Month: November 2014

Release the report, Senator

by digby

I’ve been writing that someone needs to leak the full 6,000 page Senate Intelligence Committee Torture Report for quite a while. It appears that’s the only way it will ever see the light of day.

Now that Mark Udall’s been defeated I’ve jumped on the bandwagon asking him to to do it — even as I trace the ignominious downfalls of those who’ve bravely done such things in the past. It’s a lot to ask for sure.

My piece in Salon.

While it’s true that Frank Church and Otis Pike and Mike Gravel were not rewarded for their patriotism in their time, there is little doubt that they will be remembered in history for being brave enough to take on the powerful Intelligence and Defense communities when they had the chance and at least help the country to hit the pause button on their worst predations. It’s a rare and inspiring thing to see.

We’re talking about torture this time. Whatever Senator Udall’s future plans might be, it’s fair to assume that knowing what he knows about what happened in that dark period of time, he will sleep better at night knowing that he did the right thing here.

.

An honest cop

by digby

This fellow was actually lucky to have only endured a lot of swearing and a slap in the face. He could have been shot through with 50,000 volt of electricity instead and dropped to the ground on his face which happens every day and nobody gives a damn because it’s so “harmless.”

The reason this video is so powerful is because the police officer actually talks to the subject honestly and shows him his true attitude. A lot of cops just pull out the taser, apply electrochock and that’s the end of that: instant compliance.

This guy really is an honest cop:

Asked if he would have handled the matter the same way again, Glans said he would, but not if he knew it was being filmed. He acknowledged that he did not know the incident was being videotaped…

The founders were a bunch of hippies

by digby

This is an amazing little blast from the past by NSA apologist Stewart Baker. From 1994:

Of course there are people who aren’t prepared to trust the escrow agents, or the courts that issue warrants, or the officials who oversee the system, or anybody else for that matter. Rather than rely on laws to protect us, they say, let’s make wiretapping impossible; then we’ll be safe no matter who gets elected.

This sort of reasoning is the long-delayed revenge of people who couldn’t go to Woodstock because they had too much trig homework. It reflects a wide — and kind of endearing — streak of romantic high-tech anarchism that crops up throughout the computer world.

The problem with all this romanticism is that its most likely beneficiaries are predators. Take for example the campaign to distribute PGP (“Pretty Good Privacy”) encryption on the Internet. Some argue that widespread availability of this encryption will help Latvian freedom fighters today and American freedom fighters tomorrow. Well, not quite. Rather, one of the earliest users of PGP was a high-tech pedophile in Santa Clara, California. He used PGP to encrypt files that, police suspect, include a diary of his contacts with susceptible young boys using computer bulletin boards all over the country. “What really bothers me,” says Detective Brian Kennedy of the Sacramento, California, Sheriff’s Department, “is that there could be kids out there who need help badly, but thanks to this encryption, we’ll never reach them.”

If unescrowed encryption becomes ubiquitous, there will be many more stories like this. We can’t afford as a society to protect pedophiles and criminals today just to keep alive the far-fetched notion that some future tyrant will be brought down by guerrillas wearing bandoleers and pocket protectors and sending PGP-encrypted messages to each other across cyberspace.

I think that gets to the heart of the matter, don’t you? Anyone who worries about the idea that the government might abuse its powers in this way are basically hippies and geeks enabling pedophiles in service of some far-fetched notions of “freedom.” Obviously, it’s ridiculous to think the government could ever use these powers against the American people for political reasons.

.

Process, process, process

by digby

Rand Paul declared the war against ISIS illegal because the congress has not declared war.That may be true as far as it goes but this argument has been going on for a very long time. Here’s a list of the official congressional declared wars in American history:

The rest:

And here are the 11 conflicts governed by congressional legislation authorizing force but not declaring war, per the CRS report.

May 28, 1798 and July 9, 1798. FRANCE. Legislation authorizing the president to instruct commanders of U.S. Navy warships to “subdue, seize and take any armed French vessel which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, or elsewhere, on the high seas…”

February 6, 1802. TRIPOLI. Legislation authorizing the president to “equip, officer, man, and employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite…for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas” in response to threats from Tripoli.

March 3, 1815. ALGERIA. Legislation authorizing the president to use the U.S. Navy, “as judged requisite by the President” to protect the “commerce and seamen” of the United States on the “Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas” in response to conflict with the Dey and Regency of Algiers.

