Vote Machine: How Republicans Hacked the Justice Department
At Harpers, via Metafilter.
There's not much new here, but it condenses a lot of information you almost certainly need to remind yourself of. The ultimate conclusion here is that the threat of impeachment is the only way to block the presidential power grab that has largely turned the DoJ into a political organ.
I should say that I'm wary of some of the claims in the piece, but very, very concerned that what is clearly a strong prima facie case for vigorous investigation is being blithely ignored. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there's cause for very great concern about these matters.
At Harpers, via Metafilter.
There's not much new here, but it condenses a lot of information you almost certainly need to remind yourself of. The ultimate conclusion here is that the threat of impeachment is the only way to block the presidential power grab that has largely turned the DoJ into a political organ.
I should say that I'm wary of some of the claims in the piece, but very, very concerned that what is clearly a strong prima facie case for vigorous investigation is being blithely ignored. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there's cause for very great concern about these matters.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:27 AM
23 Comments:
Man, I don't know what to think about that article. It seemed like every paragraph made assertions that needed a page to explain properly.
Yeesh. What a mess. I don't really know what can be done, though. My conclusion thus far about the administration:
It's proof that if you keep your swindling and misdoings firmly planted in technical and gray-ish legal areas, you can swindle America, 'cause no one has time to learn enough about this crap to make intelligent decisions for themselves (as previously noted) and worse yet, the prevailing notion held by 95% of the people in the United States regarding politics is that if you disagree "it's just a matter of opinion". Facts and rationality play no role - people would rather not discuss issues and try to find the truth because they'd honestly rather just get along superficially.
Our lives have become so busy that we have no time for important matters. We've got school, jobs, taxes, phone bills, internet bills, rent, blah blah what-have-you. Not to sound hippy-ish, but I really am starting to believe that people have gotten so tired and bogged down that it's very, very difficult to be educated on the issues and have any time to devote to making good decisions.
Just think of it this way: When the average person gets home from work, he/she is so exhausted that all he/she wants to do is sit down and do something half-fun. TV or video games are selected.
The average American watches 5 hours of TV a day. That means 8 hours of work + 5 hours of TV + 3 hours for transportation/eating/bathing, and you're at 16 hours. Just enough time to go to bed and get 8 hours of sleep. That's literally the day of the average American.
My current opinion, therefore, is that this administration tells us that we've gotten so busy and bogged down that we don't even have time to care when we're being oppressed and our nation is becoming the Empire from Star Wars.
And, of course, don't forget that any attempt to actually investigate any of these potential crimes -- vote-buying, torture policies, etc -- will be met "Let's just put all that behind us and focus on the future" narrative.
It's impossible to tell exactly what legal lines have (or have not) been crossed when the investigations themselves are stonewalled, pushed aside, or limited in scope. As you've said many times, WS, this administration makes a reasonable person feel like a conspiracy nut.
cb,
I KNOW! I feel like a friggin' conspiracy nut!
Somewhere like...jeez, I think it's Kissinger...says that moderates are always at a disadvantage against radicals. The radicals strike hard, and there is always a period during which the moderates keep trying to use ordinary methods of reasoning and persuasion that work with other reasonable moderates. And the whole time they're doing that, they're just wasting their time, and the radicals are eatin' their lunch.
I've been worrying for quite some time that that's what's going on now. We used to rely on a kind of gentleman's agreement to not put all our energies into exploiting flaws in our Constitution. Rovianism opted out of that agreement. It represents a new, no-holds-barred approach that is willing to exploit every flaw, unclarity and ambiguity to achieve short-term partisan goals.
It's the most frightening political development of my lifetime--if I'm right. And I sincerely hope that I'm not.
Unfortunately, the once-great American magazine Harper's has slipped below The Nation and World Net Daily in its credibility on the issues. It's only good now for alarming those who are already paranoid.
From Jack Goldsmith's book:
It is unimaginable that Francis Biddle or Robert Jackson would have written Franklin Roosevelt a memorandum about how to avoid prosecution for his wartime decisions designed to maintain flexibility against a new and deadly foe. . . .
