Romper Room in DC

What the hell is going on in Washington this week?


As you may remember, a Congressman Jefferson (D-LA) is currently under investigation for bribery. He’s the guy who had some $90k in his freezer. He’s been under investigation for over a year. Last week, Justice, in conjunction with the FBI, obtained a warrant to search Jefferson’s DC office. They did an extensive (18 hour) search and took some documents.

Suddenly (literally within a few hours), House Republicans exploded. The charge was led by none other than Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL). He immediately demanded that the White House order Justice and the FBI to return the documents to Mr Jefferson. Meanwhile, according to the Post, there was talk amongst the Republican rank and file to order Mr Gonzales’ (head of Justice) resignation. They had a committee meeting in which, some speculate, they were going to fire back at the White House (said one senior administration official: “If you tell the House to stick it where the sun don’t shine… They could zero out funding, they could say, ‘Okay, you can do subpoenas, so can we.’”) Mr Hastert, standing alongside none other than Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was demanding that the documents be given over to the House Ethics Committee instead.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Mr Gonzales, along with Paul J. McNulty (deputy attorney general) and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III threatened to resign should the president return the documents. That’s right: the head of the FBI, the head of the Justice Department, and one of the seconds-in-command at Justice all threatened to resign should Mr Bush bow to his House GOP buddies and obstruct a criminal investigation.

Mr Bush, in his infinite wisdom, stalled. He put a 45 day seal on the documents. Presumably the idea behind this is to give everyone some time to cool off.

Not to be left out, the issue will now be discussed by the Supreme Court.

(By the way, this is the short version. You wouldn’t believe the amount of lightning-quick wrangling that went on at all levels involving all manner of individuals in DC this week. Threats were thrown around like mad. For example, an anonymous person at Justice told an ABC News reporter that there was enough evidence to investigate Hastert regarding the Abramoff affair. Hastert attacked Justice immediately, all but stating outright that this was a retaliation from Justice against him. Meanwhile, he ordered ABC to issue a retraction; when the reporter refused on the grounds that his sources were sound, Hastert sent his legal team after the president of ABC. They’re gearing up to file a slander and libel suit.)

Now, you may all be wondering what all the fuss is about. When I read the article, that’s certainly what I thought. Most importantly, why in the world is Mr Hastert unleashing his entire political onslaught against the Mr Bush (et al) in order to defend a Democratic Congressman? Further, by all accounts Jefferson is an idiot and guilty as a fox with feathers in his mouth.

True, this could have nothing to do with Jefferson. This could be about the separation of powers. At least, that’s what Ms Pelosi and Mr Hastert claimed: the executive (through its proxies) was trampling on the Constitution by invading legislative offices. Never mind that judiciary seemed to be assisting the executive in this endeavor by ganging up against the legislative (i.e., they issued the search warrant). Thus, Mr Hastert, and the GOP as a whole, were infuriated by the executive’s overreaching their Constitutional authority. After all, no sitting member of Congress has had his or her office searched in the history of the nation.

How now? House REPUBLICANS are interested in Mr Bush’s extension of his presidential powers? They are now calling on him to curb his reach? Because Justice and the FBI were doing their job? In order to go after a political opponent? Since when are House GOP members Constitutional scholars?

(Incidentally, Mr Hastert wrote a brief op-ed in USA Today, of all rags, explaining the situation. His claims are simple: (1) Mr Jefferson sounds guilty, and Mr Hastert has no desire to interfere in his prosecution; (2) he is not concerned IF the FBI should be able to search a Congressional office, “but rather HOW to do it within the boundaries of the Constitution,” his emphasis. Interestingly enough, Mr Hastert does not anywhere even imply how or why this has anything to do with the Constitution. Indeed, in everything I know about the Constitution, as well as in everything I have read regarding this incident written recently by Constitutional scholars, the Constitution does not in any way protect a sitting member from such investigations. Best of all, the same day that the op-ed went to press, House leaders conceded that they have no protection from a court-issued warrant, “but they said they want procedures established” for such searches and have sent Congress’ lawyers to meet with Justice to figure out guidelines for such searches. Ms Pelosi was the sole voice that came up with a coherent complaint: given that the legislative needs to have complete independence from the executive, it sets a dangerous precedent if the executive can raid their offices and obtain documents related to legislative issues. In other words, even Mr Bush cannot have access to all conversations that go on in the House; e.g., investigations of executive-branch activities.)

