I owe you an apology.  I said some pretty mean things in the heat of your Presidency, and now that I’ve had some time to cool off, I want to tell you that I’m sorry and how much I’ve changed.  I said some pretty awful things: I called you “the worst President ever,” a “war criminal,” and linked your Presidency to the end of democracy.  But I now know, it wasn’t you, it was me.

I didn’t realize that starting wars in the Arab world didn’t even need Congressional authorization!  You went above and beyond the call of law by getting authorization to use military force to spread democracy and liberate people from their evil dictators who we used to prop up.

You used signing statements to let Congress know which of its laws you planned to ignore.  Sure President Clinton used them first, but only a few times.  But now that President Obama has used them dozens of times, to specifically set aside any Congressional oversight, I realize that it is the prerogative of the Commander in Chief to decide what laws should be enforced and which laws should be ignored.  At the time I laughed at you for proclaiming yourself “the decider,” but now I realize you were just being honest.

Your illegal wiretapping scheme really made me mad.  Imagine the thought of the government being able to listen in on my phone calls, emails, text messages, any communication you want, just say it’s in connection with a “terrorism” investigation and it’s yours.  Of course I thought that seemed wrong at the time, and so did Senator Obama during the brief period of time he was campaigning to people like me, riled up and angry partisans.  But now that he is President he is keeping and extending all of your eavesdropping programs, and blocking any meaningful attempts at oversight.

You used Guantanamo Bay to imprison people you kidnapped from foreign countries and hold them outside of any established legal framework.  You invented an extra-judicial legal system to hold show trials so that the American values that we are supposedly at war to protect could never be applied to a new class of persons you called “enemy combatants.”  But after vowing to change all of that in a heated campaign, President Obama has reversed himself and is continuing to keep the prison open. He’s even going farther than you are and re-writing our laws to enable “indefinite detention” and do things that our founding fathers specifically designed our constitution to prevent.

Then there was the torture. You spent a great deal of energy at a high level of government deciding how much simulated drowning was too much, which positions hurt the most, and how much sleep deprivation would break someone but all the while being (mostly) careful not to kill anyone.  But President Obama has continued your policies, even applying them to PFC Bradley Manning, a US Citizen just like me, whose conditions of imprisonment are so objectionable that Amnesty International, The UN, and hundreds of leading American law professors have tried to get his torture to stop.  When Hillary Clinton’s spokesman was caught on the record objecting to Manning’s treatment, he was summarily fired, which means that Obama and Clinton seem to think the torture regime you came up with was a pretty good idea, President Bush.  I don’t know why I got so upset before.

One of the reasons your Presidency seemed so upsetting was because all of the thing you were doing were shrouded in Secrecy.  Even when you were sued by the ACLU you claimed broad privileges not to provide certain evidence, citing “state secrets.”  But President Obama obviously thinks you had good reason to do so, because he has expanded his use of state secrets privilege, not only using it to hide evidence but as grounds to dismiss entire cases because the people cannot know about what is being done in our name.

What little the public knew about the things you were doing came from leaks in your administration.  Although you made a lot of noise about prosecuting leakers, you never went as far as President Obama in actively prosecuting leak cases and making clear that the wrongdoing that is exposed by whistleblowers pales in comparison to the crime of speaking to the press.  Sorry again.

Of course there were also the tax cuts.  I thought you were so awful when you took the $237 billion dollar surplus we had in 2000 and got rid of it in one fell swoop by giving it away to the already-rich.  What a conniving, awful, and very Republican thing to do!  Until of course, President Obama made it a priority to use the final hours of a Democratic Congress to extend your tax cuts to the very wealthiest.  I know the country is broke fighting all of those wars, but obviously you were on the right track by making sure the wealthy keep their money so that it could trickle down to the rest of the population.  Very smart policy!  I now realize I was so wrong to object to your bi-partisan wisdom.