Many people think the Bush administration has been indifferent to wartime legal constraints. But the opposite is true: the administration has been strangled by law, and since September 11, 2001 this war has been lawyered to death.
[italics added]
In my two years in the government, I witnessed top officials and bureaucrats in the White House and throughout the administration openly worrying that investigators acting with the benefit of hindsight in a different political environment would impose criminal penalties on heat-of-battle judgment calls. These men and women did not believe they were breaking the law, and indeed they took extraordinary steps to ensure that they didn't. But they worried nonetheless because they would be judged in an atmosphere different from when they acted, because the criminal investigative process is mysterious and scary, because lawyers' fees can cause devastating financial losses, and because an investigation can produce reputation-ruining dishonor and possibly end one's career, even if you emerge "innocent."
Why, then, do they even come close to the legal line? Why risk reputation, fortune, and perhaps liberty? Why not play it safe? Many counterterrorism officials did play it safe before 9/11, when the criminalization of war and intelligence contributed to the paralyzing risk aversion that pervaded the White House and the intelligence community. The 9/11 attacks, however, made playing it safe no longer feasible. . . .
Two factors exacerbated this anxiety in the spring of 2004 when Philbin and I brought our bad news to the White House. The government was beginning to receive terrorist threat information that was more frightening than at any time since 9/11, according to then-CIA director George Tenet. And the 9/11 Commission was preparing to grill Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller, and George Tenet on national television about all the things that hindsight showed they might have done, but didn't, to prevent the September 11 attacks.
After 9/11, the Bush administration feared for the nation's safety as much as Franklin Roosevelt had. But Roosevelt's political conception of legal constraints had largely vanished, and by 2001 had been replaced by a fiercely legalistic conception of unprecedented wartime constraints on the presidency. When President Bush and his senior advisors began to order the aggressive actions that they believed the post-9/11 situation demanded -- covert military action, surveillance, detention, interrogation, military trials, and the like -- they encountered these constraints for the first time in a major conflict.
To sum up Tom for those who are curious: A lawyer who worked in Bush's administration says the administration was very concerned about legality, which is I guess proof positive that they haven't broken any laws. Plus, FDR pushed the bounds of executive power as well, and Harper's isn't mad at him, so that means their credibility is below that of a website that published Chuck Norris as a columnist.
Yeah, WS's policy is looking sounder and sounder.
Whoops... that should be "publishes" instead of "published." Just checked the site, and good ol' Chuck is still on the roster (Check back Monday for his latest!)
Actually, CB, Jack Goldsmith has been held up on this very blog as critical of the administration, which he is, and why I quoted him.
I chose him quite carefully.
Seriously, cb, you should try it. Ask yourself: what are the odds that your time and energy are making the world a better place?
I know, I know, I've read enough comments threads to know. But....
http://xkcd.com/386/
Tom, merely criticizing the Bush administration does not make someone's judgment flawless in all areas. To determine whether lawbreaking took place, a full investigation is needed, not just Jack Goldsmith's opinion.
Also, whatever opinions he holds now, Goldsmith was a lawyer in the administration for a significant period of time. He's not the best judge of whether the administration he worked for crossed legal lines.
Finally, your quote isn't even as exculpatory as you think it is. Sure, Goldsmith thinks Bush is FDR, but all he says with respect to the issue at hand was that the administration was concerned with legal boundaries. Was this because of their reverence and respect for American law, or was this them trying to make sure their asses were covered once their behavior became public? The Vanity Fair article and the Yoo memos certainly predispose me to the latter. Also, his phrase "strangled by law" strongly implies the administration was trying to violate it.
I'm objecting only the most egregious, uninformed, and brain-dead of charges---that the administration fascistically ran roughshod over the constitution with no thought or care except for its own power.
This is nonsense, and since Goldsmith has been quoted approvingly around here, he should make for a credible witness.