Now, call me crazy, but this doesn’t seem to add up. Don’t get me wrong: I would like to believe that the separation of powers could protect honorable members of Congress in their capacity as a check against the executive. But I can’t believe that the GOP would sit idly by throughout this administration’s unprecedented (and, many say, unconstitutional) power-grab. If they were worried about setting precedents, e.g., if they were worried about giving this type of power to President Hillary, then they would have gone crazy about any number of issues over the last six years (most notably the signing statements). I know that this Congress is NOT investigating the administration or hiding anything from it; they rubber stamp him and he does likewise, so what in the world would they want to protect from the eyes of the executive? And I can’t fathom that the GOP would risk such division or even all-out war on the basis of something so arcane as Constitutional powers, particularly in an election year, particularly to defend a member of Congress accused of corruption, particularly when their own party is under scrutiny for such, particularly when this whole thing could easily appear to be a demand for special treatment. The GOP is already hurting; the last thing they would ever risk is further alienation from middle class and swing voters by ostensibly claiming they are above the law.

What seems to be at issue here is the prior assumption of immunity on the part of House members. Something tells me that members of Congress, on the basis of this assumption, keep all sorts of things in their office that they don’t want anyone to see. This could be anything from receipts from the hooker they frequent to the body of Jimmy Hoffa. Regardless, this is the only thing that makes sense to me of their ill-informed, speciously justified, poorly planned, yet massive and concerted mobilization against the administration this week.



Everyone critical of Justice keeps pointing out that in 219 years no Congressional office has been raided, as if this should arouse our sympathy for their plight. This strikes me as the most pathetic miscalculation of all. I imagine many people in the country, who think that politician and crook are synonymous, are wondering why in 219 years a good number of bastards have used a public office as a safe haven for records of their illicit activities.

But the biggest idiots, as usual, are the Democrats. Just think: if they sat back and watched the GOP divide on this, they could have hammered them with insinuations just like those I am making above. None of the events would have changed, yet they would have come out looking tough on corruption and honest. As it stands, they risk looking like they are trying to defend a party member who is corrupt and takes bribes, as well as encouraging such speculation about their own offices.

Which brings me back to my original comment: What the hell is going on in Washington?

I need to write shorter emails.



-W

Treason

(Unsurprisingly, I haven’t seen much of anything or anyone who has reported on this. )

As we have seen in many cases over the last 6 years, words can be incredibly powerful. Just to cite a few that come to mind: signing statements (the most subtle), the incessant invocation of “war on terror,” “post-9/11-world,” etc.( the most blunt), the use of VNRs and other forms of “propaganda” according to admissions by the Justice Dept. and the Pentagon (the most invasive and insidious). But here is another fantastic one, shamefully one that I did not recognize until today, while researching the class I teach this summer (philosophy of law).

You may have heard people over the years refer to bad people’s giving “aid” and/or “comfort” to our enemies, to terrorists, etc. This sounds like typical, even benign mudslinging. Right?

Perhaps. One might dismiss such comments save the ubiquitous use of them by the administration (et al). One might pay more attention to the comments given the administration’s careful use of words (see above). One’s jaw might drop, however, if one reads the U.S. Constitution.

Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution deals with Treason. Given that Treason is arguably the most heinous offense available for a human being in the eyes of the state (to my limited knowledge, it is the sole crime of any sort named in the Constitution, prior to the Amendments), this is an issue of some import. The Section reads as follows:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

Did everyone catch the phrase?

Now, as to how, when, by whom, and regarding whom this phrase has been leveled:

Frederick (then GOP chairman): Daschle, overall in his role as minority leader (09/04).

Hannity (FOX News pundit): anyone who questions U.S. policies, particularly the media (01/19/06).

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX): All democrats (05/10/04).

Ashcroft: anyone who questioned his actions, who anyone criticized the administration’s policies regarding security, anyone who voted against the Patriot Act (09/18/03, 12/07/01).