You made a lot of noise about the Social Security crisis — apparently it’s going to run out of money somewhere around 2040.  But even though you claimed a mandate to hand over my retirement to the salivating Wall Street bankers, you were never able to touch it.  I hated you for wanting to dismantle one of the crowning achievements of our liberal democracy.  But now that President Obama is soberly devoted to doing the same thing, I realize you were just a visionary, trying to do the right thing years ahead of your time.

In fact, I don’t really remember why I thought you were so awful at all, Mr. President.  It seems that with very few exceptions, President Obama has continued with all of your policies and priorities.  He does have a way of making me feel like he’s really smart and knows more than I do about stuff in a way that you, Mr. Bush, always made me wonder if you really knew what you were doing.  But it turns out you did!  You knew exactly what you were doing, because it was the same as this smart man who we all love, who really has his hands tied.  You must have had a hard time, President Bush — no wonder you were always so annoyed by reporters who asked you questions.

I don’t mean to insult you by saying that there’s no difference between you and President Obama.  I’m sure you know there are some very important differences.  And the blind partisan supporters of both of you will magnify the differences and will be very angry at the comparison, because to acknowledge the truth would make everything they worked for and believed in seem meaningless.  But the reasons that I hated you above all others from your party, the reasons that I thought you were singularly awful, those have been rendered meaningless and silly in the two short years since you’ve been gone.  In those most important ways, you’re no different than your successor, and we just don’t seem able to get all that worked up about it when he does it.

So please accept my sincerest apologies. I hope you’re having a great time in Dallas, or wherever you moved to after the photo ops at your “ranch” in Crawford were no longer needed.  Say hi to Laura, she always seemed to get the short end of the stick. (Is she considering a run for Senate now?)  And if you’re up for having a beer sometime, let me know.

Yours in citizenship,

Jon Marcus

In the current attacks on Julian Assange and Wikileaks, we are witnessing the next step in the process of transforming a democracy into a totalitarian regime.  The full power of the American government is engaged in discrediting Assange and shutting down Wikileaks. Voices on the right are calling him a terrorist, while Democrats use measured terms to convey his dangerousness without explicitly labeling him or describing the harm he has caused.  Most significantly, few political figures are defending him or the principles for which he stands.  Tellingly, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell has called for the laws to be changed in order to successfully prosecute Assange.  (What do you call a system of government that changes the laws in a particular case in order to get the outcome it desires?)

It is important to keep sight of a couple of facts in this debate.  Julian Assange, whatever you think of him or the disclosures, is not a terrorist, in any sense of the word that we have ever used before.  Although the word “terrorist” is a by nature a politically loaded term, and there is not even a definition that is widely accepted, we have always reserved it for people who cause death or serious injury.  Wikileaks has not injured a single person; Wikileaks uses information, not weapons.  Assange has written and spoken widely about his values and ethics, and believes he is helping democracy and providing a valuable and ethical service to inform the citizens of free nations all over the world.  His own words defending his work are well-worth reading, especially if you have not heard anyone else make his case.  Can you think of another “terrorist” who has stated values that are enshrined in our constitution?  It is also vital to remember that Wikileaks acts in concert with mainstream news organizations all over the globe, and all of the “damaging” material it has leaked has been co-published with The New York Times, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, and other international establishment news organizations. What rational argument is there to charge Wikileaks with “crimes” that are not also leveled on its co-publishers?

And that’s where we run into serious problems.  Whether you consider Julian Assange a terrorist, or just think he must be forcibly stopped, you are endorsing a radical transformation of constitutional protections in the United States.  If terrorists are not entitled to due process, and if terrorists are people who are acting on unpopular ideas, anyone with unpopular ideas can be designated a terrorist at any time and imprisoned or killed, on the government’s say-so.  And if you don’t think Assange should be jailed, but merely stopped, you are enforcing government-dictated limits on the already-timid press, whose unrestricted freedom is the only means by which a democracy can function. Both of these outcomes are conditions of a totalitarian state.