March 3, 1819. PIRATES. Legislation enacted “to protect the commerce of the United States, and punish the crime of piracy.”

January 29, 1955. FORMOSA. Legislation authorizing the president to “employ the Armed Forces of the United States as he deems necessary for the specific purpose of securing and protecting Formosa, and the Pescadores against armed attack….”

March 9, 1957. THE MIDDLE EAST. “To undertake, in the general area of the Middle East, military assistance programs with any nation or group of nations of that area desiring such assistance.”

August 10, 1964. SOUTHEAST ASIA. Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

October 12, 1983. LEBANON. “The Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution.”

January 12, 1991. IRAQ. Congress passed the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution.”

September 18, 2001. TERRORISTS. A joint resolution to authorize “the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

October 16, 2002. IRAQ. “Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution.”

Update: “Where is Korea?” the commenters, below, cry. That is a good and tricky question. The Korean War was not authorized by Congress. President Truman committed American troops in Korea in 1950 under the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, which was ratified by the U.S. Senate, citing resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council in 1950. This precedent — the constitutionality of which has been debated — has been cited by subsequent presidents as justification for using military force without congressional authorization, as in Panama in 1989 and Iraq in 1990 under George H.W. Bush, and Haiti and Bosnia under President Clinton in 1994. According to a 1995 article in the American Journal of International Law, “Presidents and their advisers point to more than two hundred incidents in which Presidents have used force abroad without first obtaining congressional approval.”

That also doesn’t count the civil war, obviously, or the slaughter of native Americans. Let’s just say there’s very little evidence to suggest that the congress has been unwilling to authorize military action or that they’re inclined to deny the president the funding necessary to run whatever military action he chooses.

I understand that it’s a dictatorial power used by presidents of both parties and it should be challenged on the principle. But it won’t make any difference. The wars will happen one way or the other. Even Rand Paul admits that his railing against this latest military action in the middle east isn’t over the substance of the action, it’s over the abstract principle involved:

“Taking military action against ISIS is justified. The president acting without Congress is not,” he wrote, reiterating a stance he’s held since September. This fall Paul has described the airstrikes in Syria as appropriate action but said Obama’s method for doing so was “unconstitutional.”

So, as an exercise it’s a good idea. We should have a debate and politicians at every level of the federal government should have to formally weigh in. All of that is fine. But I hope nobody’s pinning his or her hopes on the congress ever being much of a brake on military action, especially when the war demagogues and PR firms have been engaged.

.

They’ve convinced themselves that it was perfect before

by digby

They now believe everything was just great until Obamacare came along and ruined it all. Nobody went broke because of doctor bills and that premiums were a lot cheaper. Nobody ever died for lack of insurance.

They don’t care that our health system sucked for millions of people and they never have. They don’t care that it has actually improved a bit under Obamacare.They only know this:

This is the story Marshall to which marshall was referring in his tweet.

If you’re not Goliath, fine.

by Tom Sullivan

On Meet the Press Sunday morning, Howard Dean told Chuck Todd what we’ve all been screaming at Democratic candidates: Stand for something.

You’ve got to do the 50-state strategy again. The president has been brilliant in the 50-state strategy, but not so, the DNC hasn’t been able to pull that back together again for a variety of reasons, not all having to do with the DNC. The biggest problem, Jim Clyburn was the most right person in that lead-up.

It was message. Sure, it was an off year, and we can make all these excuses. But the fact is, we have never been able to, and even through the days of the 50-state strategy and, you know, taking over the House, the Senate, and the president in four years, when I was running the DNC, I could never get the Washington Democrats to stay on message. The Republican message was, “We’re not Obama.” No substance whatsoever. “We’re not Obama.” What was the Democrats’ message? “Oh, well, we’re really not either.” You cannot win if you are afraid…

Where the hell is the Democratic party? You’ve got to stand for something if you want to win.

Todd asked Dean if the party is too focused on women when it’s losing white men. Support among white men has declined from 44% in 2006 to 33% now. Dean replied:

One of the reasons has to do that we’re not on the lunch bucket issues. When we stick to lunch-bucket issues, and opportunity, as you showed the president’s clip, we do fine. You know, white men have been tough for us since the Southern strategy and Richard Nixon … If we lose by 4%, that’s terrific for us. But the erosion among white men has mostly to do with the fact that the economy has not gotten better. These folks have been feeling under big-time stress. And we have got to have a message that has to do with basic economics. It helps us all across the board, but particularly with white men.