Bush: anyone who aids a terrorist is a terrorist and the U.S. shall fight these persons (11/21/01, to Joint Session of Congress).

And again: anyone who criticizes Iraq war “irresponsibly” or questions the reason(s) we went to war (01/11/06).

Again: Spain (04/19/04; my personal favorite).

Cheney and Rumsfeld have made countless insinuations, but they are far more clever in the art of public speech. Thus, they have never directly stated these particular words, even when pressed by reporters using the specific phrases (though they find some more diplomatic means of saying the same thing). Seems more to belie the special consideration intended by and for such words rather than to deny or downplay it.

Simple logical progression:

Treason is giving aid and/or comfort to enemies of the U.S.

The U.S. is at war against terror and all terrorists.

Terrorists are our enemies.

Friends of terrorists are terrorists.

Treason is giving aid and/or comfort to terrorists.

The War on Terror is not a “conventional” war, and therefore may require extreme measures.

Extreme measures include, but are not limited to: suspension of habeas corpus (indefinite detainment without charge, without trial, access to lawyer or family, etc.), use of military tribunals, rendition (clandestine moving of detainee to undisclosed, unmonitored location in foreign land with no laws or oversight concerning torture), torture, execution.

Extreme measures may be used on, e.g., the entire country of Spain.



-W



P.S. This witch hunt comes closer to home than you may think. By these criteria, I AM A TERRORIST. (I put it in bold so the NSA wouldn’t miss it. There you go, boys: a typed admission of my guilt as a terrorist, as if you didn’t already think so from all my other emails.) And, unfortunately for all of you who would call me a friend, YOU ARE ALL TERRORISTS. And apparently your friends are terrorists too, and their friends…

True to Form

The democrats are proving, yet again, that no matter how pathetic their opponents may be, they will never cease failing as an opposition party.



You have probably heard the democratic battle-cry by now: “Culture of Corruption.” They have been shouting it from the mountaintops, apparently in the hopes that by incessantly (and often totally randomly, without the pretense of context) hammering this into citizen-ears they might think poorly of the GOP come November. This has been backfiring to a certain extent; as a recent CNN poll showed (which I believe I reproduced in a former email), the democrats have actually lost percentage points in the last couple months against a would-be crippled GOP. Would-be, that is, if the democrats had a clue how to stand for anything but “Not GOP!”



To add insult to (self)injury, this slogan is backfiring in other ways. The FBI has been following Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA) for some time, on suspicion for bribery. They just released a 95-page affidavit with their charges against the Congressman a few days ago. In it, they detailed a taped exchange wherein the Congressman took $100,000 from an informant, put it in his Lincoln Town Car and drove off. They also state that they found $90,000 stashed in the moron’s freezer, next to the Tater Tots. (Last phrase for emphasis.) Overall Jefferson is suspected of taking bribes and defrauding sums somewhere around $3.5 million.



The Congressman’s response: “I wish to say emphatically that in all of my actions under scrutiny, that I never intended to dishonor my office, or you, the public, and I certainly did not sell my office.” Intriguingly ambiguous statement; interesting that there is no explicit denial therein.



The Congressman’s lawyer, in response to the release of the above info: “it was an obvious attempt to embarrass the Congressman.”



I don’t even know how to respond to that last one, except to say that “attempt” implies the possibility of failure, and the transitive verb “embarrass” implies an action taken by someone against the Congressman (more appropriate would be a reflexive verb, highlighting the Congressman’s impressively executed achievement of said action).



Most of the time I dislike or even despise Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. In times like these I pity them. They must cry themselves to sleep at night.



-W



http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/6737.html (Thanks to Henry for the link.)

Crazy People

Eek.

I’m sure that all of you have at least heard of the letter sent from Mr Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, to Mr Bush. I presume that (along with most of the world, probably including Mr Bush) some of you haven’t read it. Therefore, I have elected to provide some highlights from the letter for your consumption and digestion.

On the whole, the letter is surprising. That is, it seems that everything I have heard about it (e.g., rambling, crazy, unorganized, religiously fanatic, etc.), is untrue. For the most part: the letter is all of those things, but not in any extreme or damning manner. It is rather simple, coherent, and even contemplative. Mr Ahmadinejad asks many questions of Mr Bush (with the obvious assumptions that Mr Bush will not read the letter, and that many other people will), the majority of which most of us, I think, would like to ask him as well. In this respect I find the letter refreshing. The State Dept (to my knowledge) has yet to find a sufficiently refreshing response.

