The Rule of Men

There is now a vast distance between the actions carried out by the United States government and the often ridiculous rhetoric spewed forth by its leaders to describe and justify these actions, and which is spoon-fed to the citizenry like so much pablum by a largely ignorant and subservient corporate press.  Call it a "reality gap."  There is, on the one hand, the real world of causes and effects that is readily evident to those who are more often than not on the receiving end of the actions of our government, and then there are the hollow, dissembling, ludicrous, deceitful, false "official pronouncements" from US government leaders and their spokes-people.  While it is true that such a dynamic is not new, the scale of the "gap" is at epic proportions, and perhaps accounts for a measure of the contempt with which US government officials are generally viewed by their own citizens these days.  As one gauge of this contempt consider these abysmal approval ratings!  Trust begins with the truth.

A major myth around which such rhetorical deceit orbits is the notion of the rule of law.   It goes something like this, the United States is the exemplar of a nation in which the rule of law operates.  It is the governments and systems of official enemies that are corrupt and problematic, and they should look to the US to see how it should be done. Indeed, this is one of the foundational myths of "American Exceptionalism," and is virtually axiomatic amongst officials at the higher levels of government and the corporate press as well.  The reality, when judged by deeds rather than words is, however, very different from such official myths.  Consider the recent example of Director of National Intelligence (try to suppress the oymoronic giggles) James Clapper's less than honest testimony before Congress. If Attorney General Eric Holder and indeed President Obama held even an inkling of a notion that the rule of law was vital to the proper functioning of a democracy, were truly committed to a fair and equitable enforcement of the law, and had any intention to actually honor their oaths to defend the Constitution and see that the laws are faithfully executed, then the Department of Justice would right now be investigating, and probably should already have indicted, Mr. Clapper for perjury before the United States Congress.  The evidence against Clapper is not only substantial (indeed, overwhelming), and public, but he has virtually admitted to it publicly as well.  Such perjury is a felony offense, and arguably should be since it strikes at the very heart of real democracy, as it is not possible for the people to know what their government is doing, and hence grant the consent of the governed, if its officials routinely lie to their elected representatives.

Not only does Clapper apparently not face any criminal prosecution, he has remarkably been allowed to "apologize" in written statements to Congressional officials, and seemingly is still strongly supported by his ultimate boss, President Obama.  Moreover, this story of evident perjury by a high national security official has gotten remarkably little press scrutiny.  Rather, our free, "adversarial" press appears much more interested in the whereabouts of courageous whistleblower Edward Snowden, or whether a conscientious, independent journalist like Glenn Greenwald should be investigated for "aiding and abetting" Snowden.  This latter charge is so preposterous, so ludicrous, that for the question to even be posed to Greenwald by a mainstream journalist does much to reveal the sorry state of the corporate US press.   If you haven't seen it, this video of "media star" David Gregory's accusatory questioning and Glenn Greenwald's devastating tear-down of Gregory reveals just about all you need to know about the current state of US journalism, and is well worth a look.

Contrast the treatment afforded "power-broker" Clapper to that served up to anyone of lowlier station who actually attempts to honor their oath to the Constitution and attempts to shine some light on administration wrong-doing and corruption.  Edward Snowden has virtually been tried and sentenced in the media, with senior Congressional officials calling him, ridiculously, a traitor, and his courageous whistle-blowing treason.  In further contempt for the rule of law, his asylum rights under international law have been severely curtailed by the United States and his passport was summarily revoked.  In an even more egregious display of lawlessness the lone superpower and "rule of law exemplar" conspired with its allies to have the plane of Bolivian President Evo Morales diverted and forced to land in Austria under the incorrect suspicion that Snowden was onboard.  Apparently, this was yet another "triumph" of US espionage.   I ask you to consider the response of the United States, the howls that would erupt from both government officials and their fawning press lackeys, if Air Force One were refused entry to some ostensibly friendly nation's airspace and required to land before proceeding onward.  It would be treated as nothing less than an act of war!  The shrieks of protest would be unrelenting.  But when the United States organizes nothing less than the air piracy of another nation's president, well, that's just fine and proper.  The double standard and imperial hubris is simply breathtaking!  But this is standard fare for American Exceptionalism.  Richard Nixon was famously chastised for arguing that, "if the President does it, then it's legal," however, this is one of the guiding premises of US officials on the world stage, if the United States does it, then, it has to be legal, by definition. 

An interesting, related behavior from US government officials is their categorical insistence that Snowden is not a dissident, or a political refugee, and that he thus has no valid asylum claims.  No specifics are discussed, no evidence given to support such vacuous assertions. But that's the beauty, none are required, you see, the United States is simply the best, at everything, and the moral leader amongst nations, so, again, by definition, there cannot be dissidents in the United States.  Most US officials internalize such attitudes, and so, they can repeat such absurdities without even batting an eye.  In the real world however, one need only consider the horrendous persecution and treatment of Private Bradley Manning to know that Snowden has extremely valid political asylum claims.

