Arrest the Torture Masters

We know what happened.

"I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it." 

 --Former Vice President Dick Cheney, responding to a question about waterboarding

"Waterboarding has been used on only three detainees. It was used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It was used on Abu Zubaydah. And it was used on [Abd al-rahim al-]Nashiri." 

--Former Director of CIA Gen. Michael Hayden

"The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees... Interrogation policies endorsed by senior military and civilian officials authorizing the use of harsh interrogation techniques were a major cause of the abuse of detainees in US custody."

--Senate Armed Services Committee Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S Custody

"These activities [torture]...were authorized, they were known at the highest levels, they were supported by legal opinions at the Department of Justice."

--Former White House Counsel and Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

We know the law.

"Waterboarding is torture." 

--Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking to Senate Judiciary Committee

"To be clear, torture is currently banned under United States laws (under the anti-torture statute, the War Crimes Act, the Geneva Conventions, and the Detainee Treatment Act)."

--House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers

We know what must be done.

"No one is above the law." 

--Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking to Senate Judiciary Committee

"My view is also that nobody's above the law and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen." 

--President Barack Obama, speaking to the White House press corps

So why are we looking the other way?

How can this be something we put off until Obama's second term--if there even is a second term? True, Democrats don't want to look like they're playing politics with prosecutions. They don't want to look like they are taking revenge the very moment they get in power. But the story here--as outlined above--is pretty clear and leaves very little excuse not to put Bush administration officials on trial. 

As I've said before, not pursuing prosecutions is "playing politics." What reason could the Justice Department have for failing to bring charges other than that they don't want to interfere with the White House's political agenda? When forced to comment on Bush's torture policy, Obama likes to say he is "more interested in looking forward," because he knows that plays well in the media, keeps his positives high, and maintains the above-it-all image he's fashioned. He's taking the easy road, rather than doing what's right. 

Every day that the torture masters skate by is a day that political expediency trumps justice.

Still Missing the Point on Stevens

I've been a little baffled at the reactions to the news about convicted felon and former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens. The way the story is being interpreted in the media--with help from Republican spokespersons--is that "Uncle Ted" was the victim of a political witch hunt by rogue Democratic elements at the Bush Justice Department and that he lost his Senate seat because of baseless accusations. They're basically saying, "This poor old man did nothing wrong and look what happened to him!"

Sarah Palin and the Alaska GOP are even calling for Democratic Sen. Mark Begich to resign and face Stevens in a do-over special election. (Yeah right!) Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah) is saying that Stevens was "falsely accused."

Let's be clear. There have been no indications whatsoever that the felony charges against Stevens--which led to his conviction by a jury of his peers--were false or that they were politically motivated. What we know is that there was some prosecutorial misconduct, specifically that the prosecution withheld certain evidence from the defense, leading the new Attorney General, Eric Holder, to drop all the charges. 

And (!), the Justice Department says that part of the reason they're dropping the charges is basically that they feel sorry for Stevens because he's old and just lost an election. Along those same lines, in an unintentionally hilarious reaction to the recent news, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) says: 

"Ted Stevens is 85 years old. He's already been punished enough."

Huh?

The point is, a bungled prosecution (or a prosecution canceled due to pity) is different than a bogus accusation. The prosecution screwed up, ensuring that a corrupt politician will never ever see prison. It's like a murderer who walks because of a procedural technicality. In that sense, the system worked. We take our process seriously, and it's intentionally tilted toward the defendant. But that's still a million miles from saying the politician is not corrupt in the first place or that we should change the rules to try to let him back in office.

I'll close with this pretty good summation by "kg123," a commenter on an article at swamppolitics.com. My commentary is in brackets.

Stevens is 84 and guilty as hell. [He's actually 85 and guilty as hell.] Prosecuters, in their rush to trial, took shortcuts and used less than ethical tactics to get their conviction. [Remember, Stevens demanded an immediate trial.] Now Holder thinks it's a better idea to drop the matter than to waste time and money defending the conviction, as Stevens would probably die before these got thru the legal system again. [I don't know; he seems pretty spry.] 

Basically, the American Justice system worked. [Except once again a rich and connected person avoids real punishment.] Stevens lost face and status because he was a corrupt politician. The Alaskan people got to see what wrongs their elected officials do. Holder gets a chance to rise above the fray and state that the Justice Department will be held to a higher standard starting right here and right now. [Some reports suggest this was Holder's main motivation.] 

