Expert Advice On Dealing With A Prior Administration's Use of Torture

By John Dean

From The Archives:

By JOHN W. DEAN

Friday, June 12, 2009

No official announcement has been made that the Obama Administration is not going to prosecute anyone – other than a few low-level soldiers who photographed themselves and already have been prosecuted – for torturing detainees in our so-called war on terror. But it has become clear that President Obama's announced desire to look forward, not backward, embodies such a decision.

Still, we must all hope that the Obama Administration makes more than a non-decision type of decision, and does not merely resolve the matter by silence and inaction. There are, in fact, precedents, and studies, that illuminate the grave problems confronting a democracy in making a choice when faced with the options of prosecuting and punishing versus forgiving and forgetting. I discovered this material some years ago when studying authoritarian governance.

The Insights of Samuel P. Huntington

I provided evidence in my recent book Conservatives Without Conscience that the Bush/Cheney presidency was the most authoritarian in American history. When doing research for that book, I read a work by the late Samuel P. Huntington, the highly- regarded Harvard political scientist and former president of the American Political Science Association. More specifically, I was interested in Professor Huntington's survey of the transition to democracy, during the mid-1970s through the 1980s, of some thirty countries that had previously been under authoritarian rule, which Huntington wrote about in The Third Wave: Democratization In the Late Twentieth Century.

Professor Huntington, who once served as a foreign policy adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey, was respected across the political spectrum, as conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg noted on his passing. Huntington called it as he saw it, and few have studied more governments so closely throughout the world.

When writing The Third Wave, Huntington explained that rather than following his normal practice of detached political analysis, he would explain the implications of his findings at five points in the book, where he "abandoned the roles of social scientist, [and] assumed that of [a] political consultant." It was in this context that Huntington addressed how a democratic government should deal with torture that had occurred under the rule of an authoritarian predecessor.

Applying Huntington's Insights to the Obama Administration's Predicament

While the situations are far from directly parallel, Huntington's analysis strikes me as relevant to our current situation. Thus, in the following paragraphs, I have paraphrased or quoted his work, and occasionally transposed it from the context of a purely authoritarian government to that of the authoritarian-leaning democracy favored by many conservatives, and encouraged by Bush/Cheney, and to the situation now faced by the United States and by the Obama Administration.

In turning to Huntington's analysis, I am not, of course, equating the American conservative authoritarianism with the authoritarianism the professor examined under the Central American and Asian dictatorships, or the Greek military, and similar authoritarian regimes. Nor is the situation parallel when American voters rejected the policies of the Republican Party by electing President Obama.

By the same token, no one should be surprised that torture occurred when American conservatives ruled in an authoritarian manner. Nor, given the fact that Obama campaigned by opposing such authoritarian actions, it should not be surprising that many of his supporters, who voted the authoritarians out of power in Washington, now want him to prosecute and punish those involved.

I found Huntington's work both provocative and illuminating in the context of the current situation that Obama faces in dealing with the use of torture by his predecessor. Especially given the fact we have never faced this situation before in the United States, but similar situations have existed in many other nations, the professor's advice is instructive.

The Case for Prosecuting and Punishing the Use of Torture

Based on Huntington's analysis, which is applicable to our country as well as to a newly-established democracy, there are a number of arguments for holding a prior administration accountable for torture through prosecutions and punishments:

(1) "Truth and justice require it." The Obama Administration "has the moral duty to punish vicious crimes against humanity.

(2) "Prosecution is a moral obligation owed to the victims and their families."

(3) "Democracy is based on law, and the point must be made that neither high officials nor [the] military … are above the law." Citing a judge who was critical of a government amnesty proposal, Huntington added: "Democracy isn't just freedom of opinion, the right to hold elections, and so forth. It's the rule of law. Without equal application of the law, democracy is dead. The government is acting like a husband whose wife is cheating on him. He knows it, everybody knows it, but he goes on insisting that everything is fine and praying every day that he isn't going to be forced to confront the truth, because then he'd have to do something about it."

(4) "Prosecution is necessary to deter further violations of human rights by [future] officials."

(5) "Prosecution is essential to establish the viability of the democratic system." If the Republicans and Bush/Cheney apologists can prevent prosecution though political influence, democracy does not really exist.

(6) Even if the worst "crimes are not prosecuted, at a very minimum it is necessary to bring into the open the extent of the crimes and the identity of those responsible and thus establish a full and unchallengeable public record. The principle of accountability is essential to democracy, and accountability requires 'exposing the truth' and insisting 'that people not be scarified for the greater good…'."

The Case for Forgiving and Forgetting the Use of Torture

Huntington's analysis of the case for leaving a past government's torture in the past, and imposing no consequences, which is based on more extreme government authoritarianism, is not nearly as applicable as his arguments calling for prosecution. Thus, I have taken his core arguments against prosecuting and punishing, and restated them in a context that is more closely applicable to our country and the current situation:

(1) A working democracy calls for reconciliation between major factions in society, who set aside divisions of the past.

