Friday, July 20, 2007

David Bromwich: All in a Day's Work. A decision yesterday by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates threw out the lawsuit by Valerie Plame against Vice President Cheney and several other government officials. Several news reports have pointed out that the judge followed a narrow jurisdictional view of the case; but not much attention has been given to his reasoning or its implications. Judge Bates found that government officials are protected under the Privacy Act from liability for actions performed in the course of their normal duties. "The act of rebutting public criticism," he wrote, "such as that levied [sic: he means leveled] by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials." Notice his choice of words: not prerogatives but "duties." They were obliged by law and compelled by custom to blow the cover of a CIA agent. At bottom, the opinion accepts the Cheney Circle view that the vice president's and the president's men are exempt from inquiry and prosecution. In rebutting public criticism with a startling private revelation that ended a career, they were only doing what government officials are expected to do. This amounts to a simple restatement of the higher lawlessness. Legal action (it is said) against corrupt conduct by government officials makes political life impossible because it "criminalizes political differences." But that is to beg the question whether the ordinary business of government includes the exposure of a secret agent to the glare of publicity -- an extraordinary action that in other circumstances might well lead to a charge of treason. The opinion by Judge Bates declines to say whether the legitimate work of rebutting criticism includes the newfound power of the vice president to declassify government secrets by an ad lib process free from oversight. After the calculated leak, Brewster Jennings, the CIA front that Valerie Plame worked for when monitoring the purchase of materials for WMD, was dismantled: a result that must have been thought tolerable by the leakers, and that perhaps was desired for other reasons. Who profited? Brewster Jennings no longer exists to sort out the true from the spurious reports of arms procurements by Iraq or, more to the point, Iran. For the time being, the decision by the district court has released the administration to "rebut" the next agent who dares to challenge a public lie about a country the administration wants to attack. The federal judiciary is thickly planted now with judges who can be relied on for opinions that cooperate with the claims of arbitrary power. A staff lawyer for Kenneth Starr from 1995 through mid-1997, John D. Bates was appointed to the U.S. District Court by President G.W. Bush in December 2001. In December 2002, he dismissed the GAO lawsuit in Walker v. Cheney, which had sought information about the vice president's secret dealings on energy policy. The warrant for dismissal, in that case, turned on a failure to demonstrate "injury." Of course, oversight agencies perform their work in order to discover injuries; they can hardly name in advance and with perfect precision the injuries they seek to discover. But such are the arguments by which a political judge may give his decisions an appearance of standing above politics. In February 2006, after the resignation from the FISA court of James Robertson -- an unusual act of protest against the circumvention of FISA by unauthorized government wiretaps -- Judge Bates was picked by the new Chief Justice, John Roberts, to sit as the newest judge on the FISA court. [The Huffington Post Full Blog Feed] 5:40:09 PM    comment []

Will U.S. Finally End Cluster Bomb Exports?. WASHINGTON - At the end of June, a few members of the U.S. Congress made a discreet move to limit this country’s exports of cluster bombs, a weapon that has been used around the world since the Second World War to devastating humanitarian consequences. Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, included a provision in the [...] [CommonDreams.org] 10:29:36 AM    comment []