Two points particularly interest me.

First:

Mr Ahmadinejad asks a question that has haunted me since I started paying attention. He mentions that he is a teacher, and talks about the questions that his students ask him concerning Israel. After recounting in a very abstract manner the historical anomaly that is Israel (e.g., “Throughout history, many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times”), after recounting in a very dry, unsympathetic manner the reasons for this anomaly (“six million Jews had been killed… Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state?”), and after recounting in a dry, sympathetic manner the pain this caused and continues to cause to those already present at the foundation of Israel, Mr Ahmadinejad puts the following question into the mouths of his students:

“Why is this regime being supported? …Why are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?”

Some people might find the student-teacher setup contrived. Yet in my experience they would be mistaken: I have had this discussion many times with students, and have made the great question mark that is Israel the subject of more than one lecture. After the attacks, I spent a period studying the history of the UN’s involvement (e.g., attempted and adopted resolutions, creation and definition of refugees, US coercion as a permanent member of the Security Council, etc.) with the Israelis and the Palestinians. Although I am no expert on American history and policy in the last 60 years, it is not a history that makes me proud of my citizenship. At best, I can simply say that I do not understand why we have acted in the ways we have, and I am at a loss as to why we seem not yet to have learned how to proceed.

Second:

The most interesting and unfortunate moment of the letter, in my estimation, is where the Iranian president makes the American president look like the more unreasonable person in the room. After asking about the legacies of leaders at some length (e.g., “Did our administrations set out to promote rational behavior, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress, and respect for human dignity, or the force of guns, intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people’s rights?”), Mr Ahmadinejad asks the following:

“Mr. President,

How much longer can the world tolerate this situation?

Where will this trend lead the world to?

How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers?

How much longer will the specter of insecurity -- raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction -- hunt the people of the world?

How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people's houses destroyed over their heads?

Are you pleased with the current condition of the world?

Do you think present policies can continue?

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states, and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts, were would the world be today? Would not your government and people be justifiably proud?

Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger?

And, I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American government?”

I reproduce this for a selfish reason. Since the attacks, I have increased (ad nauseum) my consumption of media and history, particularly since WWII. Since the attacks, I have had many discussions with people on this list about the causes behind the attacks and the appropriate response to such attacks, both in the short and long term. Often in these discussions, I would make very similar statements to those by Mr Ahmadinejad when he proposes an alternative history, and I would make similar predictions as to the effects of such policy decisions (i.e., less people would hate us).

True, we have long been an example in the international community for giving aid and paying heed to the rest of the world. True, no one could ever expect a government (let alone the sole world superpower) to take on such actions as its primary definition of realpolitik (even though it escapes me as to why). True, these policies are in some sense a moot point without a radical shift in our minute policy decisions and overall strategy with respect to Israel.

True, Mr Ahmadinejad shows himself to be a terrible hypocrite here. I’m sure that there are millions in his country who would like to ask him why he is asking such questions of other leaders in the world, when he has proven incapable or unwilling to focus on such issues himself. Indeed, I’m sure there are millions more (many of whom now believe that he is a great leader) who would ask about this hypocrisy if they knew of it: if there was anything like free expression, press, dissent, etc. in Iran, I imagine his popularity would drop significantly. In other words, Mr Ahmadinejad looks most the fool right when he is most reasonable.

Nevertheless, all this gives me pause. Pundits are fond of referring to Mr Ahmadinejad as a nutjob. FOX News’ John Gibson recently pointed out that many of the letter’s statements are very close to the Democrats’ talking points, and then essentially asked his viewers to do the math. Apparently Iranian dictators, religious extremists, holocaust deniers, rogue nations in pursuit of nuclear weapons, and Democrats all share the same platform and values; if you agree with anything Ahmadinejad said, you show your true colors.

Stephen Colbert responded by asking if all vegetarians are proving that they share Hitler’s values.

Eek.

-W.

Despotism v. Democracy: Mutually Exclusive?