(2) There must be a tacit understanding in a democracy among those vying for power that there will be no retribution for past policies sincerely held by opponents. Democracies do not criminalize policy differences, and while the Obama Administration does not believe torture is an effective policy, and has rejected it, it understands that the Bush/Cheney Administration believed it necessary to protect Americans.

(3) Because many Democrats were aware of the use of torture by the Bush/Cheney Administration -- specifically, Congressional Democrats who were briefed on its use -- it would be unfair to prosecute Republicans but not Democrats.

(4) Torture was only used because it was sincerely believed it was necessary to deal with terrorism, and, whether wisely or unwisely, it was done to protect the United States.

(5) Many Americans share in the guilt of the use of torture by the Bush/Cheney Administration. Recent polls indicate that only 29 percent of Americans believe torture should never be used, and the rest have varying degrees of toleration for its use. Similarly, not even half of Americans polled want an investigation into this matter.

(6) Prosecuting and punishing those involved in the use of torture would provoke a bitter and divisive public debate, which would detract from the government's ability to deal with more pressing problems like the economy, healthcare, and America's dangerous budget deficits. It is more important to guarantee the human rights of people today and tomorrow, than to seek retroactive justice that could compromise the ability to deal with more immediate and difficult issues.

Professor Huntington's Advice

It is unfortunate that Samuel Huntington is no longer available to share his wisdom for addressing this situation facing the nation, and the Obama Administration. Clearly there are strengths and weaknesses in the arguments on both sides of this issue. Nonetheless, as I noted, Huntington did give his advice to those who were forming new democracies -- advice which he based on how the democracy was formed:

(1) When the transition to democracy occurred through a process of transformation ("when the elites in power took the lead in bringing about democracy"), or through what he called transplacement ("when democratization resulted largely from joint action by government and opposition groups"), then Huntington advised those in power, "do not attempt to prosecute authoritarian officials for human rights violations. The political costs of such an effort will outweigh any moral gains."

(2) If replacement – not transformation or transplacement -- occurred (that is if "opposition groups took the lead in bringing about democracy, and the authoritarian regime collapsed or was overthrown"), and if those in power felt it was "morally and politically desirable," then Huntington advised that they should "prosecute the leaders of the authoritarian regime promptly (within one year of your coming into power) while making clear that you will not prosecute middle- and lower-ranking officials."

(3) Regardless of how the transition occurred, Huntington advised that those in power ought to "[d]evise a means to achieve a full and dispassionate public accounting of how and why the crimes were committed."

(4) Throughout his analysis, Huntington points out, "on the issue of 'prosecute and punish vs. forgive and forget,'" that "each alternative presents grave problems, and that the least unsatisfactory course may well be: do not prosecute, do not punish, do not forgive, and, above all, do not forget."

Huntington's advice, notwithstanding how the transition occurred during our last election, still appears very relevant to our democracy, which is the most advanced in the world. Personally, I find his arguments for prosecution stronger than those against it when those arguments are applied to the Bush/Cheney Administration. But since it appears the Obama Administration is not going to take such action, at a minimum the Administration should follow Huntington's counsel to find "a means to achieve a full and dispassionate public accounting," and should make certain that the means chosen is not understood as forgiving, which would allow the nation to quickly forget.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

If It's A War Crime, It Must Be Partisan

Ensign Calls Senate Armed Services Committee Report A ‘Democrat Partisan’ Document »

Today, Sen. John Ensign (R-AZ) went on MSNBC to attack the Senate Armed Services Committee report on the Bush administration's treatment of detainees. When host Chris Matthews asked Ensign whether he was shocked that our interrogation practices were based on those used by Chinese Communists to elicit false information from U.S. troops, the senator criticized him for being "inflammatory."

When Matthews insisted that he wasn't being inflammatory because he was reading directly from the report, Ensign tried to discredit the entire document by saying it was a "Democrat partisan" report:

ENSIGN: Chris, the reason I said it is because you didn't preface that with saying that was a Democrat report. That was a Democrat partisan report. And you have to understand where the people who were doing that report -- where their ideology comes from.
MATTHEWS: Well, apparently, Sen. John McCain is part of what you call a "Democrat report." It's the full committee report. ... [I]t's the Armed Services Committee report. It went through three months of review by the Defense Department, until its final release just yesterday. It seems to me this was vetted, sir. And you say this was some Democrat report.
ENSIGN: The Democrats are in control of all of the committees. This was a Democrat majority report. This was not with the participation of the minority where the minority signed it, "Yes, we agree with these views."

Ensign is right that there are often committee reports produced and released by only the minority or the majority. This report, however, was not one of them. The first page of the detainee report makes it clear that it is a document from the "Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate." ThinkProgress spoke with a committee spokesman who confirmed that the full, unanimous committee released the report. When talking with Levin today, MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell noted that Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham also endorsed the report.

Additionally, documents clearly show that the Bush administration's interrogation program was based on the U.S. military program known as Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE), which is used to train U.S. troops if they are ever tortured by an enemy that doesn't adhere to the Geneva Conventions. As the report notes, SERE techniques "were based, in part, on Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to elicit false confessions."

Transcript: More »

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Do U.S. Elections Matter?

