Booman Tribune

Major Concerns About Obama

Glenn Greenwald conducted an interesting interview with Charlie Savage, the Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times journalist, about the Obama administration's national security policies and civil liberties. Here is the part I want to discuss. CHARLIE SAVAGE:...You know, I had this interesting conversation when I was working on this article that came out this morning with Jack Balkin at Yale Law School, and he compares this moment to when Dwight Eisenhower took over, in 1953, and after FDR and then Truman had built up the New Deal administrative state, which Republicans hated, but then Eisenhower, instead of dismantling it, just sort of adjusted it with his own policies a little bit, and kept it going. And at that point, there was no longer any sort of partisan controversy about the fact that we were going to have this massive administrative state; it just sort of became a permanent part of the governing structure of the country. And in the same way he said in 1969 when Richard Nixon took over from LBJ, he did some adjustments to the great society welfare state that LBJ had built up, but he didn't scrap it. And at that point, Republicans and Democrats had both presided over the welfare state and the welfare state became part of just how government worked. That in the same way, Obama now, by continuing the broad outlines of the various surveillance and detention and counter-terrorism programs, is draining them of plausible partisan controversy, and so they are going to become entrenched and consolidated as permanent features of American government as well, going forward. It's an astute observation, and one I have warned about myself. Some things concern me more than others. At the top of my list is a concern about governmental electronic surveillance. I feel like we are entering a phase where we might lose any realistic legal expectation of privacy in our phone and computer correspondence. I see Obama's policies in those areas as a real threat. I'm also concerned about indefinite detentions. You can question my libertarian credentials, but I am more willing than Greenwald to allow a degree of wiggle-room in cleaning up Bush's mess in regard to some of the high-value detainees we have in custody. For example, I am not in favor of releasing any of the detainees that were directly implicated in the 9/11 plot, so long as the government is willing to explain how the evidence was spoiled and to hold people accountable (by prosecuting them) for spoiling it. But I have two major reservations. First, I have not been convinced that the 9/11 detainees cannot be prosecuted in a normal court of law. Second, the plurality of detainees seem to have been improperly detained, and I don't want the government to engage in a cover-up of that fact or to create any new classes of people who are denied basic rights. I am sympathetic to the difficulties Obama inherited, but I can't forgive a perpetuation of the same mistakes. Now, let me address one more part of this interview. GLENN GREENWALD:...I know I've noticed a significant change in how Democrats and progressives talk about national security issues in the past several months. None of them used to defend secrecy policies of George Bush or detention powers or the denial of habeas corpus, or the right of preventive detention, and of course many, many of them now do. I don't know who Greenwald is referring to, but I don't dispute the legitimacy of his observation. As for me, I would not describe anything I've said on these issues to be a defense, exactly. The furthest I have gone is to say that there are a small handful of detainees that we have in custody that (based on what I know about them) I do not want to see released under any circumstances. Yet, I have not conceded the government's premise that some of them cannot be prosecuted in a court of law. I don't believe that. But, if it were true, I still wouldn't support releasing them. In spite of this, I am not willing to just take the government's word for their guilt. I cannot believe that we cannot prosecute the people that worked with the 9/11 hijackers by training them, financing them, and facilitating their travel. If we cannot prosecute them, I need to know precisely why, because it is always possible that the reason is that they are simply not-guilty in every sense of the word. If they are guilty but we can't prove it, tell me why we can't prove it and put the people responsible for that travesty in prison. If this highly dubious scenario is real, the people will understand the rationale for bending justice in a half dozen cases. But the real threat isn't from cleaning up Bush's mess. The real threat is the broad anti-terror program of the United States and how it has the potential to undermine basic civil rights and the rule of law. And, here, any instances of the Obama administration examining the facts and coming to conclusions similar to the Bush administration are instructive. Put bluntly, I stopped believing the Bush administration very early on and they lost their credibility with me completely. When a Democratic administration looks at the same set of facts and comes to a similar conclusion, that does make me willing to step back with an open mind and reassess my assumptions. I haven't started defending that which I previously criticized, but I have, in some instances, decided to wait and listen. But an open mind only goes so far. I may be newly willing to listen, but so far I haven't been convinced to think differently on these issues at all. While I am willing to allow for a grace period and to potentially reassess some of my assumptions, my basic disposition is that the Obama administration is embracing an Establishmentarian mindset that favors unconstitutional invasions of privacy and that sacrifices core human and civil rights needlessly. In other words, there is no question that the Obama administration is an improvement of enormous magnitude, but they still must be opposed on many core issues or we will simply cede our rights to the interests of a surveillance state.

Grounding

Does anyone else feel that grounding teenagers for their misbehavior tends to punish the parents more severely than the child? Who needs a skulking, bored, teenager moping around the house?