Jack-Booted Thugs

We live in a Police State. While many would likely consider such a statement hyperbolic, how else to describe the despicable abuse of police power evidenced in Minnesota last night and this morning by the jack-booted thugs of the St. Paul police department and Ramsey County Sheriff's Office. Overnight and this morning a number of sweeping "raids" were carried out in which heavily armed police, including SWAT teams, invaded homes and detained and intimidated citizens doing nothing other than assembling peaceably in their homes and pursuing their First Amendment rights and political freedoms. The houses raided were targeted because they contained, in the words of the police, suspected protesters and "anarchists." One group targeted, I-Witness, has made a name for itself by simply documenting the behavior of police at large public gatherings and protests, such as the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York. Indeed, the group was instrumental in documenting NYPD police misconduct and their work resulted in the release and acquittal of upwards of 400 people wrongfully arrested at the convention. Another group facing harassment, the "RNC Welcoming Committee," was apparently planning some protests for the upcoming convention, but since when has a public protest become a crime!? According to Bruce Nestor of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, none of those detained, harassed or questioned had committed any violent actions or crimes, they were simply targeted for "suspected" behavior, guilty, apparently, of thought crimes, at least in the minds of the fascist police in St. Paul. See Glenn Greenwald's blog for additional discussion of these raids.

Make no mistake, such raids and police tactics are illegal and are meant to intimidate people from expressing their political views and aims. More to the point, such raids are nothing less than state-sponsored terrorism. How else to describe the pointing of loaded weapons at innocent citizens? What right do the police have to abuse their power, to burst in on peaceful citizens, brandish weapons and arrest and detain people? Indeed, to place law-abiding and peaceful citizens at risk of death and serious injury. Such behavior is anathema to a democratic nation, indeed, it is nothing less than that expected of such totalitarian regimes as Nazi Germany, and must not be tolerated in a free society. Those who conceived, organized, approved and executed these raids must be brought to account, including the judges who would sign such frivolous warrants, and the contemptible cops who would carry them out.

If our democracy was functioning as envisioned we might hope that the Justice Department could step in to investigate such abuses of police power and provide a means to redress the grievances, but can one hopefully expect such a response from the Justice Department of Bush consigliere Michael Mukasey? Not likely, indeed, it is exactly this kind of Surveillance State that George Bush has created and glorified with his warrant-less spy program and never-ending "war on terror." In fact, as one might have guessed, it now actually appears that the FBI was also involved in the raids. Surprise, surprise!

Unfortunately, there seem to still be lots of Americans with their heads in the sand muttering something like, "you're talking crazy Tod, that could never happen here, I don't have anything to worry about, I'm a law abiding citizen." We can only hope enough of these people get their heads out of the sand before it is too late. Increasingly I feel, however, that it is already too late.

Police State

It's one of the unchallengeable myths of political and major media discourse, that the United States is among the most democratic of societies. Politicians and pundits alike heap praise on American democracy and consistently tout our brand as without peer around the world. Such thinking is virtually axiomatic in the mainstream consensus, however, the weakness of American democracy can be seen in many areas, not least of which is the degree to which public dissent or protest have been marginalized, especially in the past decade.

An important aspect of such marginalization is the use of local, state and federal authorities to harass and intimidate anyone with the temerity to challenge authority or present an alternative to the ossified status quo. Particularly egregious is the targeting of those working for and promoting peace. This goes so far as to lead to the Orwellian labeling of pacifists as potential "terrorists."

If one thought that such activity ended with the exposure of COINTELPRO in the '70s then one would be wrong. The most recent revelations, based on documents obtained via an ACLU sponsored Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit, reveal that in 2005 and 2006 the Maryland State Police (and the Department of Homeland Security), were infiltrating and spying on a number of Maryland peace groups and the anti-death penalty group Campaign to End the Death Penalty. These groups were simply exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights, and, indeed, many of the group members were and are avowed pacifists, including long-time Baltimore-based peace activist Max Obuszewski. Another person caught up in the surveilance was progressive sports writer Dave Zirin, a member of Campaign to End the Death Penalty. Read Zirin's eloquent and defiant response to this official lawlessness here.

These documents show that Maryland State Police agents had covertly infiltrated numerous meetings of these groups, and had created extensive, classified dossiers on many of their members. One result of this surveilance is that several individuals from the groups, including Obuszewski, were entered into law enforcement databases whose ostensible purpose is to track drug offenders and terrorists. The suspected "crimes" that Mr. Obuszewski was allegedly included in the database for included terrorism. When non-violent opposition to war becomes "terrorism," then everyone should feel a chill run up their spine.