Linda makes some very good points. There was a a time I would have agreed with her on even more of them. That was before 2000. Can anyone really say that election 2000 didn't matter? If Al Gore had won that election would we be embroiled in Iraq and nearly bankrupt, morally as well as economically? If Al Gore had won the election, would there have even been a 9/11? I guess we'll never know with any certainty about the last question.

I would bet that we would be well on our way to more eco-friendly life-styles and less dependent on middle-east oil. Instead, we're just getting started with the long hard slog of finding better ways of producing energy, in earnest. Never mind that we have known what the continued use of fossil fuels would eventually do to the planet and our health since the early 70s.

Well paid lobbyists will kill us all if we don't change this lousy, corrupt system in Washington and on Wall Street.

Instead, many of us saw no difference in Gore and Bush. Bush was the compassionate conservative, remember? By now all but the most intellectually challenged among us know what an oxymoron that is, but it's way too late.

It's true that no matter who is elected this November it will take years to clean up the mess Bush, Cheney and a Republican majority have made. It is also true that that process won't even begin if we are, as a nation, insane enough to elect them again.

So, I would beg, plead and cajole...vote for Obama/ Biden and give them a congress they can work with and then, as Linda says, raise hell about the issues you care about. If the Democrats can't get the job done, let's organize a third party. As a matter of fact, why not start now? When a third of the eligible voters are too disenchanted or disgusted to bother to vote, something is very, very wrong. Part of what's wrong is the corrupt duality of the two party system.

Maybe this year will be the turning point. It's for sure that Barack Obama has excited the electorate to a degree I haven't seen in my lifetime of close to 60 years.


100 million nonvoters send a stinging message of disenchantment

By Linda Averill


October 22, 2008 "FSN" - -Legions of people opt out of voting in the U.S. But they are not civic slackers. They’re on to something. Whether disinterested or disgusted, they are casting a vote of no confidence in the electoral system. And it is entirely justified.


The real point of elections is to get enough people voting to legitimize the authority of politicians. Then, they can drag us into wars, bail out bankers in the middle of an economic meltdown, and “earmark” tax dollars to their biggest donors. It happens at every level of government, from City Hall to the White House.


Just as riot is the language of the unheard, abstention has become the vote of the unrepresented. In a debate on voter apathy, blogger Bud Wood put it this way: “It just doesn’t make much difference who or what gets into office. The results are more of the same.”


Whose democracy? There are 100 million nonvoters in the U.S., and they are overwhelmingly people who are economically disenfranchised. They are poor, young, disabled, unemployed and foreign-born, especially Asian and Latino.


Only 48 percent of folks in the bottom income bracket go to the polls. Compare this to 77 percent among those with annual incomes above $50,000. Those earning over $100,000 per year make up 15 percent of eligible voters, but 19 percent of actual ballot-casters. And this percentage rises on up the wealth ladder.


But even active voters are turned off. A study called the “Vanishing Voter” showed disenchantment among voters and abstentionists alike. More than 75 percent felt that “candidates will say almost anything to get elected.” Over one third agreed that “most politicians are liars or crooks.” The only statement that doubled in support among nonvoters was that “Republicans and Democrats are alike.”


It’s true. Big bucks dictate the agendas of both parties. In 2008, Obama and McCain will set new records for spending —over a half billion dollars. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, champions of banking and investment deregulation, are top donors to Obama and Biden, a darling of credit card sharks. Exxon and Chevron back McCain and Palin, a proselytizer for drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge.


Even new Democrats and Republicans find it difficult to enter government. In 2006, 407 House seats were up for reelection, with 383 held by incumbents. Of these incumbents, 94 percent prevailed, because they got all the money and media. A good many ran unopposed! This helps explain why turnout drops well below 40 percent during midterm elections.


Meanwhile, workingclass voters are kicked to the curb. Take Latinos for example. Voter forums showed that their concerns include basics such as “buying gas or buying food,” insufficient medical care, soaring war costs, and immigration. So what do both parties offer? Nothing.


In June, the Senate voted 92 to six for $257.5 billion in unrestricted war funds. The House vote was 416 to 12.


On healthcare, McCain and Obama leave untouched the sacred profits of the medical/pharmaceutical industry. On immigration, they offer more crackdowns.


It’s rigged! Actually, many abstainers would vote if they could. Other countries give people a day off to go to the polls, but not the U.S.


In 2004, 45 percent didn’t vote because they were too busy or exhausted, disabled or ill. Another 12 percent were stopped by registration problems, inconvenient polling locations and transportation issues. Translation? This means millions of workingclass voters face insurmountable obstacles, from electoral incompetence to outright dirty tricks on the part of politicians.


In Florida, the notorious ballot software is still flawed, and polls close by 7 p.m. A county in Virginia recently misled students to believe they could lose dependent tax status — and the benefits that bestows — if they registered to vote at their school address. In Wisconsin, the attorney general wants to cross-check every voter who registered since January 2006. This means long voting lines and disenfranchisement for those who can’t resolve discrepancies, including typos.


The list goes on. And systemic, undisguised racism explains why the overwhelming majority of those denied the vote each election are workingpeople of color.