It’s a thing, too, that Democratic candidates clean up in the cities and lose big in the counties. A big part of that is cultural. But as Dean says, it is also lack of message discipline (or any message at all). Instead of sticking to lunch bucket issues, liberals often speak wonk to people who don’t speak wonk.

It always struck me as odd how, when we lefties plan a trip to exotic locations abroad, we buy guide books, bone up on the culture, learn to speak a little of the language, get some appreciation for local customs, etc. We just won’t do the same when visiting country cousins out in the red counties. And then we wonder why those people won’t vote with us.

Some on the left would just as soon not bother with them. Yet Dean thought a bi-coastal strategy that forfeited the rural, heartland states to the GOP was foolish, so he hired organizers and sent them out where Democrats feared to tread. (A friend of mine was the first one he hired.) Democrats suddenly began winning out there. It’s time to do that again, but not just in the “flyover states.” We lose big outside the cities, even in many blue states.

But you’ve got to stand for something. The right spent decades, day after day, month after month, year after year — virtually unanswered — using talk radio to teach rural voters to think like conservatives. But if we expect people to start voting like progressives — here’s a crazy idea — it might help if they thought like progressives. Rural Votes has got the idea. They run progressive messaging in small markets where radio ad rates are cheap, and targeted GOTV radio spots (like this one) at election time. In 2008 and 2012, my own group ran a couple thousand “values” spots (like this one) on small AM stations in medium-sized markets. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

It may seem a small a thing compared to the right’s Mighty Wurlitzer, but if you’re not Goliath, fine. Be David.

QOTD: Big Stick edition

by digby

From the Queen of the Arctic, of course:

In the 2008 campaign Sen. McCain and I warned, on behalf of every reasonable person, that your willingness to negotiate with terrorists would get Americans killed; that pulling an anti-Reagan move by taking our Big Stick of strength and putting it in the hands of any foe could be insurmountably devastating for our allies. Iran is one of Israel’s staunchest enemies. Mr. President, who is advising you to come against Israel?

Yes, she actually said Obama had put our “Big Stick of strength” into “the hands” of our foes and then came all over Israel.

I think Sarah was otherwise occupied when she wrote that one don’t you?

.

Send him a bill and he’ll sign it

by digby

The Republicans are working themselves up into a massive hissy fit over the president’s promised Executive Orders on immigration. And it’s nonsense. They have a bipartisan bill they can take to the floor right now and put it up for a vote.  They refuse. Amd doing what Axelrod and Rendell and others have suggested, which is go and beg Boehner to bring it up in thenext couple of months in the vain hope that they won’t have this hissy fit is just daft.

The president is doing this the right way — the only way:

“I presided over a process in which the Senate produced a bipartisan bill. I then said to John Boehner, ‘John, let’s get this passed through the House.’ For a year I stood back and let him work on this. He decided not to call the Senate bill and he couldn’t produce his own bill,” Obama said in an interview with CBS” “Face the Nation,” which aired Sunday.

“What I’m saying to them, actually, their time hasn’t run out. I’m going to do what I can do through executive action,” he said. “And in the interim, the minute they pass a bill that addresses the problems with immigration reform, I will sign it and it supercedes whatever actions I take.”

Send him a bill he can sign and he’ll withdraw the EO. The bill is just sitting there — why won’t Boehner let it come to the floor? Because it will likely pass, that’s why. That’s the game here and the WH is calling their bluff.

.

ISIS Hunting Kit

by digby

Yes, this is a real thing:

It features

Choose Carrier*

Qty: 
Choose Number of Plates*

Qty: 
Bump Helmet*

Qty: 
Three Mag Pouches*

Qty: 
Hat*

Qty: 
Gloves*

Qty: 
Tactical Shit Patch*

Qty: 
Go Fuck Youself PVC Patch*

Qty: 

Yes, they actually sell a “go fuck yourself” patch. And this:

I hear the conservative coalition is now libertarian and isolationist. In fact some say we should now all count on them to lead the way to peace in our time. So, apparently this is being marketed to liberals.

.

Sunday Funnies

by digby