The surveillance of these groups was persistent. Even after agents spent days at meetings at which nothing more "threatening" than carrying clipboards down the street or participating in tablings at farmers markets, they still recommended the spying continue. Is this what trained police agents take for criminal activity? I would hate to see whom untrained agents would implicate in alleged criminality! Can there be any legitimate excuse for such surveillance? Obviously the police must know that such activity is lawful, not threatening and indeed is protected by constitutional rights, yet they do it anyway, which begs the question why? Former Maryland State police superintendent Tim Hutchins attempted to defend the practice by arguing, “you do what you think is best to protect the general populace of the state.” But this is laughable, any simple investigation of these groups, not requiring covert infiltration and surveillance, would have been sufficient to determine that they were engaged in completely lawful activity. So whom are the Maryland State Police really protecting? It seems clear that the police in these cases are acting largely to support the interests of those in power, and not simply to uphold the law. This is an outrageous abuse of authority and one which should not be tolerated in a truly democratic society.

Democratic Surrender Monkeys

Unconditional surrender! That is the only accurate phrase to describe Friday's passage by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives of the so-called FISA Amendments Act of 2008. This bill, the bastard child of House majority leader Steny Hoyer (Md) and Senate intelligence committee chair Jay Rockefeller (WVa) gives the Bush administration everything it wanted on the domestic spying front, and more! As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, the bill gives to the administration what it could not have even hoped to obtain from a Republican-led House. It greatly expands the powers of the government to spy on Americans, and in its most odious sections grants sweeping immunity to telecom companies and their Bush administration allies for breaking the existing FISA law. It retroactively excuses, and attempts to put a stamp of approval on half a decades worth of administration law breaking. It does this by placing a so-called "requirement" on the administration that makes a mockery of the rule of law and the Constitutional separation of powers. Essentially, the bill requires that existing law suits be dismissed if the telecom companies simply show that they were directed by the President or his agents to carry out the spying, and/or that the administration "certified" that it was legal! Talk about handing the fox the keys to the chicken coop. This legislation grants to serial lawbreakers the power to decide legality, and reinforces the theory perpetuated by this administration that if the President says it is legal, it is! A more dangerous, and un-Constitutional precedent can hardly be envisioned.

Moreover, the bill provides for broad secrecy surrounding the dismissal of lawsuits, the government simply having to invoke the magical phrase, "national security," to shield the details of the law breaking from the eyes of the public. The section of the bill granting this sweeping immunity is entitled, "Protection of Persons Assisting the Government." Orwell himself would have struggled to come up with that one, but it was apparently duck-soup for the Democratic enablers of Bush administration lawbreaking.

Let's try and get our heads around the magnitude of this capitulation. It's not that easy, so stay with me. The Democratic-controlled House just handed this stunning victory to perhaps the weakest sitting President in history; a President that can barely maintain 25% approval ratings; a President whose Party is also now widely, and justifiably reviled and rightly fearful that they will be thrown from office in large numbers come November; a President and Party that have treated the Democrats with utter disdain and contempt for almost 8 years, who have called them "traitors" and most recently referred to their presumptive presidential nominee as an "appeaser" like those who appeased the Nazis. It is this President and Party that the Democratic leadership, over the opposition of more than half of their caucus, including many committee chairmen, handed such a victory! Politics is wondrous strange indeed.

What could be the mental calculus at work in the minds of such "leaders?" Indeed it is hard to fathom how the majority Party in the House could rend itself asunder so and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. One is forced to conclude that there are basically two reasons for such a wholesale capitulation. First, the current Democratic leadership is largely beholden to the same Corporate interests as the Republican Party. Put simply, the big telecoms fill many Democratic coffers with cold hard cash. And if anything is clear from the status quo in Washington it is that money talks. So, it's simply too easy for them to grant immunity and not upset the apple cart, or perhaps the gravy train is a more accurate phrase in this case. Consider the signal this sends to many Americans, that Corporate money is much more important to the Democratic Party leadership than the Constitutional freedoms of their own constituents. This is a craven and cowardly calculation if ever there was one. Second, it seems that the senior Democratic leadership are still so fearful; so cowardly and fearful. They somehow believe that surrendering the rule of law will make them look "tough on terrorism." In fact, what is plain for all to see is that it simply makes them look weak, craven and without principles or honor. That is, it makes them look just like Republicans!

The reality here is far different from the "tough on terrorism" pretext being offered by the capitulators. Passage of this legislation will not do anything to increase security against terrorism. The existing FISA law was and still is entirely adequate to enable the government to obtain the necessary intelligence to protect the Nation. Moreover, this administration's actions in the so called "war on terrorism" have not made us safer. Far from it, their reckless foreign policy has only bred more fanaticism abroad, and they have neglected common sense strategies to strengthen our domestic security posture. Even in the face of mountains of current polling data suggesting that American's attitudes are sharply opposed to the direction that this administration and its Republican Party rubber stamp have steered the country, the fossilized and inept Democratic leadership still believe that in order to win elections they must look more and more like Republicans. Since it is now absolutely clear that they will never learn this lesson, perhaps because they ultimately share most of the same priorities as the Republicans, the final remedy must be to vote the whole pathetic lot of them out of office. If you are interested in helping in this regard, check out the campaign being organized by Act Blue.