Brin post (0.00 / 0)

This is quasi on topic; I thought you would be interested in this post from David Brin.  (You'll have to scroll down, he doesn't tend to separate his posts.)

Here I beg to differ, appealing to folks like Krugman that they should look at every angle.  Look, I too twinge over letting people have immunity for "following orders." In order to avoid bad precedents, this process should at minimum be confessional, as in South Africa's Truth & Reconciliation process. Bushite immunity doctrines have to be savagely rejected.

But is it possible that Obama is not simply wussing out for political reasons?  Might he have priorities that rank higher than punishing the monsters who despoiled America's honor, for the last decade?  And no, I am not talking about focusing his efforts on fixing the economy -- even that is less important than Barack Obama's true, historic purpose...

...which is to end the foul betrayal known as Culture War.  The trumped-up pitting of region vs region, rural vs urban, red vs blue, know-nothings vs science, the future assailed by a mythologized past, and the reflex measuring of all matters  against an insanely simplistic "left-right axis" that no longer even maps onto any sane definitions of "liberal" or "conservative," anymore.

While I believe Brin is wrong in the final conclusion, I'm not 100% certain of that.  Certainly, the negatives he spells out seem real to me.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 19:37:57 PM CDT

If Obama lets the torturers (4.00 / 8)

off scot-free then the Conservatives have won the Culture War. Up is the same as down, right is the same as wrong, torture makes us safe and war is peace.

If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 19:52:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hate To Say It, But Brin Is Just Plain Wrong (4.00 / 4)

(1) The culture wars can't be ended by Obama's soothing mannerisms, and it's height of arrogant stupidity to believe otherwise.  The demographics are shifting away from the conservatives, which is naturally weakening their position, and making the culture wars less successful for them.  This gives Obama a strong tailwind, but he's very unlikely to gain much more than he already has on his own.  This can be great for him personally and politically, but really doesn't do a damn for the country as a whole.

(2) Even if the above weren't so, the act of giving conservatives a pass won't be seen as an act of strength in search of reconciliation, but rather as an act of weakness, inviting further lawlessness, just as the failure to go after Reagan and Bush for Iran/Contra emboldened Republicans after them, up to the criminal gang we're talking about now.  (This is because liberals and conservatives have different psychologies, but neither of them seems to get it.)

(3) And even if that weren't so, Obama could simply stand aside, more in sorrow than anything else, and just say, "You know, this is out of my hands.  The President is not supposed to politicize justice, one way or the other, and I'm not going to get involved in that.  But I will do the utmost to ensure a fair process--and even more than that, a process that others should see as fair as well.  So I'm going to recommend that the investigations be undertaken by a career prosecutor who has prosecuted high-profile politicians of both parties--Patrick Fitzgerald."

---

So, in short, the whole line of reasoning is kaka, even if you were inclined to accept the premise that it was a noble goal to pursue transcending all others--which, of course, I do not.  But there's no need to get into the broader discussion, since, as I've shown, it's so deeply flawed on its own terms.

There's a really weird historical parallel here.  The GOP got itself really screwed up by taking on Nixon as VP in 1952, because they had a paucity of fresh new faces.  So they went with someone whose idiosyncratic psychology and attitudes were really out of synch with both reality and with sound party-building politics.  It ended up warping their party for decades to come, and they've never really recovered from it.  Of course I'm a strong believer in over-determination and muiltiple causality, so I'm not putting it all on Nixon.  But it was certainly consistent.

Now it appears that the Dems may be doing the same thing, but with a president whose psychology and attitudes are skewed in the other direction--towards vain and foolish attempts at impossible forms of reconciliation without principle, rather than relentless attack without principle.  As with Nixon, this can't all be laid on Obama alone, other factors are involved as well.  But the similarities (involving symmetry-flips even as they do) are truly striking.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 20:19:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

!Obama (0.00 / 0)

For the record, Brin has always had this take on the culture wars, long before Obama was a known figure.  So his post isn't about Obama specifically, nor is it about Brin being captured by Obama's post-partisan rhetoric.  It has been Brin's belief that the culture wars are only in place to aid the Right and divide those who should otherwise be united against the super rich and corporations in power.

