The blogosphere has been ratcheting up the outrage factor all weekend to the curiously sedate response from the mainstream media over last week's vote on the National Defense Authorization Act and the disturbing provisions within that destroy the basic civil liberties upon which this country was founded.

The NDAA contains a number of highly problematic detention provisions that undermine the US' traditions, commitment to human rights and security. Those provisions solidify indefinite detention, militarise US criminal justice and counter-terrorism policy, and entrench Guantanamo, making it more difficult to close the prison. The legislation paradoxically goes much further on these issues than anything Congress did during the Bush administration. More than a decade after 9/11, lawmakers appear intent on institutionalising and expanding the "War on Terror", rather than scaling it back.The NDAA, for the first time, legislates indefinite military detention. Under the bill, any person who is "part of" or who "substantially supports" al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or an "associated" group may be imprisoned without being charged with a crime.

Lower courts, to be sure, have construed an existing statute, the 2001 Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to provide a similar detention power. But the NDAA for the first time expressly codifies indefinite detention, making this power more difficult to challenge and more easy to wield aggressively.

The NDAA also for the first time mandates the military detention of covered terrorism suspects, defined broadly to include members of al-Qaeda and associated groups who are planning or who have participated in attacks against the United States. Under the NDAA, the military detention of those covered terrorism suspects is no longer merely an option but a requirement. The NDAA thus creates a new and unprecedented default rule of military detention, usurping the authority traditionally vested in civilian law enforcement. It flouts the principles on which the US was founded: that civilian authority must be supreme over the military, and that even those accused of the most serious crimes are entitled to a trial and the other protections of the Bill of Rights.

Much debate has focused on whether the NDAA applies to individuals arrested in the US, including US citizens. (US citizens are excluded from mandatory detention, but not from the NDAA's general military detention provisions). On this point, the NDAA is ambiguous and purports not to alter existing law. The courts, however, have never conclusively determined whether existing law (i.e., the AUMF) allows domestic military detention.

Now this isn't the first time that Congress has passed a law that has stripped civil rights from a segment of the population in the name of national security (internment of the Japanese), but it's disconcerting to find this particular bill not only voted by a large majority (89 Senators--when was the last time you saw that?) but had President Obama walk back his veto threat. Both the inclusion of this segment and the veto threat are all being gamed for political purposes. The very foundation of our country as hostage for the upcoming election. That's sick. There's a segment of Democrats rationalizing this or trying to explain it away as Chris Coons did in the above segment from Up with Chris Hayes, but I think I fall in line with Digby on this:

[I]t's about enshrining the principle --- the codification of irrational reactions made during the fog of war. Our political culture (including the congress the pundits and even the public) is constructing a police state.

Dianne Feinstein--usually a reliable national security vote--has written legislation to nullify the indefinite detention aspect of the bill. It's a good first start and worth your time to call your elected officials to support. This will also go through the court system, of that there is no doubt. But the collateral damage that will be done to necessitate court action is unacceptable.

A zombie argument is going around about why Obama hasn't accomplished liberal and progressive ends to the extent many would have liked him to:

Obama can't do anything because he needs 60 votes in Congress and he doesn't have them because Republicans and Dems like Lieberman and Nelson won't vote for his programs.

This argument is misleading in one sense and incorrect in another. It is misleading in that it misrepresents how things get done in Congress. It is incorrect in that many liberal policies do not require the consent of Congress.

Let's examine the misconceptions this zombie argument is built on.

Continue reading »

I'm not sure which is redlining higher, my irony or my outrage meter:

The man who killed Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller has filed a petition complaining that his rights have been violated and asking to be released from custody.

Scott Roeder, 52, of Kansas City, criticized the judge, the jail, prosecutors and his lawyers in a habeas corpus petition filed in Sedgwick County, Kan. A hearing is scheduled for June 4. Such a petition requires a judge to determine whether a person has been imprisoned lawfully and whether he should be freed.

Roeder was convicted of first-degree murder in January and sentenced April 1 to life in prison with no chance of parole for 50 years. That case is under appeal.

In the 24-page petition, Roeder said the judge’s imposition of a $20 million bond “along with a suggestion that I might enact ‘more’ violence if I make bond demonstrates heightened disregard for the presumption of my innocence.” He also said that after his arrest, the judge “made a public spectacle of me, forcing me to appear on television without the assistance of counsel or court clothes.”

Roeder complained that the names and addresses of his visitors and correspondents had been made public by the jail “and that some of these have been subjected to questioning by the police power as a consequence.”

Roeder said prosecutors had “made libelous allegations against me.” For example, he said, Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston told the judge that a reasonable person would believe that he had engaged in “alleged acts of American terrorism.”

Roeder argued that he should be released because his attorneys “disparaged me in public behind my back” and deprived him of a fair trial. Roeder also complained that he wasn’t allowed to use a necessity defense, arguing that killing Tiller was justified because he was saving the lives of unborn babies.