All,

Although I have known of the existence of signing statements for some time, I have to thank Stephen Colbert, who thanked the Boston Globe, for informing me of their extensive use by this administration. All quotations not otherwise cited (and a good deal of the following stuff) comes from a Globe article, found at http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws?mode=PF. I highly recommend the article, though it is long.

For those amongst you who love The Daily Show, the following is THE preeminent example of Mr Bush in his role as The Decider!

(For those of you who are not, The Daily Show has started a spoof comment with Mr Bush as a superhero called The Decider. This arose after Bush prematurely returned from his Easter vacation at Camp David to hold a Rose Garden press conference to respond to speculation about Mr Rumsfeld’s removal. Mr Bush said, in a rather excited and tantrum-like voice, “I listen to all the voices, but mine is the final decision… I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I’m the decider, and I decide what is best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain the secretary of defense.” Jon Stewart apparently shared my emotions when he saw this: he was afraid. If that scared us, however, then the following will make you want to go to WalMart and buy lots of guns.)

Most people had never heard of a presidential “signing statement.” This is due in part to their infrequent use historically. Mostly, however, I believe it is due to the assumption of major media companies that the American people are too stupid or uninterested in the arcane intricacies of their government to care read an article about such a thing (thus explaining why the most extensive articles about them are found in the Boston Globe; the paper has published at least 6 articles on the subject in the last 5 months).

However, the idea is extremely simple. The separation of powers entails passing of laws by Congress, interpretation of law/Constitution by courts, and execution of law/Constitution by president. Occasionally they overlap: court decides Congress passed an unconstitutional law, president vetoes a bill, Congress overrides a presidential veto.

Since Mr Bush took office, there has been little overlap of powers; e.g., Mr Bush has not vetoed a single bill sent to him by Congress. (Only Jefferson spent 5 years in office without issuing a veto.) Some might see this as unexceptional; with the exception of a brief anomaly, the Congress and Senate have been controlled by the GOP since Mr Bush took power. It could also be that the president has stealthily and cleverly avoided any showdown which would question or curtail his influence: he has given Congress no opportunity to override him.

One rare way in which this overlap occurs is called a signing statement. The president receives a law passed by Congress. He signs it, usually amid a great deal of pomp and photo ops. Yet when everyone leaves, he has his legal team attach a signing statement to the law. This states that, due to his (et al) interpretation of the Constitution, which is different from that of the Congress, he reserves the right not to execute some part or the entirety of the law.

Just to make sure everybody got that, I’ll repeat it: a signing statement is the president’s recorded dissent against any or all provisions of a law, to the effect that the legislative branch has no power over the executive to require any action from it, or to curtail any action by it. Since the signing statement arises from the president’s (et al) interpretation of the Constitution, it likewise entails the president’s usurpation of the judiciary’s role in the government. In short, a signing statement is the president’s declaration that, with regard to any and all cases involving this particular piece of legislation, the executive answers to no precedent, principle, or power but its own. At this moment, the president becomes an absolute dictator.

One would naturally assume, or at least hope, that such events be extremely uncommon, as they seem to strike at the heart of the Constitution itself. Historically, this is true: according to the Globe article, such statements were uncommon until the second term of Reagan. George H. W. Bush issued 232 in 4 years, Mr Clinton issued 140 in 8 years. Still, prior to the present administration these mostly dealt with “longstanding legal ambiguities and points of conflict.”)

In the last 5 years of office, Mr Bush has written at least 750 signing statements.

To put this in perspective: Mr Bush has enjoyed the rare privilege of being a member of the party that controls the House, the Senate, the Governors, and (ideologically and historically speaking) the Supreme Court for the majority of his time in office. Yet he has still felt the need to exempt himself from the direct or indirect demands of over 750 laws, 1 out of every 10 that came to his desk, written by his own GOP allies.

If all this sounds too alarmist, maybe the legal opinion of a NYU law professor could help:

“David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive-power issues, said Bush has cast a cloud over ‘'the whole idea that there is a rule of law,’ because no one can be certain of which laws Bush thinks are valid and which he thinks he can ignore.