Wanker of the Day: David Broder

Here's a shocker, coming from David Broder: Now that the Minnesota Supreme Court has ended the long count on the 2008 Senate race by awarding the seat to Al Franken, Democrats -- at least on paper -- have the power to pass whatever bills they want, without a single Republican vote. Nothing would be a bigger mistake. What if, pray tell David, there are no Republican votes to be had? What if, for example, the Republicans stay united in opposing a public option to the health care bill or insist on watering down the climate/energy bill in the Senate to a point where it cannot pass in conference form through the House? Broder never answers these types of questions when he is penning one hagiography after another to the Saint of Bipartisanship. Why is the onus always on the Democrats to be bipartisan? Franken, the loud-mouthed former comedian, will be the 60th member of the Senate Democratic caucus -- just enough for them to cut off any filibuster threat if they can muster all their members. With solid majorities in both houses, the Democratic leaders, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, could dismiss Republican objections to any bill without a second thought. Yet that would not only contradict President Obama's promise to change the partisan climate in Washington but would also entail unnecessary risks to Obama's ambitious policy goals. Never mind that the Democratic caucus includes members like Arlen Specter, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Mary Landrieu who are not reliable cloture votes. Never mind that Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd are in ill-health and have spent little recent time in the Senate. Even if the Democrats could ram home whatever legislation they wanted, Broder would oppose them for the simple reason that they rammed it home. What about the merits of the policies? Why does Broder never, ever, seem to take policy differences seriously. If the Republicans want input on legislation, shouldn't they be required to make a commitment to vote in favor of it once their input has been incorporated? Or should the Democrats water down bills in an effort to win Republican support even after it has been demonstrated that that support will not be forthcoming? Al Franken might occasionally mouth-off, but he at least cares about policy. He'd made a good columnist at the Washington Post if the Post ever decided to hire 'serious' columnists.

A Breaking Point in Iran?

Writing about the internal religious politics of Iran puts me at the limit of my knowledge. I have a good and broad knowledge of the history of Shi'a Islam, but not so great of a handle on how the thirty years of Islamic rule in Iran has changed what was traditionally the case. I wrote about the history here and here. I don't want to rehash all of that this morning. if you are really interested in learning as much as you can about the structure of Shi'a clerical power you can get a somewhat flawed and America-centric idea through this paper (PDF) from the Washington Institute of Near East Policy. I want to provide a bit of context to the report in this morning's New York Times, without getting too technical or going beyond what I know. CAIRO � The most important group of religious leaders in Iran called the disputed presidential election and the new government illegitimate on Saturday, an act of defiance against the country�s supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country�s clerical establishment. A statement by the group, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, represents a significant, if so far symbolic, setback for the government and especially the authority of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose word is supposed to be final. The government has tried to paint the opposition and its top presidential candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, as criminals and traitors, a strategy that now becomes more difficult � if not impossible. �This crack in the clerical establishment, and the fact they are siding with the people and Moussavi, in my view is the most historic crack in the 30 years of the Islamic republic,� said Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. �Remember, they are going against an election verified and sanctified by Khamenei.� Iran is led by Ali Hosseini Khamenei, who succeeded Khomeini as the Supreme Leader of the Iranian Revolution. In that role he is supposed to be the Supreme Marja and have the final word on all matters of religion and state. But Khamenei does not have the religious education to merit such deference in matters of religion. And the very concept of a supreme political cleric is an innovation of Khomeini's that has always been controversial in clerical circles. To give one example, the last Supreme Marja before Ayatollah Khomeini led the revolution was a man named Seyyed Hossein Borujerdi. He forbade all clergy from taking any part in politics, which was consistent with tradition. In 1960, Borujerdi violated his own rules by protesting the Shah's Land Reform Bill because it was inconsistent with shariah law. When Borujerdi died in 1961, there was no clear successor. The leading clerics decided against declaring a new Supreme Marja, and opted to set up a system where there would be several marja, each with his own area of expertise. So, from 1961-1979, the official position of the Shi'a religious community was predisposed against either a supreme leader or an active political role. But, of course, that is not entirely true. During this same time period, Ayatollah Khomeini was developing his theory of Velayat-e faqih (Guardianship of the Jurists), which embraced a political role for the clergy under a supreme authority. And that theory is the basis of the Iranian government's legitimacy. What's significant in the news out of Qom is that the leading clergy there have much more religious legitimacy than Ali Khamenei and they are rejecting his political legitimacy by protesting the election. In doing so, they are rejecting Velayat-e faqih. This is a true ideological crisis for the Revolution. The government can crack down on dissenters of all stripes, but they can't very well declare that a government based on the Guardianship of the Clergy can crack down on the most esteemed clergy in the country. They can't issue some edict that will change the very nature of Shi'a Islam so that the people no longer show deference to their own Grand Ayatollahs. Yet, the government still maintains all the levers of coercion. The question is: will the rank-and-file members of the armed services, Revolutionary Guard, and Intelligence Services obey the Supreme Leader when he is opposed by a religious establishment that has much greater religious legitimacy? And, of course, complicating matters is the fact that the government still has some Grand Ayatollahs in their hip pocket. Nevertheless, the situation in Iran has reached a breaking point. Something has to give.