Another 4-5 million are disenfranchised by states that deny the vote to ex-felons, 36 percent of them African American. Non-citizens have no representation, even though they are affected by everything the government does and may have lived here for years.


Minor parties? With such a gap between politicians and people, third parties should flourish. Instead they are blockaded by the money and might of the Democrats and Republicans. Election laws, written by the major parties, make it extremely difficult for minor parties even to appear on the ballot.


Outrageous rules, media censorship, private financing of campaigns, and sheer thuggery have marginalized political parties that compete with labor’s fake friend, the Democratic Party. This includes even parties like the Greens, who simply want to reform capitalism.


It’s not people who vote socialist or Green who throw away their votes. The system does it! U.S. elections are “winner take all.” If a socialist gets 20 percent of the vote, a Green gets 15 percent, and a Democrat gets 51 percent — all votes go to the Democrat.


Things weren’t always so sewn up. At the start of the 20th century, socialists ran on explicitly pro-labor, anti-capitalist platforms. And they won seats — more than 1,200 offices nationwide.


To eliminate the threat this posed, the Democrats and Republicans launched a political witch-hunt. Socialist party offices were raided, pro-labor representatives were denied their seats, radicals were tossed in jail, and restrictive ballot laws were passed.


Raise hell, whoever wins! After this country revolted against the English king, only a few white men with money and property could vote. The fight to gain the franchise by workers without land and Blacks and women was long and brave. It presumed that voting equals democracy and is the path to making society better.


If only it were true. Instead, wealth has concentrated into the hands of fewer people, alongside political power.


The economic elite write the laws to meet their needs. Karl Marx called it bourgeois democracy: by and for the capitalists. Its opposite is democratic socialism: the economic and political rule of the majority, the working class.


Today, politicians may look and sound more like ordinary working people; history is being made with the first Black Democratic presidential nominee and female Republican vice-presidential candidate.


But the empire under the make-over hasn’t changed.


Both parties put on quite a spectacle during elections to persuade voters of how different they are. Election 2008 is no exception. And true, there are minor differences. But whoever wins, things keep getting worse for working and poor people — whether they vote or abstain.


The answer is ringing in a whole new social system, and the way to get there isn’t at the ballot box. The route is through mass radical action that will settle for nothing less.


But your vote isn’t worthless. Send a message — use it to protest your false choices and demand real ones!



Then follow the advice of union organizer Mother Jones. More than a century ago, she declared, “I have never had a vote, and I have raised hell all over this country. You don’t need a vote to raise hell! You need convictions and a voice!”


Linda Averill, a bus driver and union activist, has twice run for Seattle City Council on the Freedom Socialist Party ticket. Email her at LindaEAverill@peoplepc.com .


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

More Democrats Casting Early Ballots, Data Show

A thought occurred to me, after McCain's amazing comeback in the primaries. Is it possible that the Bush machine wanted the GOP to lose this year, dumping all Junior's problems in Democratic laps while planning to run Jeb in 2012?

---

October 22, 2008

By MICHAEL LUO and RON NIXON

With as many as one-third of voters expected to cast their ballots before Election Day, preliminary data from several key battleground states show more Democrats than Republicans have voted early.

While the information should hardly be considered predictive of how the election may turn, accounting for just a fraction of the vote, it does offer a window into the loyalties of this growing segment of the electorate. The early tabulations of party affiliations seem to bolster polling that shows Senator Barack Obama’s campaign on the electoral offensive in states that President Bush won in 2004.

Significantly more Democrats than Republicans have cast ballots at this early stage in Iowa, North Carolina, New Mexico and Ohio, according to data analyzed by The New York Times.

Information from counties representing more than 90 percent of Nevada’s population show Democrats also holding a commanding advantage in early voter turnout.

In Florida, however, Republicans appear to hold the upper hand, while in Colorado, early voting is about evenly split among Republicans and Democrats. Mr. Bush won all those states in 2004.

The dates when early voting begins and ends vary by state. Experts cautioned that the full impact of early voting cannot be known until the choices of those without party affiliations become more clear on Election Day.

In years past, however, early voting has tended to favor Republicans, according to voting experts. Mr. Bush won the early vote in 2004 in his race against Senator John F. Kerry, 60 percent to 40 percent. Mr. Bush won early voters by a similar margin in his 2000 run against Vice President Al Gore. As a result, the preliminary data from some states has surprised certain experts.

“In the past, what you’ve seen is early voters tend to be older, had higher incomes and lean more Republican and that trend has held over the past elections,” said Paul Gronke, executive director of the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College in Oregon. “But what we are seeing now when you look at the numbers is that they are more African-American, Hispanic and the young. I look at this and I go, ‘Wow!’ This is quite different. It is a lot different from what we’ve seen before and it has to raise concerns for the G.O.P.”

The early voting is part of a broader transformation in the way Americans vote. In the past, absentee voting was reserved mainly for those unable to make it to the polls on Election Day, whether because of sickness, business or military service. Now more than 30 states allow voters to cast early ballots either in person or by mail without requiring an excuse.