‘'Where you have a president who is willing to declare vast quantities of the legislation that is passed during his term unconstitutional, it implies that he also thinks a very significant amount of the other laws that were already on the books before he became president are also unconstitutional,’ Golove said” (Globe article, cited below).

As for some highlights of this litany of legislation oppressive to the president’s Constitutional privilege:

Law passed March 9, 2005: Justice Dept officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Signing Statement: president can order JD to withhold any info from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec 30: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

SS: president decides if and when to waive the torture ban.

Dec 30: When requested, scientific information “prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay.”

SS: president decides if and when to withhold any info from Congress if… (see above).

Aug 8 (et al): one of several pieces of legislation which protects government whistleblowers from being fired or otherwise punished if they talk to Congress about possible wrongdoing

SS: president decides if and when employees of federal agencies can talk to Congress.

Aug 5, 2004: The military cannot use info illegally gathered, including such obtained about Americans in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.

SS: president decides if and when the military can use any piece of intelligence.

Nov 5, 2002: Congress created the Institute of Education Sciences, whose director may conduct and publish research “without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department.”

SS: president “has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials.”

(from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/)

As for the courts, Mr Bush has defied the Supreme Court on at least nine occasions involving their repeated rulings upholding affirmative-action programs (as long as they do not include quotas). Each time he has invoked the Constitution’s guarantee of “equal protection” to all; this allows him to ignore the provisions “that s eek to ensure that minorities are represented among recipients of government jobs, contracts, and grants.”

Even in this brief list, there are examples of laws specifically crafted to curtail the power of the president (Patriot Act, Torture Ban), as well as more standard legislation delineating offices (Dept. of Ed., Pentagon), as well as legislation whose sole purpose was to create a position/office independent of executive oversight (Federal Trade Commission). In each case, Mr Bush’s flatly states that he is outside the bounds of these laws, but no one is exempt from his influence.

The administration’s defenders say that this doesn’t change the laws, and point out those examples wherein the president follows laws while nevertheless objecting to their Constitutional basis. Yet two considerations seem to invalidate this reading. First, since all executive offices are under the direct control of the president, all executive officers are expected to act in accordance with the president’s signing statement, rather than the Congress’ elucidation of their offices. (Cf. the FISA law and court, enacting by Congress in 1978, and the president’s illegal domestic spying.) This fear became manifest just a few days ago. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) grilled FBI director Robert Mueller before the Judiciary Committee recently, asking for assurances that Mueller’s FBI would comply with the Patriot Act and would give regular reports on their compliance. Mueller refused. Although he said he “saw no reason that the bureau couldn’t share that information with Congress,” he nevertheless pointed out that the agency is “bound to obey the administration.” Mr Feingold pressed, asking Mr Mueller how Congress could be know that the FBI wasn’t claiming to follow the law while receiving a “secrete directive from above requiring you to violate laws.” Mr Mueller’s response was worthy of the best (read: worst) diplomat or lawyer: “I can assure you with regard to the FBI that our actions would be taken according to appropriate legal authorities.” Second, in most cases the president cites his favorite get-out-of-jail-free card: national security and intelligence. Every time the president invokes this clause, he precludes any determination as to whether or not he is actually following the law in question: transparency is anathema to information related to national security and intelligence. ''There can't be judicial review if nobody knows about it," said Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who was a Justice Department official in the Clinton administration. ''And if they avoid judicial review, they avoid having their constitutional theories rebuked." Or, try Bruce Fein, deputy attorney general for Reagan: the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch ''to exercise some self-restraint." But Bush has declared himself the sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every time. ''This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy," Fein said. ''There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn't doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power."

Irregardless of Congress and the courts, Mr Bush is The Decider!

Postscript: The article (and the specialists it cites) claims that we should not expect anyone to do anything about this practice. The courts are incapable of responding, and the Congress would only make the party look bad should they question or rebuke the president.

Yet again, this seems an embarrassing lack of foresight. By worrying more about the party’s reputation (and thereby their own, particularly in an election year) than executive power and precedent, the Congress is practically begging the Democrats to do the same in the future. People like Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) would have a heart attack if he spent five minutes imagining a Hillary Clinton administration exercising the same interpretation of the reaches of the executive.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) again seems the sole sane person in the Senate. According to the Globe, he called the White House’s practice “a very blatant encroachment” on congressional authority: “There is some need for some oversight by Congress to assert its authority here. What’s the point of having a statute if… the president can cherry-pick what he likes and what he doesn’t like? …There may as well soon not be a Congress… And I think that most members don’t understand what’s happening.”

