(It's not just WikiLeaks that's being targetted. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
The Department of Homeland Security recently shut down dozens of web sites. Their legal authority to do so was questionable, as was the court's, and it is part of a disturbing trend.
Last Friday, deep in the middle of a long holiday weekend, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seized dozens of web sites. The full list is here, and a common reaction might be "well obviously they were engaged in illegal activity, so they had it coming." This is an example of what Glenn Greenwald mocked as trial by Wikipedia: the idea that if you bring up a topic which everyone can agree is self-evident, action may be taken without jumping through a whole bunch of tedious legal hoops.
In Greenwald's case he is describing the hit put out for Anwar al-Awlaki by the president. Supporters of Obama's assassination program protest that al-Awlaki is clearly a bad man - look at his Wikipedia page! - so it should not be necessary for courts to weigh in on the matter. If enough people who matter ("everyone") simply recognizes this, due process may be disposed of. Similarly, look at the list of domains seized: who could possibly argue that dvdsetcollection.com is engaged in any kind of legally protected activity? Why, the very name should be enough to convict!
There are several problems with this, one of which Steven Musil points out in his CNET article: Less than two weeks ago Oregon Senator Ron Wyden effectively killed a bill - the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act - that would have authorized precisely the DHS seizures carried out. How exactly does the government begin enforcement of a bill that not only has not yet been signed into law, but that is in the process of being actively rejected?
The issue was discussed on CNET's Buzz Out Loud podcast, which provided several of the links used in this post. Host Molly Wood has a particularly good take on the issue starting around the 10:14 mark; since it is a longish excerpt I have put the transcription after the main body. In it she references this article questioning the legality of the seizure on several grounds.
For instance, the seizure was announced (via) at Walt Disney Studios. Does DHS worry at all about seeming a little too cozy with private industry? With the seemingly endless examples of government officials leaving their posts and cashing in with companies who benefited from their tenure (here is this week's), shouldn't there be at least a gesture in that direction?
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
Since 9/11 the rallying cry of conservatives has been the authoritarian's mantra: If you aren't doing anything wrong, you shouldn't worry about an intrusive government. Now that an agency has finally gone too far for some of them, they have changed their tune. Civil libertarians should do something about that, and quickly - before it changes back.
No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post
I've been blogging for just about three and a half years now, and in the last week or so I have finally seen some movement on the subject of my very first blog post: an appeal for principled conservatives to push back on the civil liberties overreach of the executive branch. The right has generally had phenomenal ideological cohesion, so anyone who breaks ranks is usually an outsider to begin with (Andrew Sullivan, Daniel Larison) or quickly becomes one (Bruce Bartlett).
For most conservatives, the politics are the principle; that allows them to take contradictory positions over relatively short periods of time without recrimination. As Bartlett unhappily discovered, Republicans can cheerfully discard the pieties they mouth if it will help ensure a majority. Criticizing an expanding governmental role in health care will get you ostracized in an era of GOP rule, but it makes you a member in good standing during a Democratic one.
So the recent concern about the invasive and ineffective TSA search procedures is not surprising. Now that a Democrat is president there is flourishing concern over what the big, bad government is doing to innocent citizens. But as Adam Serwer writes, "This comprehensive assault on individual freedom didn't occur in a vacuum; it occurred because conservatives were successful in frightening Americans into choosing security over liberty every time the choice was before them, and because America's elected officials take being blamed for a terrorist attack more seriously than their oath to protect the Constitution." John Cole has been impatiently pointing this out as well. On this and other issues, right wing leaders tell their base what to believe.
Two aspects of it are surprising, though. The first is the way it has split, more cleanly than any other issue for the last few years, along establishment vs. outsider lines. DC newspapers have rallied (via) to support the government (via). It has not gone unnoticed. Both liberal and conservative commentators inside the Beltway - see Kevin Drum and Ezra Klein on the left, for example, and Marc Thiessen and the National Review editorial board on the right. See also Thomas Sowell if you need some comic relief. The Weekly Standard, bless its heart, did not have a single TSA item on its front page as of Wednesday.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
The Power of the President is the title of a great new report by the Center for American Progress on some of the things President Obama can and should do that do not require Congressional action. It is important to keep a laser-like focus on this topic because it could not be clearer that the Republican House will not be passing anything useful in bringing our economy back to life. Whether because of not wanting to help the President improve the economy to weaken him going into 2012, having a completely screwed up economic theory, being terrified of their own off the wall base that wants no compromise on anything with Obama, or (most likely) all of the above, Republicans coming to the table to help Barack Obama improve the economy is not happening, no way no how.
Progressives and Democrats need to spend less time commiserating over all the good things that Congress should do but won't. Another stimulus will not happen in the next two years, so we need to move on. Instead, we need to spend more time thinking about the things Obama could do if he aggressively seized the reins of government that he possesses and pushes forward.