In 2004, 22 percent of voters cast an early presidential ballot; in 2000, 16 percent voted early. But a national poll of 2,500 registered voters conducted from Oct. 16 to 19, released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center, indicated the number could grow in 2008, with 24 percent saying they planned to vote before Election Day and 7 percent indicating they already had.

Both figures were up significantly from a survey conducted in the same period in 2004. The poll found Mr. Obama held a commanding advantage among early voters, which Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew center, said could be problematic for Senator John McCain.

“If one candidate has the momentum at an early stage before Election Day, it’s going to favor that candidate,” Mr. Kohut said. “If there’s a last minute surge because of some event to the trailing candidate, well, the train has left for an awful lot of people these days.”

Some of the most detailed early voting data examined by The Times came from North Carolina, a state Republicans have rarely had to defend but Mr. Obama is vigorously contesting. More than 481,000 ballots have been cast in the state, a significant increase from this time in 2004.

At this point, 56 percent of the early voters in North Carolina are Democrats, compared with 27 percent who are Republicans and 16 percent unaffiliated. Democrats also had a slightly larger share of white voters and represented more than 90 percent of the black vote, which could help turn the tide in a state that last voted for a Democrat for president in 1976.

“From our perspective, it looks very good,” said Jerry Meek, chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party.

Michael McDonald, a voting expert at George Mason University, who has examined early voting data in several states, said the data from North Carolina was stunning.

“North Carolina, in particular, is off the charts,” Mr. McDonald said. “This is outside of what we expected.”

In Iowa, meanwhile, more than 200,000 ballots have already been received by the state. Democrats have returned about 52 percent of them compared with 20 percent for Republicans.

But Caleb Hunter, executive director of the Iowa Republican Party, played down the disparity, pointing out more Democrats than Republicans voted by absentee in 2004 but President Bush still won the state. He said Democrats in the state have tended to focus more on early voting than Republicans.

“A bit of it is culture,” Mr. Hunter said. “Our voters like to go to the polls on Election Day. That’s part of their citizenship, filling out the registration, standing in the line, so we focus a lot of our efforts and time and energy on that program.”

In New Mexico, the breakdown so far has been: Democrats 55 percent, Republicans 35 percent, independents 11 percent. In Ohio, it has been: Democrats 46 percent, Republicans 24 percent and independents 30 percent.

In Colorado, Republicans represented 40 percent of the combined early vote, while Democrats had 38 percent.

In Florida, more than 785,000 ballots have been cast, with Republicans accounting for about 47 percent of them, compared with 39 percent for Democrats and 11 percent for independents.

“We are essentially implementing the same successful program that Bush-Cheney used to win Florida in 2004,” said Buzz Jacobs, the southeast regional campaign manager for the McCain campaign.

In a conference call with reporters on Tuesday, Mike DuHaime, political director for the McCain campaign said the Republican candidate was working to turn out early voters across the country by sending them mailings, calling their homes and directing canvassers to their doors.

The Obama campaign has also worked to capitalize on early-voting laws. Pitching early voting has become a mandatory part of Mr. Obama’s message, which he employed as he campaigned Tuesday in South Florida.

“Whoever comes and sits in that chair, tell them to early-vote,” Mr. Obama told the proprietor of a barbershop he visited in Fort Lauderdale. “No excuses.”

The Obama campaign has built databases on all of their supporters, focusing specifically on encouraging early voting among people who have long commutes or children or other potential obstacles to voting on Election Day. “The early data,” said Jim Messina, chief of staff for the Obama campaign, “says we have been even more successful than we had hoped.”

Jeff Zeleny and Michael Cooper contributed reporting.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Everyone Has A Right To be Neurotic...

...Not Just Democrats

God knows Democrats have reason to be neurotic.

After the incompetence of 2004, the theft of 2000, the fecklessness of 1988, the despair of 1984, the mugging of 1980, the near inconceivability of 1972 and the crushing disappointment of 1968, they have acquired a not unreasonable resistance to confidence and aplomb.

Gloominess and foreboding are now part of the Democratic DNA. They smile on occasion, when instructed to smile, but in general they sulk like temperamental, hormonally imbalanced teenagers. Oh Jesus, oh Christ, they brood … we're about to lose another one.

And sure enough, the prevailing environmental winds of 2008 are no damn different.

Yes, of course it's exasperating, even infuriating, that George W. McCain could be running neck and neck in the national polls with any Democratic opponent after eight tormenting years of John S. Bush. After all, in a sane world, even Dennis Kucinich would be running 20 points ahead, and accumulating more every day.

Yet here we are, almost unbelievably, neck and neck indeed. So, predictably, as this two-year presidential campaign stumbles into the final stretches, the Sturm und Drang of Democratic defeatism once again takes center stage.

Look, by nature -- or, as I prefer to believe, by historical training -- I'm a happy cynic and confirmed pessimist. But this time around, anyway, I think that rumors of the Democratic candidate's sure and coming demise are thoughtlessly preceding the reality of the situation.

