get any sort of agenda passed is through persuasion, and it is in this respect that we must examine the current field of candidates. The primaries pit a bunch of people with very similar ideologies against one another, but some are going to be better leaders than others. In the presidency, leadership is more than being able to give orders, it is being able to give and take and negotiate with several different groups with different wants and keep your basic ideas intact. Even the Executive Branch, which is ostensibly under your control, is made up of career bureaucrats with their own agendas and their own institutional philosophies. You also have to decide when to go to Congress and when to go to the public, when to trust the Executive Office and when to trust the National Security Council. The modern presidency is, as it is often said, one of public relations, yet what do we see from our candidates? Do we see any of those currently in Congress using their presidential publicity to draw attention to issues in Congress? The most leadership we’ve seen, the most individual commitment from the Democrats, is from Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich. Dodd vowed to put a hold on and filibuster any legislation going through the Senate that violated civil liberties; Kucinich attempted to start impeachment proceedings on Vice President Cheney. It isn’t hard to show leadership, yet from the majority of our candidates, there is nothing. We hear over and over what good leaders they are, but when we look to them in Congress, they simply allow the party leaders to tell them what to do. It’s time to step up and put your money where your mouths are, Democrats. Show us you can lead.

Yesterday, President Bush spoke about the economy at Fredericksburg, Virginia.  Although he was optimistic as always, he did surprise me by admitting that, “there’s definitely some storm clouds and concern”.  You know, it’s just not like our president to admit mishaps.  Of course, he soon reverted back to his usual self, and attacked the Democratic Congress (again).  The President warned that, “the most negative thing Congress can do in the face of economic uncertainty is to raise taxes on the American people”.  Sounds good, doesn’t it?  What could be wrong with defending the middle class?

Ah, Mr. President, you forgot something.  You forgot that the thing Democrats oppose is tax breaks for the rich.  Therefore, when they try to raise taxes, they will repeal the tax cuts that you made for the rich, and only raise taxes for the rich.  Have I emphasized this enough?

It just annoys me that the Democratic Party has been viewed as the party that will tax us to death, when this is not true at all.  Reversing President Bush’s tax cuts for the rich (sorry, I’ll stop that) is probably one of the best ideas that Democrats have had in a long time.  The country needs more revenue in order to support important government programs like Social Security, or possibly Universal Healthcare (if it is allowed to be formed).  It seems to me that if we require those most able to pay to pay a little more, we can all benefit.

President Bush has been playing the tax cut card for almost eight years, but the good news is that Americans don’t seem to be buying his half-truths anymore.  His promise to veto any tax increase (which usually gets cheers and applause) received no sounds from the crowd yesterday.  Maybe we are starting to learn.

Anyway, next time you hear a Republican warn you that the Democrats are going to raise your taxes, don’t worry about it.  You probably won’t end up paying any more money.  He probably will.

Everyone’s favorite independent and Adam’s old friend from CT has done something completely expected: he’s endorsed a Republican. Senator John McCain is now the proud owner of the coveted “Lieberman boost.” For those of you who don’t remember/know/care, Joe Lieberman was the Vice Presidential candidate in 2000 for the Democrats and has since reneged and become an Independent.  And by reneged I mean Connecticut democrats booted him out in the 2006 primary because he continued to support the Iraq war.

 The weirdest thing is how the CNN article refers to him as “crossing party lines.”  What party?  Sure, he still caucuses with the Democrats, but then he goes and votes with the Republicans.  No, Joe Lieberman surprises no one here, just as he surprises no one with his continued insistence on sacrificing our young men and women overseas.

And then we have top Democrats like Harry Reid saying things like “I have the greatest respect for Joe, but I simply have to disagree with his decision to endorse Senator McCain.”  Oh, the greatest respect, really?  I wish I had seen that kind of respect for Representative Pete Stark who was abandoned and forced to apologize by his own party after criticizing President Bush.  So typical Joe and typical Democrats…have a nice day.