The biggest thing that could be done to help the economy and the middle class immediately is to focus on stabilizing and revitalizing the housing market. If struggling homeowners had their mortgages written down, and mass foreclosures stopped wracking neighborhoods all over America, housing prices would finally stabilize and be poised to start going back up. If the shadow housing inventory of the homes that have already been foreclosed on were converted into rental properties, housing costs for working class younger and unmarried people who can't afford to buy a home yet would start to go down. If families finally got their mortgages renegotiated they could get their own finances in order again, and would gain the confidence to start spending money in the economy again. All of these things would improve the economy, and all of them could happen without Congress doing anything: all that needs to happen is for Treasury, HUD, FHA, Fannie and Freddie, and DOJ to start exerting the very considerable authority they have over the banks to push them to start writing down mortgages, and for the President to start issuing the executive orders on housing and financial regulation the CAP report proposes.
Another area that the administration could move aggressively in without congressional action is in regards to manufacturing. CAP has one outstanding idea, which is an executive order related to developing a new strategy around promoting competitiveness, especially in terms of manufacturing policy. While this would help more in the long run than short term, having such policies could do things that would promote manufacturing jobs in the short run as well. Another place the federal government can move now is in instituting a stronger, more assertive Buy America policy in contracting, and making sure federal government contractors pay decent wages. This would make a big difference in promoting American jobs and improving the incomes of American workers. Finally, Treasury needs to get far more assertive with trading partners, especially China, in dealing with currency manipulation, and needs to look at their own policies that keep the dollar so high, which hurts our manufacturing base.
Another big thing this administration could do immediately with no help from Congress is to accelerate the implementation of the Small Business Jobs Act just passed by Congress right before the election. CAP has some great ideas about implementation which have the potential to really speed up job creation in the small business sector.
There are plenty of other great policy ideas I'm not even touching that the Obama administration could do to make a difference on the economy, but my central point is that the President needs to lead, and he needs to act. Republicans and corporate Democrats like Doug Schoen keep bleating about how all Obama has to do is just compromise with the Republicans the way Clinton did, but there are some big problems with that. For one thing, the Republicans have no interest in compromising, only in capitulation. For another, they have no policy ideas that would actually create any jobs. But most of all, it ignores what actually happened in 1995: what Schoen forgets is that he and Penn and Morris all were advocating giving in to the Republicans on the budget fight in 1995. Had Clinton caved without a fight, he would have been seen as weak, and his base would have demanded a primary. Instead, he painted Gingrich and Dole as extremists, stood tall on the fight, and cleaned their clocks. Clinton went from being 10 points down to Dole before the budget fight to 10 points ahead afterwards, he ended any chance of a serious primary challenge, and he never looked back.
President Obama needs to be strong in taking the action he needs to take to make the economy better, and he needs to stand up to Republicans and force them to compromise on his terms, not theirs. He needs to stop bragging about an economic recovery no one feels, show leadership on making the economy better, and show the Republicans to be the do-nothing Congress they intend to be. Obama needs to take what action can be taken, pick some important early fights with the Republicans, and show people the difference between his vision for the economy and the far right wing Republican vision.
(Just because the oligarchy is threatening a massive theft of the remaining pittance of wealth of the middle class doesn't mean we should ignore all else--particularly the growing mass of unpunished war-crimes. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
America has passed another unfortunate milestone in its ever longer history of torture. The latest ex-president thinks that is a good thing, but for some without an immediate self-interest it doesn't look quite so pleasant.
In 2002 CIA agents - Americans - tortured prisoners and were videotaped doing so. In 2005 those videotapes were destroyed, and on Tuesday the five year statute of limitations for filing criminal charges in the matter expired. For a little background, here are Mark Mazzetti and Charlie Savage in the New York Times:
The key figure in the tape destruction incident was Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., the former head of the agency's clandestine service. In November 2005, he ordered his staff to destroy tapes of the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the first two detainees held in secret overseas prisons. The tapes had been kept in a safe in the agency's station in Thailand, the country in which the interrogations were conducted in 2002.
Special prosecutor John Durham has been investigating this for years, but as bmaz notes:
The open and shut criminal case against Jose Rodriquez is gone. The clear potential for cases against the four Bush/Cheney White House attorneys involved in the torture tapes destruction, as well as the two CIA junior attorneys, gone. Same for any case against Porter Goss. Gone, and the DOJ has no explanation and nothing to say.
Given the relentless focus on looking forward it hardly seems cynical to expect the investigation to be functionally dead. Yes, the Times article notes that there still could be prosecutions for false statements during the investigation, but the original actions are now beyond the reach of the law. As bmaz implies, this also eliminates the possibility of implicating higher ups like Porter Goss and rolling up the chain of command - standard practice for prosecuting corrupt organizations like Mafia families and the Bush White House.