How is it that some kid who can’t get a job save coffee shop attendant, who has had no education regarding American democracy, who moonlights as a student of government, knows more about the law than the people we keep voting-in? Oh, right. Stupid question. Money.

-W.

Fun Environmental Facts

Sorry for the obviously contradictory title. There are no fun facts concerning the environment.

On May 1^st, the BBC reported that the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) just released their Red List of Threatened Species. (As usual, I didn’t see anything anywhere else, but I admit that I didn’t search too hard.) The Red List is the end result of a massive collection of data on species of all major groups (e.g., plants, mammals, fishies, amphibians, etc.), as to whether they face extinction. The categories are Threatened, Endangered, and Critically Endangered. I thought I would share some of their delightful statistics:

- 1 in every 3 species of frog (on earth) is apparently Threatened with extinction

- human activities threaten 99% of all the species on the list

This year was the first time that they included marine life, for some reason. The scientists themselves were apparently unprepared for (i.e., shocked at) the findings:

- 20% of the 547 species of sharks surveyed are on the Red List

- 56% of the fish species of the Mediterranean are Threatened with extinction

Overall,

- out of the 40,168 species studied, 16,118 species are Threatened with extinction

If you are interested in the report, here is their website: http://www.redlist.org/. It’s actually quite navigable.

The BBC article is as follows: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4963526.stm

In other news, almost 2000 years ago Ptolemy marveled at snow-capped mountains in the hot climes of East Africa, which fed into the Nile. He called them “The Mountains of the Moon.” According to a recent British-Ugandan study, the glaciers on these Rwenzori Mountains have halved from around two square km to just under one since 1987. At that rate, they should be gone for good in twenty years. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4987186.stm)

-W.

Democracy InAction

You know, there are few things that warm my heart more than the futile squabbling of would-be allied groups over the scraps from The Massa’s table. The sweetest examples, however, are those times where they so effectively focus on each other that they torpedo their own efforts in the process.

The front page of this morning’s New York Times has an article entitled “Growing Unease for Some Blacks on Immigration.” It is (obviously) about black “professionals, academics, and blue-collar workers” who “feel increasingly uneasy as they watch Hispanics flex their political muscle while assuming the mantle of a seminal black struggle for justice.” Specifically, the immigrant community has started invoking the Civil Rights movement: in protests across the country they have quoted Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and sung “We Shall Overcome.” And this pissed off a lot of black people.

Why, you might ask? The Times cites two reasons. First, some point out that blacks have endured social injustice (and don’t let the name fool you; this includes everything from unequal education rights to imprisonment without trial, rape, beatings, lynchings, etc., etc.) for hundreds of years in this country without recourse, and even then (e.g., emancipation, desegregation, affirmative action) it has proven less than effective in balancing the equality-meter in America. This leads to the second point. Things still aren’t equal for blacks: they comprise the vast majority of high-school drop-outs, the unemployed, the under-employed, those who work for (practically) starving wages, etc. Thus, some are pissed that their struggle—which is far from over—is being co-opted by a group of people who aren’t even citizens, for fear that this recent fad will divert attention from their own cause. But to add insult to injury, illegals are the primary folks who take the jobs that black people tend to work. That’s what they think according to polls, anyway; whether it is true is up for debate.

According to everything I have seen or heard in the last several months, Hispanics have now surpassed blacks as the largest minority in America. Their numbers together comprise at least 26% of the population of the US. This, of course, does not include the large amount of illegals in the country (many of whom, depending on Congress’ choice of legislation, may become citizens and thus increase the percentage).

Aside from the issue of citizenship, these two groups are fighting for the same basic rights. In thumbnail sketch, these amount to the following: to receive fair wages, to receive equal education, to not be discriminated against on the basis of their color or background, to not be treated like criminals. Yet since the one group has not received such from the US they apparently fear that the other group will. This implies (1) that there is a limited amount of tolerance to go around for marginalized groups, (2) that if one minority is treated equally it will make it even harder for other minorities to acquire similar status.