We all win [unless Sarah Palin's extralegal special election lets Stevens back in the Senate]. Better prosecutions in the future, corrupt politicians are being watched closer than ever, the Alaskan people get better representation, and Stevens gets to live out his last days in a really nicely upgraded house [...$2,700 massage chair included]!

Limbaugh's Change of Heart

Rush Limbaugh to Speak at Sojourners' Mobilization to End Poverty

I know, it's a day late. But the video is too good. This would have gotten Rush booed off the stage at CPAC.

Like a Bad April Fools' Joke

NPR broke the news today that the Justice Department will seek to drop all charges against convicted felon and former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.

The legal justification is that the prosecution withheld certain evidence from the defense. And there were indeed some shenanigans. At one point the judge held the prosecution in contempt for failing to produce relevant materials when ordered to do so. At another point, Justice "replaced the trial team, including top-ranking officials in the Public Integrity Section, which is charged with prosecuting public corruption cases," according to the report. 

Way to go guys. Thanks for letting another criminal politician walk. I can't say it's all that surprising.

But buried halfway down in the article is this little gem. 

"[Attorney General Eric Holder's] decision is said to be based on Stevens' age -- he's 85 -- and the fact that Stevens is no longer in the Senate."  

Wow. So which is it? Did the prosecution irretrievably screw up the case? Or is he too old, and losing his Senate seat is enough punishment?

Granted, nobody wants to see an 85 year old locked up. But when normal people are convicted of seven felonies, they go to prison--or at least a judge determines another sentence.

The worst part is that Stevens himself is spinning the decision as complete vindication, saying:

"I always knew that there would be a day when the cloud that surrounded me would be removed. That day has finally come."

Let me be the one to say to Stevens:  Nope, that day has not come. Just because Eric Holder thinks that losing your election was enough punishment, we will not forget the $250,000 you secretly accepted from oil companies for political favors. There will be a cloud surrounding you until you -- a millionaire politician -- pay for your crimes like any normal person. 

5 Ways to Fight Harder For Employee Free Choice

Last week, moderate Republican Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) announced that he would reverse his position of the last six years and oppose the Employee Free Choice Act. Specter said he will even support a Republican filibuster to prevent the Senate from voting on the bill. 

Why is it even news that a Republican Senator opposes making it easier for workers to form unions? Because Specter was actually a co-sponsor of Employee Free Choice in 2003 and 2005 and the only Republican Senator to vote for cloture on the bill in 2007.

Specter's "flip flop" means Labor is still looking for one Republican to join with the 59 Democrats to prevent a filibuster this time around. (Specter was thought to be the most likely Republican defector.) Media outlets portrayed Specter's new position as the nail in the coffin of the Employee Free Choice Act. The Hill called it a "death blow" to labor's biggest legislative priority.

Oh well! Let's just forget Democrats' large majorities in both houses of Congress, our popular Democratic president, and the solid public support for Employee Free Choice. Mr. Specter doesn't like it so we better just take our toys and go home.

Hold on a second. The progressive coalition has barely even begun to fight for the EFCA. And that's our problem. The moderate Republicans that we need to persuade have not felt any real heat yet.

Here are a five things the Left should do to crank up the heat moving forward:

1. Demand leadership from President Obama. In the Senate, Obama was a co-sponsor of the EFCA. It's time for him to step up and do all he can as President to get it through Congress. He should start with a press conference or another Internet town hall meeting to discuss the legislation and dispel some of the common misinformation about EFCA. Next, he should begin a series of campaign-style rallies around the country to drive home his point and take control of the media coverage on the issue--similar to what he did pushing for the economic recovery package in February. He should, once again, wrap himself in the mandate from his election to push through a legislative priority. He should travel to Tar Heel, North Carolina, where workers finally won union representation (and wage and benefit increases) at the Smithfield Foods pork processing plant after a 15-year battle with the company. Bringing Smithfield workers on the stage with him, Obama should say that the Smithfield case demonstrates the EFCA, making it easier for workers to exercise their rights to form unions. He should highlight similar stories in several places around the country.

2. Increase Labor's on-the-ground efforts and target them in a few key states. We're talking knocking on doors, local TV and radio ads, rallies, letters to editors--all that stuff. Aim for moderate Republicans and particularly vulnerable Republicans. Here are four states to think about, each with varying prospects. (Feel free add to this list in comments.)