Post-Fireworks Open Thread

We just got back from the fireworks, where they played my favorite 4th of July Song ever...and it reminded me of this version, with ALL the verses.

It Has Never Been About Trig

William Jacobson is insane. I don't hate Sarah Palin. I don't have a problem with her son, Trig. I don't see anything even remotely wrong with having a baby with Down Syndrome. I don't think it's appalling that she took her baby around with her on the campaign trail. I think what Andrew Sullivan said about Sarah and Trig during the campaign was beneath contempt. But I still really, really dislike Sarah Palin and everything she stands for. The biggest problem I have with Palin is her difficulty with the truth. She lies constantly. Some lies are self-serving, like saying she said 'thanks, but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere.' Some lies are malicious, like saying candidate Obama 'pals around with terrorists.' But they all debase the truth and our political discourse. My second problem with Palin is that she is completely, willfully ignorant. I can't think of anything other than moose-dressing that she might be considered well-informed about, and that includes the job requirements and responsibilities of being the governor of Alaska. I don't dislike stupid people, but the willfully stupid drive me up a wall. My third problem is her lack of self-awareness. If she were actually genuinely patriotic she would know that the last thing this country needs is to be led by someone with her obvious limitations. My fourth problem is that she is a mean and vindictive person who used the accouterments of power to punish her enemies, including her former brother-in-law. My fifth problem is that she is a Republican of the worst type: socially conservative, economically oligarchic, and environmentally disastrous. I could go on...I have a few pet peeves as well. But the fact that her winking, hair-flipping, and 'you-betchas' grate on me rather than make me see starbursts is not critically important. The last thing I hold against Sarah Palin is that she has a baby named Trig.

Casual Suggestion

Here's an idea for the GOP. In the future, if you are thinking of nominating someone to run on a ticket for the presidency, make sure they're not a goddamn moron.

Palin Scandal Revealed

It's murder most foul.

Mapping the Future

Two things have happened recently to drive home the point that the Republican Party is in massive decline. The Democratic Caucus in the U.S. Senate reached sixty members and we saw three potential 2012 GOP presidential careers' unexpectedly implode. Where are they going from here? The GOP might regain some momentum by winning the governor's races this November in either/both New Jersey and Virginia, but their prospects of picking up seats in the 2010 Senate elections look exceedingly bleak. The Democrats have very strong candidates running in Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky, and New Hampshire in what should all be open seats. The Republicans will have to stage upset victories in all four of those seats and find a way to win elections in Delaware, Colorado, or Connecticut to gain any ground. And most of the emerging races are on Republican ground. Texas could become a competitive seat once Kay Bailey Hutchison resigns to run for governor. It remains to be seen if Charlie Crist will prevail in Florida's closed GOP primary. Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina is polling terribly and could become vulnerable if the Democrats find a strong challenger. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana could have difficulty weathering his diaper-wearing visits to the Cat House if Rep. Charlie Melanchon gets in the race. The Dems have a little housecleaning to do. They will have contentious primaries in Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. But they should be favored to win all of those races. My best guess is that the Democrats will pick up a net of four to six seats, giving them 64-66 senate seats for the 112th Congress. The House is another matter. The Dems will probably lose at least a couple of seats. There are only a handful of vulnerable Republicans left in the House, so unless they have a lot of retirements, the odds are that they'll win more contests than they lose. But, even here, it's highly doubtful that they Republicans can net even a dozen seats, and that will barely change the dynamics of Congress at all. In fact, the most vulnerable Democrats are already voting with the Republicans half the time anyway. In short, there does not appear to be any near-term relief coming for the Grand Old Party. And, if they take another beating in 2010, their next obstacle will be the post-census redistricting which will be controlled in many states by the Democrats. A bunch of Republican seats will just get carved out of existence for the 2012 races, and a decade of deep minority status will set in. Finally, if the party doesn't show any signs of life through 2010, then it's likely that no new leaders will emerge to challenge for the presidency. They have no one now, and there is nobody on the horizon. The last time this happened was when Eisenhower failed to recruit an ideological successor and his vice-president lost to Kennedy. The GOP tilted badly to the right and nominated Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona in 1964. Goldwater got crushed and the Democrats entered the period of their greatest dominance in the post-war period. We appear to be on a similar trajectory. Which makes this all the funnier.