Obviously, this is 180 degrees off from your own opinion, though I know you agree with many of the input variables.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 13:43:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Brin, like the Bushites themselves, (4.00 / 1)

seems to have no moral center.

Some things and principles really aren't negotiable.

What's most depressing in all this is to see so many on the progressive side of the ledger minimizing war crimes like torture, and the rule of the law.

And, in Brin's case, he thinks we should give up on prosecuting those involved in torture in favor of what? Some pipe dream in which Culture Wars go away because no one -- at least no one on the left -- has any principles left they care about enough that they regard them as non-negotiable?

This embarrassing fool goes on to suggest giving a pass on torture so that, maybe, we can prosecute some examples of venality in crony capitalism? Those exemplify more important principles?

Sometimes people truly take your breath away.  

---

by: frankly0 @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 00:25:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why blur the line? (0.00 / 0)

As noted in The Michigan Messenger, a group of 19 former judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officials including former FBI Director William Sessions and former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson have filed an amicus brief arguing strongly against overturning Jackson.  They argue that the ruling protects 5th amendment due process protections in addition to preventing police from badgering defendants into waiving their rights.

The Jackson ruling established the notion that once a defendant asserts their right to be represented by an attorney, they are requesting the attorney's participation "at every critical stage of the prosecution." Interestingly, the government's brief recognizes that, just as in the Miranda case that requires the police to inform the accused of the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning, the purpose of such a rule is to "prevent police from badgering a defendant into waiving" their previously asserted rights...

"Absent such a clear test," they argue, "law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, and trial judges will have to start anew in developing a common law from particularized decisions reflecting inherently subjective assessments of the tactics as well as the intent of investigators, the timing as well as the content of interrogations, and the understanding as well as the free will of defendants."

Their brief also argues that the purpose of the Sixth Amendment goes beyond merely preserving the adversary process and that the Jackson rule protects crucial Fifth Amendment due process protections that help ensure a fair trial and public confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system

---

by: counterspin @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 19:42:23 PM CDT

Because It's Not Clear This IS Blurring The Line (4.00 / 1)

and that the line hasn't already been blurred.

I'm not weighing in on the substance here, because I don't know the case and the surrounding law well enough.  I've covered federal lawsuits as a professional journalist, and I know enough not to rush into something that I don't understand well enough.

Believe me, I started out thinking this looked pretty clear.  But that was only the first couple of things I read.  Then I read more, and it became murkier.  I realized it wasn't going to get unmurky without a lot more digging than I would have time to do.  And that alone seemed quite significant enough to write about.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 20:25:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My question is directed at the administration (0.00 / 0)

I'm glad that you wrote about the issue, since I posted the article to raise awareness and stir up some debate.  We appear to be heading down a slippery slope with regards to civil liberties.  We seem to have already completely abandoned the 4th amendment and we should be wary of giving up any further ground on our rights.

I would not call myself an expert on this subject either, but in looking over the issue there certainly appears to be some cause for concern.   The right to counsel is one which we should not take lightly.  We have seen from the previous administration how far grey areas of law can be taken and we should not be eager to create new loopholes in our civil rights.  

Also, as laid out in the amicus brief, it appears that Jackson actually benefits both law enforcement and prosecutors by providing a clear standard.

(pg 12)

Jackson is neither "ill-founded" nor "unworkable." For more than two decades, it has provided a clear, easily followed rule governing interrogations of an accused once the right to counsel has attached. Not only does Jackson safeguard the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, it also facilitates the allocation of prosecutorial resources and informs the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by providing prosecutors a comprehensible standard for assessing the admissibility of an interrogation and for determining the strength of their case. Further, it avoids the burden on judicial, prosecutorial, and law enforcement resources that would result from intensely fact-bound, case-by-case adjudications, in suppression hearings and collateral proceedings, of the voluntariness and constitutionality of
confessions.