• Pennsylvania - Arlen Specter could at least be persuaded to vote for cloture. The guy is in a pickle. He is being challenged by a big business Republican in his upcoming primary, pulling Specter further to the right. And he just pissed of the Labor Left in a blue, union-heavy state. Specter is caught between a rock and a hard place. If it starts looking like he'll win the primary, he might want to start walking back his EFCA opposition to make things easier for him in November 2010.
• Maine - Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are the Republican Senators here. The state doesn't have super union membership, but it's reliably blue and in the northeast, making it a fair prospect if Obama casts EFCA as an Obama vs. Limbaugh issue. The Maine ladies can keep winning as Republicans, but not if they are seen as thwarting Obama's agenda.
• North Carolina - In this new blue state, Republican Senator Richard Burr is looking weak for 2010. He is already trailing the leading Democrat in polling for that race. Burr might be persuaded to shake things up and cast himself as a different kind of Republican. It's hard to imagine him ever supporting Employee Free Choice outright, but he could possibly "oppose it" while voting for cloture (and thereby ensuring its passage). A big Obama rally in Tar Heel with the Smithfield workers would help.
• New Hampshire - Republican Senator Judd Gregg awkwardly rejected President Obama before. Let's see if he'll do it again on the EFCA. Again, blue state, northeast--even if it is kinda conservative compared to the rest of the region. Also, it's a small enough state that a massive ground campaign could make a big difference. 

3. Throw in some carrots with these sticks. Unions should consider floating a bargain to moderate Republicans:"Support the EFCA and, if it passes, we will not target you in your next election." They did this to some extent with Specter, but it might be tried with others.

4. Play tough with conservative Democrats. It's pretty much expected that every Democratic Senator will support the Employee Free Choice Act, but a few of them are sounding wobbly. (No, not that kind of wobbly.) The Senate Democratic leadership should whip these few into line in the normal ways. But in addition, unions should offer this warning to conservative Dems: 

"If you waver on Employee Free Choice, we will support a progressive Democrat to challenge you in the primary and/or support a third-party progressive candidate in the general election."

5. If all else fails and Republicans are going to filibuster, then let them filibuster... and filibuster and filibuster. Let the public see that 41 Republicans are willing to clog up the work of the Senate indefinitely in order to make it harder for workers to organize. If the filibuster is their only trick for the next 8 years, then let's wear it out in the first. Let the public watch Senator Cornyn read from the phonebook on the Senate floor, and let news anchors compare it to Strom Thurmond's longest-ever filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

I would like to see each of these five things before we start talking about a death blow to the EFCA. And even then, a "death blow" would only mean delaying it until 2011, when there will most likely be a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate.

To Ride the Wave, or To Stand Against It: That Is Obama's Question

Almost every news story you see right now is some variation on the general theme:

"People Are Pissed About the Economy." 

AIG's use of taxpayer money to reward "the best and the brightest" who bankrupted the company is just this week's outrage. Next week there will be another theft to learn about, and then another, and another.

People are pissed indeed--rightfully and righteously so. And it's not going to subside over night. We can no longer pretend that all the economic crimes we hear about are separate, unrelated cases of "bad apples." If every other apple is bad, then something is wrong with our tree. I don't think the Obama administration has fully grasped this yet.

Public outrage is swelling against an economic system that has failed. This is playing out the way it always does: The public is looking for something to smash. Something is going to be torn down and stomped to pieces; we just don't know what it will be yet. Over the next few years, the politics that arises victorious from this situation is going to be a populist politics one way or another. If progressives delay, the right wing will provide their own freshly polished faux-populism to steal the next couple of decades--a new What's-The-Matter-With-Kansas judo strategy to take our anger at "the system" and redirect it against one another and against the very social cooperation that provides our best hope. "It's big government's fault! It's the minorities! The immigrants! The atheists! The lazy poor!" ...all over again.

Do we need to replay the last 30 years? We will, if we're not careful. 

Instead, the Left needs to offer some honest-to-God progressive populism as an alternative. I think the public is more receptive now to bold new ideas than at any time since the Great Depression. 

