Wednesday, February 13, 2008

The first (insert distinction here) President!

Any way you slice it, assuming that Huckabee (heavens forbid) dosn't have a sudden surge of popularity leading to victory in November, the next President will be a first.

The most obvious firsts being Hillary Clinton as the first woman president and Barack Obama as the first biracial president. Only slightly less obvious is McCain as the oldest President at time of assuming office.

Did you know, though, that McCain would also be the first President born in a U.S. territory, not a state? Obama would be the first from Hawaii, and Clinton would be the first former First Lady president. All three are sitting senators, of which only two others have been elected to the presidency: John F. Kennedy and Warren G. Harding.

I'm sure there are a slew of other firsts that the color commentary researchers will make notes of on Inauguration Day.

Monday, February 11, 2008

L'Etat, c'est moi.

Louis XIV said it first, or at least most recorded and most ostentatiously in written history. But that was before the American and French revolutions, and they were supposed to fix that whole monarchy thing and replace it with a government answerable to the people. Right?

Right?

Apparently not.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey, during an unfortunately timed House Juiciary Committee hearing on the seventh, explained that the President could legally do anything as long as the Justice Department (Under the control of the executive branch, as we know) says it's legal.

That's right. Here's the video of the questioning by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY):



Nadler should generally be commended on this line of questioning. It has revealed that the Department of Justice will refuse to investigate the executive branch for criminal violations (as anything the President does is signed off on by the Orrice of Legal Council within the Justice Department) and refuse to take up civil actions against the president under the "state secrets" privelege. This puts the Department of Justice, by default, in the position of creating law that is supposed to be held by Congress. Dince the Justice Department is part of the executive branch and will not investigate istelf, this effectively puts the President above the law.

There are no words for how worrisome this is, how terrifying it could be. Congress needs to sharply re-assert itself now, before it is too late...hopefully it is not yet too late...to return powers to the legislative and judicial branches of government.

Here is a transcript of the questioning by Nadler, if you wonder years from now where it all went so wrong:

NADLER: Mr. Attorney General, I was interested to hear you say a moment ago that if the president ordered someone to do something against the clear intent of Congress, that's outside the law.

The FISA act said a person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally, one, engages in electronic surveillance under the color of law, except as authorized by statute.

Now, the president admitted that he did that. Every 45 days he signed an authorization to direct the surveillance of people in the United States without a warrant as required by the FISA act.

Now, I had previously asked your predecessor, Attorney General Gonzales, given this apparent prima facie case that the president and people under him, including the prior attorney general, engaged in felonious conduct by doing so, that he appoint a special counsel to investigate the warrantless surveillance of Americans.

And I recently reiterated that request to you.

Now in your testimony before the Senate last week, you responded to Senator Leahy's questions on whether the president violated the law by authorizing wireless surveillance by stating that you, quote, "don't know whether the president acted in violation of statutes," unquote, including FISA.

I believe we need to know the answer: Did the president, with, as has been reported, the advice of the Justice Department, break the law?

I believe the answer is clear that he did.

Given the extraordinary circumstances involved, allegations of criminal conduct by the president and other high-ranking officials and the possibility of conflict at the Justice Department, will you now agree to appoint outside special counsel so that we finally will get an answer to this question?

MUKASEY: The direct answer to your question is no, I will not.

NADLER: Because?

MUKASEY: Beg pardon?

NADLER: Because?

MUKASEY: Because -- because there is one detail that was omitted, and it may very well have been my fault in saying I didn't know when I'd forgotten or overlooked.

There was in place an order -- I'm sorry, an opinion of the Justice Department describing the legal basis for the program to which you refer. That included the authorization of the use of military force, as a congressional statute on which it was relied that that behavior was legal.

I understand that there are views on both sides of that -- strong ones.

NADLER: Well, there are views -- let's put it this way: The Supreme Court in the Hamdan case, in a case just about directly on point, ruled that -- for reasons I'm not going to get into now, we don't have time in five minutes -- that the use of the two excuses by the Justice Department, namely the president's inherent powers under Article II and the authorization for the use of military force as justification, was not, in fact, justification. The president is still bound by the law. The law was not repealed by implication by the AUMF and that that's not sufficient.

Now, the Justice Department, in a letter to congressman -- to congressman, excuse me -- to Senator Schumer recited these letters as a refutation by a host of constitutional scholars against that.

My second question, then, when this is -- on behalf of the Justice Department, in effect representing the president, although a step removed, you say that this is justified, that it's not illegal, for the reasons stated.

NADLER: Lots of other people say it's clearly illegal.

Normally, we would have that settled in a court. A court would decided whether something's legal or not when there's a dispute.

But when you attempt to get this into court -- you can't get it into court by prosecution, because you're not going to prosecute or appoint the special counsel. But when you attempt to get it into court by victims or alleged victims, plaintiffs suing in civil court, then the government comes out and says, "Oh, you can't get into court alleging violation of your rights through violation of FISA because of the state secrets privilege."

So now you've set up a situation where the president and the attorney general assert the president's right to do something which seems to a lot of people to a lot of people to be a violation of law and there is no way of checking that.

In other words, there's no way of getting -- well, let me ask you a different question. Under this, is there any way -- and would you agree that the state secrets privilege has to yield because otherwise there is no way for Congress or the courts or anybody to have any check on the president's claimed power?

MUKASEY: The state secrets privilege -- just to answer the last question first -- the state secrets privilege is invoked by the government and backup is provided for its invocation.