Undoubtedly, Jackson reduces opportunities to interrogate defendants. And it may require exclusion of evidence that could support a criminal conviction. Based on our experience, however, we believe that it is a rare case where this rule lets a guilty defendant go free. In our view, Jackson has done far more to promote effective law enforcement than to undermine it.

---

by: counterspin @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 21:19:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Agree There's Cause For Concern (0.00 / 0)

That's the point of my whole diary.  Right now, we can't really trust the Obama Administration at all when it comes to protecting basic rights.  I mean, the rule of law is even more basic than rights are, from a legal ontology perspective.

One can have a system of laws without any specification of rights, other than the implicit promise that you'll be treated according to the law.  So if Obama won't even stand up for that, how can he possibly be trusted to stand up for specific rights?

However, in the post-post-modernist world we inhabit, that doesn';t necessarily mean that this case and the Obama DOJ's position on it carries the meaning you attribute to it.  I'm not inclined to be trusting, that's for sure.  But I'm miles from being dead certain what all the issues are.

I think some folks have a hard time getting their minds around the fact that I don't think I know everything, and when I'm genuinely not fully informed, I'm quite willing to say so, and defer judgment.

That's just what's going on here.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 23:03:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Would you consider the ACLU a reliable information source? (0.00 / 0)

From their brief:

The Jackson rule ensures that the right to assistance of counsel does not become a meaningless abstraction, easily lost when police confront the defendant outside the presence of counsel. Amici strongly support the Jackson rule for all persons. In this brief, however, amici present empirical evidence that the concerns undergirding the Jackson rule are magnified for particularly vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, juveniles, those lacking education, those with substance addiction, and the indigent. These defendants are especially vulnerable to police suggestion that counsel is unnecessary, many such defendants lack the capacity to appreciate the importance of counsel, and many exhibit characteristics that make them prone to give false confessions. If Jackson were overruled, incidents of false confessions would likely increase. And, while serious harm would be done to our criminal justice system as a whole, the most severe and tragic consequences would befall the most vulnerable defendants.

---

by: counterspin @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:13:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I looked at the Patterico (4.00 / 1)

link, and I saw nothing that differed from the impression I originally got by reading counterspin's link.

In the end, I just don't see how this is not a step backward in terms of protecting the rights of the accused. I'd like to see anyone, Patterico included, try to show how it might possibly be a step forward for the rights of the accused; at most I see from Patterico ridicule of the idea ("Horrors!" he says with a smirk) that it would be a major loss of such rights. Why is the Obama DOJ taking this step, and why should, say, progressives and those interested in civil liberties cheer it?

Yes, a defendant might choose to waive a right to counsel which he previously invoked, and do so in the absence of counsel. But shouldn't those interested in the rights of the accused do everything they can to promote policies so that the accused do indeed have counsel at every juncture when counsel might give them critical advice?

And of course the possibility that police might in one way or another try to manipulate the accused so that they waive their right to counsel even after they have requested counsel is a very real one.

Again, I'd like to see an account whereby this is a step forward rather than backward. It's been established precedent. What reason is there to undo it?  

---

by: frankly0 @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 00:58:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Escuse me pls, but why listen to Patterico, that extremist right winger? (0.00 / 0)

Why do you expect him "to show how it might possibly be a step forward for the rights of the accused"? He isn't at all interested in protecting any civil rights except the right of gun ownership! This guy was one of the most stubborn Bush defenders, and I can't really understand why his opinion or phony informations should have any weight in the discussions here.
8-/

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

---

by: Gray @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 06:31:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No misunderstanding, he may be right this time with his legal review, but... (0.00 / 0)

...regarding his horrible record, including countless instances where he got hopping mad about alleged liberal conspiracies, we can't be sure about this. So, it would be much better to look for legal opinions from a proven reliable source like Glenn Greenwald.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

---

by: Gray @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 06:48:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rightwingers Are Pushing This Story (0.00 / 0)

And he's a rightwinger arguing against it.

So to my mind, that leaves things in need of more reliable information.  I didn't rely on that alone, there's the DKos discussion, too. But if even the wingers trying to jump on the "Obama police state" narrative can't get their ducks in a row....