But we shouldn't underestimate how difficult it will be to break the spell of the Religion of Capital. Even as people lose their homes and watch their futures blow away, the old-as-money arguments of the wealthy class are still so deeply ingrained in us. We know we could build a country where everyone who wants to work can, everyone has access to quality healthcare, and every senior has a pension that affords a decent retirement, but we hesitate because we feel like doing those things would break some holy and exalted law. It's a religion that we've been taught since we were young, and the deepest parts of it we dare not question--that is, until things get so desperate that we're willing to explore the alternatives. 

If you're just joining us, welcome to one of those desperate times. Obama still has the political momentum to break the spell and do something big. He can ride this wave of public outrage and direct it toward something constructive. He can begin to tear down the giant pillars of wasteful greed in our economy and begin to build up the things that will improve people's daily lives. 

If he doesn't start to do this, and cedes populist energy to the Right, then he will not win re-election. (Other than some random sexy scandal, this is his biggest threat to re-election.) The nastiness of our economy will be hung around his neck--and rightfully so. He may not have created it, but if he is seen as enabling it, then it becomes his own.

Right now, there are some hopeful signs but the Obama administration is not yet showing the bold leadership we need to bring about a fundamental change in our economy. I think this is partly because the two biggest economic voices in the administration are 90s-style neoliberals: Larry Summers (Obama's chief economic advisor) and Tim Geithner (Treasury Secretary). 

Back in February, I predicted that these free-marketeers would either 

1) evolve into progressives, 

2) be overpowered by progressives in the administration, or 

3) lose their jobs. 

Larry now looks like he's heading down path #2, if by "progressives in the administration" we mean President Obama himself. Summers went on TV trying to make us believe the government should do nothing about AIG paying lavish bonuses with taxpayer money, before Obama contradicted him the next day, saying the government would move to block the bonuses. Geithner is probably closer to path #3, losing his job. He has the wrong instincts (like he's serving as Treasury Secretary 15 years too late), which bring him down on the wrong side of these bailouts-n'-bonuses issues. 

What does all this mean? Obama can either ride the wave of public outrage or he can stand against it and be crushed by it. By jettisoning Summers and Geithner now and replacing them with progressive economists who don't pretend it's still the 1990s, Obama would signal that he will not stand against the rising tide for change. Holding on to these guys will lead Obama to his own "Heckuva job, Brownie" moment and could very well make him the new owner and latest defender of our failed economic system.

Rush to the Right

Have you been following all this Rush in the news? Good Lord.

The story is basically this:  

Democrats are saying, "Hey look, Rush Limbaugh is now the leader of the GOP! Hahahahaha!" 

Republicans are split into two camps:  

Some say, "Nah, Rush is just Rush, a radio guy, an entertainer." 

While others say, "What's wrong with Rush? Rush is right!"

There's been some good reporting about how this whole line of discussion was planted by Democratic strategists as early as October 2008. And it's easy to see why. Rush is ridiculous to 75% of the country. But Republicans can't throw him under the bus, because that other 25% run their campaigns.

I've been surprised how well this line of attack has caught on. I admit I thought it was a little lame when I first heard about it. I mean, isn't Rush so 90s? So he said he wants Obama to fail. Hasn't he always talked like that? 

But both Letterman and Leno have picked up the meme, not to mention Stewart and some of the other usual characters. And in a way that doesn't easily lend itself to linking to funny videos, the notion that Rush is the Republican leader has just, well, caught on. The message might have come from the left, but it stuck in the middle.

I think it's caught on because it's true. What other single person is more influential, more of a leader, within the Republican coalition than Rush? And if he is patently ridiculous and there's no real difference between what he's saying and what Republican politicians are saying, then aren't they ridiculous too? If those politicians criticize his statements but then have to come crawling back to apologize, doesn't that tell us who is the dominant partner in the relationship?

And man, seeing the Republican politicians line up to apologize to Rush has been a little sad but very revealing about the party's balance of power. Kudos to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for having the with-it-ness to launch a website called I'm Sorry Rush that hammers home the point.

There have been a couple of prominent Republicans who have managed, to varying degrees, to set themselves apart from Rush (see here and here). But the fact that such things are even news sort of proves the Democrats' point.

Let's face it. The GOP isn't finished shrinking yet. When a party shrinks, it loses moderates first, making it more extremist and even less appealing to moderates. As most moderates head for the exit, the few of them who remain take a look around the party and see it's now mostly Limbaughs and, God forbid, Coulters.