Now, to my knowledge no one on this list is a demographer or a political science major. Therefore, hopefully you will permit me some non-expert speculation. As always, please respond if you think I am in error.

Given the large percentage of the populace comprised by the combination of these groups, and given the remarkable show of political organization and activism on the part of Hispanics (remember: the protests set off around the country apparently have exceeded anything seen since prior to Vietnam, and NOT ONE instance of violence or arrest has yet been reported), does it make more sense for those blacks concerned about their station to alienate themselves from or even protest against Hispanics, or does it make more sense for them to join forces? In other words, right now blacks in America make up roughly 13% of the population, and their demographic has become notoriously politically impotent (in their own words; this is constitutive to their being pissed at Hispanics right now, i.e., t their apparent effectiveness at capturing and holding the political spotlight). Their concerns are far from appeased, and they now fear becoming even more marginalized by being drowned out. Yet they and Hispanics are all fighting for the same basic concerns. Does it strike anyone as a sound strategy to denounce Hispanics for their quoting King at rallies and their attempt to find solidarity with a historic moment in American history when people actually cared about civil rights and things actually changed? Indeed, does it hurt the black community that a group that is recently larger, apparently more organized and currently more oppressed is not just fighting for their own concerns, but is reminding Americans of a movement that should never be forgotten until it is actually, fully achieved? In other words, why in the name of everything holy do these groups not join forces, and thereby take this issue away from those who would try to isolate the grievances as that of a single group?

Now some might call me politically naïve. (I imagine this is something of a given at this point: I seem to be utterly incapable of understanding politics because logic strikes me as relatively simple.) Nevertheless, the Times article does not appear to describe sound thinking on the part of those in the black community who wish to keep the Civil Rights movement THEIR movement. Rather, it looks like the successful implementation of one of the primary pages in the playbook of those who would oppress any and all marginalized groups. I can’t even understand the reasoning involved here: if the black community’s concerns have been ignored for over 30 years, and the Hispanic community simultaneously faces greater political opposition, greater public awareness and greater organization than ever, then who would ever think it smart to keep them apart—save those who fear their combined political clout?

But this appears to be a moot point. I have never understood this type of thinking, whether it involves some in the black community choking when they hear that gays call their struggle an extension of the Civil Rights movement, or when some in the Jewish community (here and abroad) have fiercely lobbied against labeling any other conflict (e.g., Rwanda, Darfur) a “genocide” for fear that it might take away from the memory of their own horrors. I have always viewed these types of responses to current struggles and atrocities as, at best, politically and logically embarrassing and, at worst, as self-important solipsistic hypocrisy. How could anyone ever take the concerns of an oppressed group seriously if that same group decries a similar group’s similar concerns in the same breath that they demand their own concerns be addressed? If someone said to me, “You must remember the Holocaust as an immeasurably terrible genocide, yet you can’t consider the grinding into dust of any other people as comparable,” if someone said to me, “It is shameful the way that blacks have historically been denied equal opportunity in this country, yet the equality concerns of Hispanics and gays are separate and should not be associated with ours,” why would I believe anything that person said? Why would I not instead consider that person (1) politically self-destructive, (2) as discriminatory as those who she claims were keeping her down, and thus (3) galactically self-centered?

(Of course, this is merely scratching the surface. Everyone knows that women still haven’t achieved equality in the workplace or anywhere else. I can’t even fathom what would happen if they followed the example of those illegals and firmly yet peacefully demanded to receive the roughly 22 cents docked on every dollar they get from their employers—22 cents less than every dollar given to a man in the same position. I can’t even fathom if an oppressed group comprising 50% of the population decided to protest. Just imagine: “A Day Without Women.”)

But what do I know? I’m just a white Anglo-Saxon protestant Southern male. My job automatically means I’m an out-of-touch fanatic effete upper class liberal. It’s an interesting place to be: caring about the situation of groups who don’t always want my help, and being an unwilling member of the groups who are responsible for the status quo.

I wonder if I would have more authority if I started wearing a dress. After all, my legs look great in pumps.

-W