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 09:15:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of course, disagreement among the wingnuts is a newsworthy issue... (0.00 / 0)

..so I'm not at all against citing Patterico in such a context. It's an interesting development, revealing different viewpoints on the right, for sure! However, in these circumstances I would have prefered to read about a legal review by a liberal lawyer, or someone whose independence is undisputed. But come to think of it, only Greenwald comes to mind. Damn, don't we have more liberal blogging lawyers? Any ideas?

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

---

by: Gray @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 09:32:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rightwingers Are Pushing This Story (0.00 / 0)

And he's a rightwinger arguing against it.

So to my mind, that leaves things in need of more reliable information.  I didn't rely on that alone, there's the DKos discussion, too. But if even the wingers trying to jump on the "Obama police state" narrative can't get their ducks in a row....

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 09:15:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

. (0.00 / 0)

Only on the blogosphere can someone doing something they said they were going to do create "uncertainty." Media cynicism is the same whether it's cable or blogs. No matter what, bullshit will exist.

To me, the problem is rather simple. I don't need some fuckin psychoanalysis of where Obama's heart lies to know the basics of what's going on. If there is no public pressure or genuine consensus for prosecutions, then there won't be any. Period. Obama's already said he's against prosecution, so obviously the only way to get him to turn on that is pressure. nothing blurred, quite clear in fact.

---

by: NeonBlack @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 04:17:49 AM CDT

Obama said he would hide torturers (4.00 / 2)

from the law during the campaign? Really? You got a link for that?

Because I have no idea why you are calling amnesty for torturers "someone doing what they said they were going to do."


If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 06:37:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Projection, Dude (0.00 / 0)

(1) As Sadie said, where's the link?

(2) You're the one without evidence, relying on your preconceptions, not us.

(3) Even if Obama were doing exactly what he said he'd do that would still be creating uncertainty, because that's the direct result of undermining the rule of law.  The uncertainty I was talking about had nothing to do with keeping campaign promises, as anyone capable of reading my actual words would know.

It's hard trying to argue with somoene as dumb as dirt.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 09:23:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I could've sworn (4.00 / 2)

Obama said something about "restoring the rule of law" when he was campaigning.

But maybe my tv doesn't get the same channels as NB's?

If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 09:43:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

In Order To Uphold The Rule Of Law, It Was Necessary To Destroy It (4.00 / 1)

The Vietnam War: The gift that just keeps giving.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 13:00:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

. (4.00 / 1)

http://www.salon.com/news/feat...

"On the campaign trail in April, Barack Obama was asked whether, if elected, he would prosecute Bush administration officials for establishing torture as American policy. The candidate demurred. "If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," he said. But he quickly added, "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems to solve.""

Which is Obamaspeak for "Prosecution? are you out of your fuckin mind?"

Next time, don't vote on platitudes. So he invoked some vague phrase "rule of law" Whoopdy fuckin doo.

---

by: NeonBlack @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 15:49:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

All right. (4.00 / 1)

You win this one.

If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 17:41:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If it has already been muddied, then why bother to over turn it? (0.00 / 0)

Because I'm not an attorney, I want every piece of protection I can get.   Abuse of power by the police is not new or rare.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich

---

by: dkmich @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 05:10:37 AM CDT

What do you expect from the "Torygraph"? (0.00 / 0)

They are like Foxnews in distorting news to make the facts look more conservative. Liberals shouldn't take the nonsense reported there for serious until it's confirmed by other channels. Don't increase the reputation of  those conservative spinmasters by treating them like reliable sources, pls!

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

---

by: Gray @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 06:21:28 AM CDT

The man's name is (0.00 / 0)

JOSS Whedon.  Not Josh.  How come you can't get this straight?

---

by: Querent @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 23:15:35 PM CDT

Joss who? (0.00 / 0)

Never heard of the guy. But Joss is a strange name. Isn't it the Chinese word for luck? At least I think James Clavell wrote so in "Tai-Pan"...

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

---

by: Gray @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:11:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]