In the first place, running neck and neck in the national polls barely means a thing. No doubt, the polls are fun and interesting to follow and analyze and either cheer or wring one's hands over, depending on their ascending or descending trend, and in the very broadest sense of analysis they do provide some leading indications. But as the leading indicator of the election's outcome, they suck.

Because, simply, we don't hold a national election for the presidency. That's easy to forget, since people like me tend to belabor the unreal, but at least every now and then, rather than popping another antidepressant we should remind ourselves of the (idiotic) electoral-college basis for electing a president.

And then, having done that, consider this: If Barack Obama were to merely hold on to John Kerry's marvelously blue states of 2004 (and given the almost sclerotic polarization of American politics, there's little reason to doubt he will), but in addition pick up only the state of Ohio -- where he happens to be running somewhat consistently about five points ahead -- then Barack Obama will win.

That, in itself, should facilitate one's easier sleep. But there are other reasons for cautious optimism, as well.

Chief among them is the wretched dyspepsia of Obama's opponents. Hey, they've seen the internal, state-by-state polls, which in turn reflect the handwriting on the walls of at least 20 game-winning states plus the District of Columbia, which in further turn have turned McCain-Palin visibly sour, ill natured and nasty. And the nastier they get, the clearer the evidence of their troubles.

If anything should legitimately worry, it's the presidential debates.

Obama is unsteady, at best, at that particular racket. That's an odd fact of life for such a once-upon-a-time promising law student; he must have been dozing during moot court sessions or worrying about the next edition of the Law Review, but it's a fact nevertheless. Plus, reason, logic and a splendidly argued case in these debates guarantee not a winner, as we know all too depressingly well.

And God forbid he should at any point sigh. Please, please keep that in mind, Sen. Obama -- the future of Christendom and Western Civilization itself hang in your respiratory balance.

But, all that remains to be seen.

What does not remain to be seen any longer, however, is whether Obama intends to do what so many have so adamantly urged him to do: go on the bloody offense.

As the New York Times headlines it today: "Senator Barack Obama will intensify his assault against Senator John McCain … beginning [this] morning…. The new tone is to be presented in a speech by Mr. Obama in New Hampshire and in television interviews with local stations in five swing states, backed up by new advertisements [whose 'themes will be pay equity for women'] and appearances across the country by supporters."

The Obama campaign argues that the fresh offensive was in the works all along -- that in its prescripted playbook was the "strategy that called for a steady escalation of attacks on Mr. McCain as the race heads toward the debates."

Whether it's doing what it's now doing through pressure or premeditation, I frankly couldn't care less. The important thing is, the campaign now clearly plans to finish this contest with guns blazing.

Obama's favorite film is "The Godfather," and in a favorite film is often a key to that person's psyche. Perhaps you recall to what end Michael stealthily lay in wait for his final "counter-argument."

For personal questions or comments you can contact him at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Muzzling The Pit Bull: Making Palin A Liability

Carl Conetta
8 September 2008


Claiming to have learned the lessons of John Kerry’s failed presidential bid, the Obama campaign has vowed to respond quickly to Republican attacks. But if this is all they’ve learned, then the Democrats are likely to lose again. More than a good defense is needed. Democrats need to go on the offensive.


What’s required is nothing less than a political demolition campaign – one that defines and then assails the political character of the Republican Party and its candidates. Within this, key targets are those attributes of the “Red Team” that seem to be its strongest selling points. At the top of the list: Gov. Sarah Palin. Her inclusion on the Republican ticket has not only significantly boosted its appeal, but also represents McCain’s first executive decision. Both must be shredded.


Palin’s greatest vulnerability is not her inexperience, however. Nor is it her track record in Alaska. Instead, it’s the political character or "persona" that she’s gleefully showing to the world. This character needs to be “re-coded” by the Democrats as representative of all that’s wrong with Republican rule. (Such would be the rough equivalent of the Republicans’ taking down John Kerry as a war hero and their branding of Democrats as “elitists”.)


Unfortunately, there’s a real danger that Democrats will take a more passive approach, hoping that the Red Team will self-destruct. Or hoping that Palin’s threadbare and tawdry resume will “speak for itself”. Or hoping that some scandal in Alaska will sink her. Or hoping that Americans will be “shocked, shocked” to discover that Palin is as conservative (or more so) than George Bush. Problem is: nothing speaks for itself. What Democrats need to do is help Americans understand what to make of all this.


When Americans go to vote on 4 November they will not choose between the “real” Barack Obama and the “real” John McCain. They’ll choose between two political constructs or representations – two characters in a great political and moral drama. These characters embody political values. Values, in turn, are broadly perceived to be the spring from which policy flows. The three-part nexus is: Character, Values, Platform. A fair part of modern campaigning is a contest to define not just your own, but also the other team’s character. That contest will determine the choice that voters perceive on 4 November.


Targeting a “political character” is not the same as launching personal attacks. Instead, the target is the leadership image that the other side has put forward for public affirmation. It’s not the person, but the persona. And it must be hit hard and relentlessly as unworthy of affirmation. Among the things for Democrats to strike at are the idea that Republicans are “anti-elitist”, that McCain’s political temperament is sound and trustworthy, and that the nation needs a snarky “pit bull” in the number two position (or anywhere else, for that matter).