To my knowledge, that backup has been sustained...

(CROSSTALK)

NADLER: Well, the state secrets privilege has often been used where there's no backup provided, simply an affidavit.

Would you agree that where the state asserts state privilege -- state secrets, that the court ought to be provided with information in order to rule on the validity of the state secrets privilege?

MUKASEY: The court can be provided with and is provided with information relating to the invocation of the state secrets privilege and an explanation of the basis for it, and to rule on that basis.

NADLER: But the court often rules with -- simply on an affidavit without seeing the documents to judge for itself whether they deserve -- whether they would threaten national security were they revealed.

Would you agree that the court ought to see that and make that decision?

MUKASEY: I believe that courts see affidavits in some cases, affidavits and documents in others, and have what they consider to be an ample basis because they rule on that basis for a ruling.

MUKASEY: Sometimes things are quite clear.

NADLER: And sometimes they're not.

MUKASEY: And sometimes they're not.

NADLER: And, lastly, we have heard hearings in this committee on rendition -- on so-called extraordinary rendition. On the Maher Arar case we're going to hold further hearings.

Would you -- and we've been told that we got assurances from Syria that Mr. Arar would not be tortured when he was sent there, which of course proved not to be true.

Would you commit or agree that upon request, which will be forthcoming, that you will send someone from the department for a hearing here to answer the questions, "Who obtained these assurances? From whom were they obtained? What assurances were given?" so that we can get to the -- begin to get to the bottom of this rather horrendous case?

MUKASEY: It's my understanding that some of this has been the subject of classified briefings to various members of this committee and other committees.

It's also my understanding -- and this is based on an exchange of notes between us and Canada that became public, not because of anything that anybody wanted to do voluntarily -- that Mr. Arar is still on the no-fly list.

NADLER: Yes, he is; improperly so, in my opinion.

MUKASEY: Beg pardon?

NADLER: I've seen...

CONYERS: The gentleman's time may have expired.

NADLER: Let me just say, I've seen the confidential documents. He shouldn't be on the no-fly list. But we have not heard about the assurances from Syria, even on a classified basis. We need to know that.


Friday, February 8, 2008

ClintonVania

I recalled recently one of the things that I seriously dislike about Hillary Clinton. On the issue of freedom of speech, I believe that all art forms should be free of government controls or interference. Censorship is, in my opinion, not only wrong but damaging to the social development of our society. Voluntary censorship to reach the widest crowds possible, as in the movie industry, is acceptable as long as there are no governmental civil or criminal consequences when one wishes not to self-censor. A system of ratings is fine for the quick reference of parents who wish to control what their children are exposed to (good luck with that), but ultimately the responsibility should be on the consumer/viewer/player (or their guardian) for choosing what they consume.

Violent video games have been blamed for violent kids in the last decade or so mainly because they have arisen as a predominant medium, much in the same way that comic books, movies, heavy metal, and television have each in their time been accused of making kids violent. As if children were pacifists before. It really depends upon the temperament of the individual child, which is a case of parentage (in one sense) and parentage (in another sense).

Hillary Clinton sponsored a bill, S. 2126 [109th]: the "Family Entertainment Protection Act", which provides stiff fines and mandatory community service for anyone caught selling a game that has been rated "Mature","Adults Only" or "Rating Pending" to anyone under 17 years of age. As I said, this would be a government-mandated punishment for violating the dictates of a censor. This is a far stiffer control than that applied (voluntarily) to the movie industry or (also voluntarily) to the comic book industry.

That rubs me the wrong way. Fortunately, the bill died the death. Unfortunately, if Clinton became president, she would likely find a way to resurrect it. Not Unlike Dracula.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Primary Day!

Actually Super Tuesday. I neglected to blog on Florida's actual primary day. I would tell you that it was because Florida's votes didn't really count, but it was truly because I've been a very lazy kitty of late. Predictably, Clinton won our race due to early fronrunnerness and a bit of guerilla marketing. McCain also won, which showed a bit of sense perhaps...but most likely just a sense of solidarity among the elderly of this state.
I am paying attention to the polls today, though. Somewhat. I'm playing with friends, though, which does divide my attention somewhat. I saw Huckabee won West Virginia. Unsurprising, as it is rumored to be a very conservative electorate that tends toward the evangelical.
I think, however, that whoever the Democratic nominee is will win the presidency. The biggest challenge would come from McCain, and he's been too deeply in bed with the current administration for the taste of those who find W distasteful.

Toeing the line is, in fact, what I have against McCain. Despite railing against Bush in the 2000 campaign, he has since agreed with most everything the neocons have spit at the public. I suspect that the GOP promised McCain that if he would lay off they would give him the nomination this year. He tries to play the maverick, but he can't have it both ways. That being said, he'd likely be better than W anyway.

I am not afeared of Hillary either, I just think that she has been terribly gullible in voting for the Iraq war among other things. Either gullible or politically expedient, which is what has gotten us into an unfortunate mess with the hawks in the white house. She's mediocre. Meh. Not a dynamic centrist like her husband, though she can count on him for support.

Obama is a stirring speaker, and an inspirational leader. He has had a quick rise, which I appreciate. He's young, which I also appreciate. He has a rich baritone that I would not mind listening to for the next few years. On the other hand, he wants to be president, which means he is obviously insane.

More as the zany Super Tuesday results come in, maybe.