I'm sure that Dr. Tiller would like to have not had his civil rights violated too. And not liking being called a "domestic terrorist"? All I can tell you is if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Chuck Todd was on Hardball talking about how President Obama is fighting terrorism and how, in Chris Matthews mind, the president is fighting the extremists with liberal policies. Todd weighs in and says that there aren't enough "other" Muslim leaders willing to speak out against the radicals who have turned the religion into terrorist organizations.

Matthews: Chuck, do you think he can hold this line that we're going to remain a liberal society in terms of human rights and trial by jury and habeas corpus, Miranda and also not get really angry in a reactive way to the Islamic world generally. Get that bunker mentality that Israel takes from time to time. The whole neighborhood hates us, we've got to be reactive to that. Can he keep us from that point of view and that mentality?

Todd: I think it's tough but the greater challenge is that there aren't enough other Muslim leaders around the world who stand up and criticize al-Qaeda publicly enough, You know this is the great challenge here and I think this is what makes it harder for him to win this argument with the right in this country. There aren't enough examples around the world where we have leaders of other Muslim nations who stand up and loudly yell, these guys in Yemen are thugs....

The president believes in his heart that 99% Muslims around the world believe this is not a violent religion, an extremist religion, but there is so much fear in the middle east form some of these leaders that they're going to be toppled by this extremist movement that they're afraid to speak out about it and that of course puts the president in a box here politically with his own domestic critics because we sit here, I think you see conservatives sit here and say hey, it doesn't seem like the Muslim world wants to stop these guys.,

To Matthews' point, Obama isn't fighting this with a liberal philosophy for the most part. It's interesting how the Villagers slip up. I think it shows how right-wing narratives permeate the thinking of the media even if they aren't conscious of it. And the right-wing critics are not operating in good faith, so their criticisms are not valid, for a simple reason: These people are looking to weaken the president even in a time of war for their own political purposes. And the proof that we have seen right before our eyes is that a reactionary, smash-and-burn attitude from conservatives regarding one billion Muslims around the world didn't work. Bush and Cheney only created more extremism and more violence because of their neoconservative philosophy and foreign policies, which includes their pet war in Iraq. The idea is to have fewer terrorists not more. However, it's very profitable for the military industrial complex for our society to continue to be at war with somebody, so there's that too.

We can see how out of touch Todd is the right is when they talk up this issue of the way Muslim leaders around the world are cautious in how they speak about Muslim extremists: THEY LIVE THERE. Get it? The struggle has to go on beneath the screaming world of television pundits and news programming. That's why diplomacy is an important tool. Using a sledgehammer will not work. Negotiations behind closed doors with Muslim leaders as well as other countries is a big part of the solution. And not attacking Middle East countries that haven't attacked us is a really good idea too.

Todd also slips when he refers to right-wing critics as "we" for a moment too. The momentary honesty was unbecoming.

Eight years ago today, George W. Bush uttered the now broken promise that has come to define his failed presidency. Accepting his party's nomination, Governor Bush promised to restore "honor and dignity" to the White House. But as events continue to show, a more accurate - and ironic - mantra for the lawless Bush White House would be "no controlling legal authority."

At the time it was delivered, Bush's acceptance speech at the 2000 Republican National Convention in Philadelphia was an arrogant, deceitful broadside against the Clinton/Gore years. But the very words Bush used to tar Al Gore with the blight of the Lewinsky scandal may now constitute the epitaph for the Bush presidency:

"So when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of our land, I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God."

That hateful address (video excerpts here), of course, was filled with exactly the kind of lies and taunts - the smallness - that came to define George W. Bush.

Continue reading »

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on habeas corpus and suspected terrorist detainees has faded a bit on the political world’s radar, but the McCain campaign continues to believe the issue will benefit their candidate. Indeed, just this afternoon, McCain’s in-house blogger blasted Barack Obama’s campaign for “conflicting answers” on whether Osama bin Laden would be entitled to habeas. The blogger admonished Obama for trying to “have it both ways on this issue.”

That’s an interesting choice of criticisms.

John McCain initially responded to the Supreme Court ruling with mild disappointment. “[I]t is a decision that the Supreme Court has made,” McCain said. “Now we need to move forward.” A day later, McCain said the high court’s ruling was “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” It was quite a rapid reversal.

McCain spent the ensuing days bragging about his support for indefinite detention, which is odd, considering that McCain adopted Barack Obama’s position on the issue as recently as three years ago. Here’s what he told Tim Russert June 19, 2005, which as you’ll notice, is the exact opposite of his position now:

“Now, I know that some of these guys [at Guantanamo] are terrible, terrible killers and the worst kind of scum of humanity. But, one, they deserve to have some adjudication of their cases. And there’s a fear that if you release them that they’ll go back and fight again against us. And that may have already happened. But balance that against what it’s doing to our reputation throughout the world and whether it’s enhancing recruiting for people to join al-Qaeda and other organizations and want to do bad things to the United States of America. I think, on balance, the argument has got to be — the weight of evidence has got to be that we’ve got to adjudicate these people’s cases, and that means that if it means releasing some of them, you’ll have to release them.

“Look, even Adolf Eichmann got a trial.”