I know that last sentence is very shrill and all, but how unfair is it really? As bmaz' co-blogger Marcy Wheeler wrote:
Our country has spun so far beyond holding the criminals who run our country accountable that even the notion of accountability for torture was becoming quaint and musty while we waited and screamed for some kind of acknowledgment that Durham had let the statute of limitations on the torture tape destruction expire. I doubt they would have even marked the moment-yet another criminal investigation of the Bush Administration ending in nothing-it if weren't for the big stink bmaz has been making.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
The widespread revulsion over torture in the Bush era caused civil libertarians from a wide part of the political spectrum to unite in protest. The latest presidential power grab is revealing some differences that had been concealed, though.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
When bad news breaks it has become almost routine for those at the top to disavow all knowledge and let the hammer come down on those well down in the hierarchy. The pattern showed up again twice this week, and is now so common as to be almost standardized.
But the measures implemented to assist deeply underwater [savings and loans] (in the very high interest rate environment of 1980-1982) were exploited by outsiders to the industry, who acquired thrifts on extremely favorable terms. Many of them, like Charles Keating, had been previously charged with fraud or had criminal records. The resulting cohort of high-flying thrifts showed high profits and growth rates and were widely praised as proof that deregulation worked, until they crashed. It is easy to look like a winner if you cook the books. Over 1,000 executives at savings and loans were convicted of fraud, and the largest failures almost without exception involved control fraud, meaning the CEO was driving the criminal activity.
"Higher commands have to inform themselves about what's happening in subordinate command," Eugene Fidell, the president of the National Institute of Military Justice, tells Danger Room. "That's what it means to have command responsibility. You have to be aware of what's going on, take reasonable steps to inform yourself, and you can't claim ignorance."
- "How To Spot A Whitewash In Army's Death-Squad Inquiry" by Spencer Ackerman
Two familiar tunes were reprised this week, each a variation the same theme: The buck stops somewhere below middle management. In the financial world it was reported that one Jeffrey Stephan destroyed the global real estate market. Well, it was not quite that dramatic, but the store of problems being readied to dump on him was still enormous. He was supposed to review foreclosure cases, determine if they were justified and if so sign documents to that effect in the presence of a notary. He did not, and now we are seeing reports that hundreds of companies may be left holding the bag.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
(Not that it's all that important. Heck, it's only the FOURTH Amendment, right? - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
In the last few years there has been a steady erosion of 4th Amendment protections. Now in addition to chipping way at it through judicial rulings there appears to be a movement to weaken its very concept.
Last week the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the privacy of cell phone records. It seems at best a mixed bag; while the ACLU was largely happy with it, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Kevin Bankston noted the decision "made clear that under some circumstances the privacy of such data could be constitutionally protected, and that judges have the discretion to require a warrant to avoid potentially unconstitutional seizures of location data." Qualifications like "under some circumstances," "could be" and "have the discretion" highlight the conditional nature of the ruling. A sympathetic judge can allow these records to be exposed without a warrant, and that is hardly a victory for civil libertarians.
This is consistent with a mostly unbroken trend towards intrusive government and an increasingly claustrophobic sphere of privacy. Consider the wholesale collection of internet traffic in order to engage in warrantless wiretapping, heavy handed search procedures at borders and use of satellite imagery to keep tabs on people's private spaces. (See the description of the Z Backscatter Van at the last link for another potentially troubling development.) Whether through old fashioned encroachment or new technology, the change is unmistakable.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
A detailed report on the Bush administration's loss of millions of emails has been greeted as little more than a post mortem from several years ago. Even if it was only that, though, it would deserve much more coverage than it has received - and it has serious implications for the present and future as well.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
The need to not investigate allegations of criminality has become a common refrain in Washington, but there are some obvious and unpleasant consequences that come from doing so.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
Who can tell me who said this and where they said it?
"I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation." -- President Barack Obama, asserting the illegal and unconstitutional power to make war, in a Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo, Norway.
What about this one -- who and where?
"There may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. . . . As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. . . . We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified." -- President Barack Obama standing in front of the U.S. Constitution in the National Archives, a Constitution that reads "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended."
A secretly negotiated international treaty recently had a draft released. It has all the earmarks of a consumer-hostile power grab by the entertainment industry, happily aided by the Obama administration.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
Concern over deficits is suddenly all the rage again. One player putting itself in the forefront of the issue has missed an obvious candidate for cost savings, though.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
Last week a remarkable story was broken about the president's directive to assassinate a citizen, and there has been a troubling silence about it from nearly all the major players.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
A long awaited examination of possible ethics violations by the authors of the Bush administration's torture memos was finally released late last week. As has seemed typical on this topic, the official document raises more questions than it answers.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
In the same way that some of the lustiest cheerleaders for war declined the opportunity to serve themselves, some of those most loudly calling for eliminating deficits seem curiously unaware of the Pentagon.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
STATE BLOGS