As for the nuances of the issue, let's just say I've done my share of giving up around here too, as replies made in good faith are seldom rewarded.
But thx for your courteous reply. I'm not saying you're wrong.
LOL--Hilarious link, cb.
The radicals strike hard, and there is always a period during which the moderates keep trying to use ordinary methods of reasoning and persuasion that work with other reasonable moderates.
The Democrats have had more than 10 years to learn this, and they still haven't, which pisses me off to no end. They still think there's a deal to be had, but there isn't, just a long course of compromised and recompromised principles.
I'm objecting only the most egregious, uninformed, and brain-dead of charges---that the administration fascistically ran roughshod over the constitution with no thought or care except for its own power.
When TVD says this, he's talking about me, and, man, I'm proud. The Bushists never care what the law is. They only care how they can twist it to allow them to do what they have already decided to do. And unlike previous administrations, their standard of 'allow' is pretty much any grammatical bullshit they can imagine.
No, I didn't have you in mind, but if the shoe fits...
The Goldsmith quote gives the lie to your rant, tho.
These men and women did not believe they were breaking the law, and indeed they took extraordinary steps to ensure that they didn't.
The Goldsmith quote may disagree with my comment, but even so sainted a one as he is not the final arbiter of what "gives the lie" to it. Just like you to claim it, though.
Ah, LL, I was like unto you once, with the gnashing of teeth and the rending of garments and the metaphorical beating of the head against the brick wall.
Might I suggest a more selective policy as regards the reading of comments?
It has not only brought great peace into my life, but it has actually made it easier for me to focus on more reasonable conservative arguments.
Yes, WS, I do need to remember my New Years resolution to mock what I can't change instead of getting angry at it.
Well, what I've found is that once I've read comments that are really irrational and strongly biased, its too hard to not respond. Then you end up wasting literally hundreds of hours of your life responding to irrational arguments and arguing with people who will never even try to see reason, and from whom you will not learn anything. I mean, if you know that Smith will defend position P no matter how clear the evidence is against it, does it make sense to argue with Smith? In such political discussions, its always a matter of one big mass of unclear arguments and evidence against another big mass of unclear arguments and evidence. In such a situation, to find the truth you have to honestly try to balance one big sloppy mass against another. And, in such a case, it's always possible to be really selective about the evidence, and spin a few outlying considerations so as to pretend that clear issues are unclear, and close calls always go one's preferred way. Now, if you know that that's the way Smith conducts himself epistemically and dialectically, should you spend hour after hour of your short and precious life engaging with Smith?
Add to this that engaging with such people will drive you mad and nourish dogmatism in you, so that it will distort your ability to make the kinds of finely-tuned close-call judgments that are required when such sloppy masses of evidence must be weighed...and, well, it just seems like a lose-lose-lose situation, doesn't it?
Sorry if I sound preachy, but it's made such a big difference in my life that I can't help but push it a bit. A friend of mine once pointed out to me that I have a tendency to let myself be drawn into conversation with such people, and virtually begged me to change my ways for my own good. Turns out that he was absolutely right.
Anyway, all I can do is pass on my friend's advice to you: you need to choose your opponents better.
its always a matter of one big mass of unclear arguments and evidence against another big mass of unclear arguments and evidence. In such a situation, to find the truth you have to honestly try to balance one big sloppy mass against another.
Yes, WS, that perfectly describes the Harper's article you linked to.
The key, then, is to only read big sloppy masses you agree with. Although it doesn't seem to have made you any happier.
B-bu-but, if I don't fight them here, won't I have to fight them on my own blog?
Tee-hee.
Actually, it's my flypaper strategy. This is where you come to blow yourself up.
Cheers.
Tu quoque even in jokes!
Oh, you love it. You can't help yourself.
Besides, it's either pick a fight with me or kick your dog, and no lovable liberal would injure an innocent animal when he can torture a conservative instead.
>B-bu-but, if I don't fight them >here, won't I have to fight them on >my own blog?
LOL. Now *that's* funny.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home