Imagine, just for a moment, what the right would do if Obama said, for the sake of our national reputation, that we might have release terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Indeed, if we took McCain’s quote, attributed it to Obama, and sent it to Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, they’d talk about little else for the rest of the year.

Perhaps Michael Goldfarb, McCain’s in-house blogger, can remind us again of which candidate is offering “conflicting answers” and trying to “have it both ways on this issue.”

At this point, I’m confused.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Lord, save us from the idiot pundit class. The smackdown the Supreme Court gave the Bush administration is making the GOP very unhappy. I mean, how dare we consider a fundamental building block of justice since the Magna Carta anything less than an unacceptable allowance for activist judges?

And how do we know it's a bad decision? Fear, fear, fear!!!! Newt says it'll cost us a city! A notion not far off from Scalia's remarkably legal citation-free dissent that this decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Oooohhh....be afraid, America. Little obnoxiously liberal notions like the right for people like Maher Arar to know why he was detained and to prove his innocence are things that the Republicans don't think they should have to held to.

Mr. GINGRICH: On the other hand, I will say, the recent Supreme Court decision to turn over to a local district judge decisions of national security and life and death that should be made by the president and the Congress is the most extraordinarily arrogant and destructive decision the Supreme Court has made in its history.

REID: In its history.

Mr. GINGRICH: In its history. Worse than Dred Scott, worse than--because--for this following reason: The court has now knowingly stepped in--and this morning's newspapers say smugglers had actually gotten the design of a nuclear weapon, that we now have the evidence that people out there had a nuclear weapon design. And this court is saying that any random district judge, based on whatever their personal caprice is, whatever their personal ideological bias, can intervene with a terrorist in such a way--and this is something that the Italians will tell you about fighting the mafia.

Worse than Dred Scott? Wasn't that a dog whistle used by GWB for indicating the kind of justices he'd pick for SCOTUS? And the whole "mushroom cloud" fear of smugglers getting nuclear plans? Dude, it's called the Google. It's not hard to get bomb plans online or in the library, for that matter--manufacturing them is another issue. But that has NOTHING to do with the Boumediene case. Boumediene said that habeas corpus still applied at Guantanamo, despite its location in Cuba because the US has sovereign rights over it and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus.

But again, facts have a liberal bias, don't they, Newt?

Transcripts below the fold:

Continue reading »

AP:

U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey says the Supreme Court's decision on Guantanamo detainees won't affect military trials against enemy combatants.

Mukasey, speaking Friday at a Group of Eight meeting of justice and home affairs ministers, said he was disappointed with the decision.

But he told reporters it won't affect military trials to be held at the U.S. naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The Bush administration has been ignoring the concept of equal branches of government and oversight for 7 1/2 years, why stop now? Habeas Corpus? C'mon, that's not for those swarthy Middle Eastern types.

The night of the Iowa caucuses, during Barack Obama’s speech, the assembled crowd began shouting, “USA! USA!” TNR’s Frank Foer noted, “I don’t think I’ve ever heard a crowd of Democratic primary voters erupt in a spontaneous display like this…. Liberals who credibly bathe themselves in patriotism greatly increase their chances — and, in this case, prepare themselves well for running against John McCain.”

I’ve noticed that much of Obama’s message touches on explicitly patriotic themes, and has for several years. But today, Jonah Goldberg explains that it’s unsatisfactory, because Obama doesn’t specifically use the word “patriotism” enough.

“Unity is the great need of the hour.... Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it’s the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country. I’m not talking about a budget deficit.... I’m talking about a moral deficit. I’m talking about an empathy deficit. I’m taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother’s keeper; we are our sister’s keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.”

So quoth Barack Obama in Atlanta on Jan. 20, but it might as well have been last week, so central is unity to his presidential campaign.... What is fascinating here is not the sentiment, but what’s missing from it. The P-word.

To invoke patriotism seriously is to brand yourself either an old fogy or a right-wing bully. If Obama spoke about patriotism with the sort of passion he expends on unity, many would take him for some sort of demagogue.

It’s possible I’m insufficiently patriotic to fully understand the argument — I think I love my country, but I’m not sure if I meet the right’s standards. Goldberg seems to be arguing that the left’s problem isn’t that we're unpatriotic, but rather, that we don’t talk about patriotism enough. Presumably, if the left used the “P-word” more often, conservatives would have more confidence in our loyalties.

Or something. With Goldberg, it's sometimes hard to follow the argument.

Continue reading »

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Dan Abrams offers another edition of his series "Bush League Justice" focusing on the latest petulant move on the part of the President, who is holding on to the nominations of 84 positions until Congress confirms Steven Bradbury to the position of Assistant Attorney General, something the Senate is loathe to do. Why? Because Steven Bradbury is the legal mind responsible for writing the opinions stripping detainees of their habeas corpus rights and torturing them was legally permissible as well as immunizing Harriet Miers from complying with a congressional subpoena. But of course, in Bush's mind it's the Democratic-controlled Congress who is the problem. Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley weighs in on the latest "made man" of the Bush Administration.