The necessary effort to convert Palin into a political liability might take a tack something like this:


Gov. Sarah Palin, and Senator McCain’s decision to put her forward for the vice presidency, neatly encapsulate all that’s wrong with the Republicans’ way of doing things. You can’t put a pretty face on what they’ve done to the country these past eight years. Our nation is in deep trouble at home and abroad. So what do they offer as a solution? A bucket full of bile and distortion. Characteristically: they refuse to face facts. They refuse to accept responsibility for their own failed policies. And they fail to offer any constructive alternatives. Instead, they blow smoke and try to shift blame. Palin’s is the politics of irresponsibility. And whining. What they’re offering now is the same old whine in a new bottle. Yes, it’s a new team – but they’re singing the same old song, full of spite and lacking in anything new or constructive. That’s the Republican play book. Well, after eight years, it’s been played out.


Gov. Palin likes to describe herself as a pitbull with lipstick. One that seems particularly eager to snap at her fellow Americans, I’d add. Is that what our nation needs right now? Is that the “big change” that McCain promises? Why, that’s no change at all. We’ve had eight years of Republican pitbulls running amuck – blundering at home, blundering abroad. Yapping and snapping. They’re rash and reckless and they don’t care enough about who they bite. They routinely turn on their masters – the American people. We don’t need to put lipstick on that. What’s called for is a muzzle.



Sarah Palin certainly has a great future – in talk radio, I’d say. She’s got what it takes for that. We should wish her Godspeed and send her on her way.



Of course, any serious effort to best the Republican Party also must refigure it as the Party of Lies, the party of smoke and mirrors. This should be as easy to argue as it is essential. They lied the nation into war. They claim to represent the “little guy” and “small town America,” while doing nothing for either. And now they cynically portray themselves as agents of change.


The final requirement may the hardest for Democratic politicians to manage: They need to find their anger. They need to tap into and channel the anger that so many Americans feel about the Republican shenanigans that have so badly damaged this land that we love. Democrats’ personal and professional relationships with Republicans – “good man” McCain and all that – are irrelevant. Palin’s presumed “intelligence” and political “skill” are irrelevant. All that matters is that the political persona of the Republican Party is an ugly thing. Assuming that Obama and Biden can see it, they need to call it.

********
Carl Conetta is a senior fellow of the Commonwealth Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts. He lives and works in the Washington DC area. (Affiliation for identification purposes only).

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Compromising The Constitution

Hey Congress, Just Say No!!!!

July 8, 2008

Editorial, NYT

Congress has been far too compliant as President Bush undermined the Bill of Rights and the balance of powers. It now has a chance to undo some of that damage — if it has the courage and good sense to stand up to the White House and for the Constitution.

The Senate should reject a bill this week that would needlessly expand the government’s ability to spy on Americans and ensure that the country never learns the full extent of President Bush’s unlawful wiretapping.

The bill dangerously weakens the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. Adopted after the abuses of the Watergate and Vietnam eras, the law requires the government to get a warrant to intercept communications between anyone in this country and anyone outside it — and show that it is investigating a foreign power, or the agent of a foreign power, that plans to harm America.

The FISA law created a court to issue those warrants quickly, and over 30 years, the court has approved nearly 20,000 while rejecting perhaps a half-dozen. In any case, the government can wiretap first and get permission later in moments of crisis.

Lawmakers are already justifying their votes for making major changes to that proven regime by saying that the bill is a reasonable compromise that updates FISA technologically and will make it somewhat harder to spy on Americans abroad. But none of that mitigates the bill’s much larger damage. It would make it much easier to spy on Americans at home, reduce the courts’ powers and grant immunity to the companies that turned over Americans’ private communications without a warrant.

It would allow the government to bypass the FISA court and collect large amounts of Americans’ communications without a warrant simply by declaring that it is doing so for reasons of national security. It cuts the vital “foreign power” provision from FISA, never mentions counterterrorism and defines national security so broadly that experts think the term could mean almost anything a president wants it to mean.

Supporters will argue that the new bill still requires a warrant for eavesdropping that “targets” an American. That’s a smokescreen. There is no requirement that the government name any target. The purpose of warrantless eavesdropping could be as vague as listening to all calls to a particular area code in any other country.

The real reason this bill exists is because Mr. Bush decided after 9/11 that he was above the law. When The Times disclosed his warrantless eavesdropping, Mr. Bush demanded that Congress legalize it after the fact. The White House scared Congress into doing that last year, with a one-year bill that shredded FISA’s protections. Democratic lawmakers promised to fix it this year.

Bush decided that along before 9/11. He just needed 9/11 to get away with crime after crime and a limp-wristed congress who is either scared to stand up for the people or who are conspirators after the fact. Let the trails begin.

Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy, Russ Feingold, Christopher Dodd and Jeff Bingaman plan to offer amendments to do that, but there is little chance they will pass. The Senate should reject this bill and start over with modest legislation that makes the small needed changes and preserves Americans’ fundamental protections.

Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee for president, has supported the weakening of FISA. Senator Barack Obama vowed in January (when he was still fighting for the Democratic nomination) that he would filibuster against immunity. Now he says he will vote for an “imperfect” bill and fix it if he wins. Sound familiar?

Proponents of the FISA deal say companies should not be “punished” for cooperating with the government. That’s Washington-speak for a cover-up. The purpose of withholding immunity is not to punish but to preserve the only chance of unearthing the details of Mr. Bush’s outlaw eavesdropping. Only a few senators, by the way, know just what those companies did.

Restoring some of the protections taken away by an earlier law while creating new loopholes in the Constitution is not a compromise. It is a failure of leadership.

Amen!

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

So, Who Made the Satanic Bargain?

Seems like the answer should condemn members of both parties.

A Devil's Bargain

Thursday 03 July 2008

by: Carolyn Eisenberg, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Carolyn Eisenberg argues that with Congress granting $162 billion to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a major rallying call should be issued for greater grassroots efforts to shatter the silence over holding elected officials accountable and getting the US out of Iraq. (Photo: PDXPeace.org)

With the president's signature now affixed to the bill, the clever deal is done. In exchange for another "blank check" for a year of war, the Democrats have wrested from their Republican colleagues and the White House a host of domestic benefits - tens of billions of dollars in educational funding for returning GIs, a thirteen-week extension of unemployment insurance, millions for Midwest flood relief and other laudable projects. "This shows that even in an election year, Republicans and Democrats can come together," George W. Bush boasted.

Depending on their source of news, few Americans may be aware that Congress has now allocated another $162 billion to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan until next summer. In many media outlets, the only coverage pertained to the new educational benefits for soldiers. But even when the war funding received nominal attention, one would be hard-pressed to find in the mainstream media, or for that matter in the halls of Congress, any critical discussion of this political deal.

With more than 60 percent of the country opposed to the Iraq war and significant majorities saying they want the troops out within a year, this Congress has handed over to President Bush and his successor the right to persist in this failed enterprise. Or, to put the matter bluntly, Congress has just agreed to keep our soldiers in harm's way for another twelve months, killing and dying for no achievable end. Is this worthy of some attention? Perhaps even distress? Should it be a bland assumption, rather than a horrifying fact, that to get the government to provide adequate veterans' benefits, extended unemployment insurance and relief from summer floods, another year of senseless war is approved?

The reality of this dirty Washington trade is far removed from the inspirational rhetoric on the campaign trail. Whether on the stump or in formal debates, the Democrats reliably bring down the house when they denounce the Iraq war and promise to bring the troops home. Such things were also said in 2006, and two years later a Democratic-controlled Congress cannot even agree to a non-binding "goal" for troop withdrawal, let alone a binding deadline.

If challenged, members of Congress may point to the domestic benefits ("a lot of veterans are going to be happy with the United States Senate," claims Senator Jim Webb) and the need to provide support for US soldiers in the field. None of this justifies or explains the failure of Congress to insist upon a plan for taking the troops out of Iraq.

While the mass media have anesthetized the broader public to this moral collapse, there is a parallel numbness among committed antiwar people. The two are related. For years, there has been a virtual blackout of the grassroots organizing all across this country to get Congress to stop the war. Apart from the occasional story about mobilizations on the internet, one would never know about the thousands of local initiatives that have occurred - the vigils on street corners, the sit-ins at Congressional offices, the petitioners in the mall, the lobby visits, phone calls, public forums and confrontations at legislative hearings. Even the progressive media have tended to downplay these developments. Without sufficient news about a vibrant national effort, many individuals who might be inclined to participate feel discouraged and remain at home, while those who have been organizing feel less sense of accomplishment.

Also muffled are the positive results. Paradoxically, this month's vote on war funding holds significance because there were real choices. In actuality, it was not "the Democrats" who produced the recent debacle, but the Congressional leadership and some individuals from both parties. Twenty-six senators voted against war funding, as did one hundred and fifty-five members of the House. That reflected the largely unreported efforts of activists, who relentlessly pressured these legislators to take a firm stand.

As disheartening as the final result might be, it underscores the need for greater grassroots efforts, not less. All government officials, including a future president, will be affected by the unintended consequences of this administration's mistakes. An American withdrawal from Iraq is likely to mean a reduction of influence in a region of vital economic and strategic importance to the United States. Such a choice runs against the historic temptation to rely on military solutions, even when military activity has been demonstrably futile.

Unintended mistakes? I wonder....

I wish I could make as much money off my mistakes as they have theirs.

The only hope for a wiser policy is an aroused public, determined to cut American losses and to hold elected officials accountable for what they do. In an electoral season, we have our work cut out for us. Support for a GI bill or flood relief is no substitute for ending the war - that devil's bargain, which has so far escaped scrutiny. Herein lies the educational task, which can be accomplished. Congressional incumbents have made their record and many count on public ignorance to keep them afloat. To quote a presidential candidate, "not this year, not this time." A crucial task for the peace movement is to shatter the silence.

Carolyn Eisenberg is a professor of US foreign policy at Hofstra University and co-chair of United for Peace and Justice Legislative Working Group. Contact her at hiscze@aol.com.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.