Taylor Marsh: Edwards: It's Not the Haircut. by Taylor Marsh It's the message Republicans are scared of, so the $400 haircut was a way in to scuttle the man. It also provided the opportunity to burnish the image before the man could reveal the steel of his character. But Edwards handed it to his adversaries so he's going to have to get himself out of this. It's the gift that may yet sink his candidacy, especially since the American voter is akin to a pre-pubescent teen more interested in dirt than policy plans for the people. We are a scandal nation, so we get the president we deserve, though the 2006 election offered a glimmer of hope. It's that tiny thread Edwards must now grab. Annie Lebowitz captured the man, his family and his life for Men's Vogue. The story reveals John Edwards's passion and mission to the people. That combination is why Republicans are intent to take him down. That and the fact that Edwards is the very embodiment of what Republicans purport to support. The thing is, Republicans only talk about the American dream for the middle class and the poor, of pulling yourself up and making good. Because if you actually do it you're a target, especially if you're a Democrat. If Edwards was a Republican he'd be their nominee. Because he's not he's a threat. ... ..Edwards has a decidedly New South profile, a peculiar blend of country flavor and newly minted wealth. He prefers white wine with his NCAA March Madness, imported suits with his GMC truck. Fairly or not, to critics and many locals, Edwards's new estate -- a 28,200-square-foot, $6 million affair a few miles outside of Chapel Hill -- has become a potent symbol of hypocrisy when placed against his political message of personal sacrifice, environmental conservation, and economic division. Top aides were furious that the Edwardses decided to build it just as they were launching the campaign. Elizabeth has said she has no regrets; she worked closely with an architect to design the house, down to the wide-plank pine floors and soapstone fireplace. (It also has a 1,762-square-foot room called "John's Lounge," two performance stages, a pool, and basketball and squash courts.) Edwards's close friend and former law partner, David Kirby, who was his neighbor in an upscale section of Raleigh in the nineties, says the family built the house out of a desire for privacy, a reprieve from the fishbowl of political life. "Every Southern kid's dream is to have the country estate," he says. "You have your 40, 50 acres and you've got your own little private world there." Saunders adds, "It's done swank. He built it as his final house. And he can afford it. If he wants to build him a fine house, what's that got to do with anything?" "I've lived the American dream," Edwards explains when I ask him about it. "No one ever gave me anything, and I'm proud of what I've been able to do." Then he adds: "And I'm particularly happy for Elizabeth's sake now, that she has a nice place to live." ... -- "Getting Real" Can John Edwards convince America that he's got what it takes to crush the red state/blue state divide? - By Joe Hagan There's been a lot of talk about the legitimacy of the Edwards expensive snip story: Scott Lemieux, Digby, Marc Ambinder, Glenn Greenwald, even me (more than once). Just about everyone has weighed in, especially the wingnuts and Fox, with the latest Romney makeup revelation offering a prime moment to examine the double standard. But Romney beats the drums of war and is not a modern man, something Republicans understand and to which they can relate. Religious, cunning, "conservative" when it's convenient, rich. John Edwards is different. He talks of poverty, peace and something beyond perpetual war, which completely flummoxes Republicans. The truth is that the reason Republicans want Edwards gone is that they can't attack his message, because they don't understand it, are even scared of it, dread facing it. The haircut is easier to ridicule, as they hope to capitalize on the juvenile mind set of the average American voter who is too busy working two jobs and is willing to hate anyone so rich, good looking and who has succeeded where they have failed. Edwards is a wealthy man who came from nothing who is now making his life's work the poor; people to whom Republicans can't relate, but to whom they continually sell their policy propaganda to, but which will never set them free. Nothing is scarier than the thought of the poor rising up and realizing that the talk of the American dream through Republican policies (and the cheerleading of talk radio) will never reach that far down to them. If the truth be told to the masses, Republicans would never win another election and wingnut radio hypocrisy would be finished forever. That's why Edwards must not only be defeated, but destroyed; like Kerry the veteran turned against war had to not only be stopped, but the symbol he represented obliterated and neutralized. Antithetical notions to Republican thinking are not allowed to thrive in the American dialogue, and the messenger will not survie to sell his story. Republicans know how to fight on war turf. However, they haven't a clue how to battle someone who's talking about the poor and that terrorism isn't some talking point "bumper sticker," but something we can tackle through our own actions and policies. Looking inwards isn't a GOP strong suit. They point outward and blame others. Edwards doesn't blame anyone, but instead searches for solutions, even if it means picking up a hammer and fixing the problem himself. Edwards is asking us all to search our souls and unearth results. Republicans only talk about souls, while being far more content with identifying enemies and making sure we're sufficiently afraid. Ironically, John Edwards has lived the life Republicans tout they believe can be for everyone. The life Rush and Sean and all the wingnut blowhards on radio say is the Republican dream, the American ideal. A boy who grew up poor and pulled himself up by his own initiative to become wealthy, happy and successful; but also faced adversity and came out the other end stronger and unbowed, even in the face of crushing loss and personal tragedy he continues to live through each day. Unfortunately, he is also a Democrat. So they hate him for who he was, has become and wants to be, because he's lived the Republican dream, but disavows their beliefs, because they inherently leave the poor behind. Something John Edwards has experienced first hand. Edwards is the embodiment of Republican self reliance. That he turned into a Democrat is his burden. It's why Republicans can't have him win. So on the wingnuts drone about the $400 haircut, about the Edwards "mansion" and about his wealth, which if he were a Republican they would praise, raise up as example, with chants of his name heard everywhere. However, Republicans can't have anyone rise up from being poor to succeed who doesn't follow their path, but instead is a champion of the poor. It threatens their very existence. Edwards is a self-made man who made good and because he's a Democrat he must not only be ridiculed, but he also must be destroyed. He's too good to be true and a $400 haircut has now made him vulnerable, because the press has also decided to help take him down. It's what America does to its heroes; the men and women who rise up against the odds to make good and go far. As much as we love to see heroes rise, we love to see the good guy fall. - Taylor Marsh [The Huffington Post Full Blog Feed] 10:27:51 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2007 Patricia Thurston.