Something to Think About on July 4th

The New York Times reports that Iran is obtaining false confessions of treason by utilizing torture enhanced interrogation techniques on reformers they have in custody. The government has made it a practice to publicize confessions from political prisoners held without charge or legal representation, often subjected to pressure tactics like sleep deprivation, solitary confinement and torture, according to human rights groups and former political prisoners. Human rights groups estimate that hundreds of people have been detained. They fear the confessions are part of a concerted effort to lay the groundwork for banning existing reformist political parties and preventing any organized reform movement in the future. �They hope with this scenario they can expunge them completely from the political process,� said Hadi Ghaemi, coordinator of International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, a New York-based group. �They don�t want them to come back as part of a political party.� Cheney and Rumsfeld were definitely a bit more subtle, but they didn't shy away from using these techniques on at least two American citizens. They also thought they could prevent the opposition party from coming back, although their approach was indirect. Wouldn't it be nice if we had any ground to stand on in protesting Iran's behavior? Something to think about on this Independence Day.

Open Snark Thread

If you like an independent look at the news, please consider making a contribution to Booman Tribune. We can't survive without your support. Use this as an open snark thread.

It's Not Goodbye for Sarah

Josh Marshall sez: ...the idea that Gov. Palin just up and decided for no reason in particular to resign her office little more than half way through her term, with a hastily assembled press conference and a rambling and histrionic speech, is just too silly for serious consideration. But, you know what? Who knows with these people? Dehr crazee. I mean, let's face it. Sarah Palin is not (and never was) going to be elected president of the United States. And even though the Republican Establishment is disoriented and at a low ebb, they're not suicidal enough to make her the nominee of their party. The real question for Sarah Palin was not how she should go about winning the nomination in 2012, but whether she should cash in on her fame and cult following while she's hot, or whether she should endure routine humiliation and mounting legal bills as an ineffectual, ethically-challenged, and increasingly unpopular governor of an Arctic state. That math seems easy enough that even Palin can solve for it. And if she isn't going anywhere politically, and her star is starting to dim, the best thing to do is to get out now. As embarrassing as it is to quit her job with eighteen months to go, she could hardly have selected a better time to make her announcement. Other Republicans are in the spotlight for much bigger failures, most people are traveling and preparing for their Holiday weekend, and Michael Jackson will continue to dominate the news through at least Tuesday when his memorial service takes place in Los Angeles' Staples Center. Sure, there may be some scandals bubbling beneath the surface that helped her make this decision, but that doesn't change that she's going out on top, in a position to make millions. Why risk that by staying in office and taking a daily beating? Palin admitted it was about money in her speech. Every one - all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We've won! But it hasn't been cheap - the State has wasted THOUSANDS of hours of YOUR time and shelled out some two million of YOUR dollars to respond to "opposition research" - that's money NOT going to fund teachers or troopers - or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the "politics of personal destruction" ... Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn't cost them a dime so they're not going to stop draining public resources - spending other peoples' money in their game. It's pretty insane - my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with THIS instead of progressing our state now. I know I promised no more "politics as usual," but THIS isn't what anyone had in mind for ALASKA. She isn't going to go away. Far from it. She'll be cashing in the same way Mike Huckabee is cashing in, but with more success. Godspeed Sarah Palin. I'm winking right back atcha.

Deep Thought

Sarah Palin is Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Frivolous Friday Poll

I can't decide which is worse, the endless news coverage of Michael Jackson's grandiose funeral plans, Father's Day's on the Appalachian Trail, or Sarah Palin's latest run-in with waterfowl. Vote here, and tell me why in the comments.

Sarah Palin is Resigning

Sources on my teevee inform me that Sarah Palin will announce shortly that she is resigning as governor of Alaska. Obviously, she will not seek reelection. And, I'm just guessing here, I believe this means there is no chance that she will compete for Lisa Murkowski's senate seat in 2010. It is not clear yet what her reasons are for stepping down. It could be that Todd Purdum's Vanity Fair hit piece just left too much of a mark. Or, it could be internal Alaskan politics, including perhaps ethical lapses reaching critical mass. I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing she's emotionally spent and needs some time out of the limelight to decompress and focus on her family and marriage. In any case, I think her national ambitions are shot. It would be one thing to not seek reelection in order to focus on building a 2012 presidential campaign. Resigning, however, leaves a fatal taint. Update [2009-7-3 16:1:13 by BooMan]: She's resigning on July 25th. It sounded almost as if she might still be harboring national ambitions. Her speech was totally incoherent and made more odd by the loud ducks in the background.