We are on the brink of allowing centuries of iron-clad rights and freedoms to be turned into privileges accorded only to some.  There is very little we can do to halt the radical assault on our rights, other than using the blunt-force instrument of the ballot box, and even that has had little effect on the theft of our country.  But in this case, there is one very clear and very simple action that a concerned citizen of a free country can take that sends a powerful message.  Donate $25 to Wikileaks.  This show of nominal support sends the clear message that we are against the destruction of our democracy and we are for free speech and freedom of the press.  You can donate here. It is one of the only concrete acts you can perform to halt the attacks on our freedom, and the more people who do it right now, the better chance both Wikileaks and our democracy have for survival.

UPDATE:

Mastercard, Visa and Paypal have all suspended transactions to Wikileaks.  You can still use the link above to find out how to mail a check to Wikileaks or make donations via bank wire transfer.  However, two other sites currently allow electronic payments. Xipwire allows donations to Wikileaks (you can donate $10 just by sending the  TEXT MESSAGE “WL” to 56624).  And Flattr, which uses Paypal or your credit card to fund your account, may be suspended in the future, but is currently allowing this workaround.

Xipwire

Flattr

CORRECTION:

This post has been updated to correctly reflect Senator Mitch McConnell’s title.

As Naomi Klein has brilliantly distilled in her landmark book The Shock Doctrine, the only consistent ideology of this administration and its Democratic enablers is the use of the shock produced by a crisis to force deeply unpopular economic changes in favor of powerful corporations upon a quietly compliant and frightened population.  Written and passed within a week of the crisis, the bailout bill beats the six-week-turnaround of the hastily-passed and barely-read USA PATRIOT Act, another sweeping assertion of executive power rushed through in a crisis without discussion, analysis or (god forbid) debate.  A very telling New York Times report entitled “Congressional Leaders Stunned by Warnings” noted that Administration officials laid the groundwork for this by presenting the threat to (or scaring the crap out of) key members of Congress.  Glenn Greenwald notes the parallels between this process and the invasion of Iraq, in which respected members of Executive branch agencies, solely charged with the sober assessment of fact, have tailored information to fit their ultimate agenda in order to scare lawmakers into “bi-partisan” compliance.
Like Dick Cheney, who was the CEO of Halliburton before he came into the Administration and led us into a war that happened to be the best thing that ever happened to his company, so too will former Goldman Sachs CEO-turned-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson oversee an intervention in the economy that his company will see great profit from.  Like every other significant event of the past eight years, Bush is benched during the crisis, while all around him, in every department of the executive branch, titans of industry use the federal government to loot the treasury and re-write the law to immunize themselves.

The Democrats are so complicit in these economic problems they find themselves in a very difficult predicament so close to an election.  Among the largest beneficiaries of Wall Street money in the House and Senate are Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, chairmen of their respective Banking Committees.  And Barack Obama’s support from that sector is greater than McCain’s.  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid continue their Kabuki Theater of Objections to the Bush plan, while using their total control of the Congressional agenda to pass whatever Bush asks of them.  This has left an odd opening for John McCain to grab the populist side of this issue.  Although he changes positions more often than his toothbrush, he knows that if he frames a message simply and powerfully enough it doesn’t matter that he’s lying.  “I’m Against this bailout” — and whether he votes for it or not (and he’ll probably skip it) that’s the message that gets across to the American workers who don’t understand economics any better or worse than McCain does, but know the bailout doesn’t pass the smell test.

What is in this bill?  We will be finding out for months and years to come what it means.  Will it bankrupt our treasury and force further cuts to social services, health and safety regulatory agencies, or prevent funding of a national health care program?  Isn’t it shocking and unprecedented that a party of the far-right would nationalize private corporations?  What sort of movement fueled by deeply nationalistic and religious fervor responds to an economic crisis by giving itself broad new powers and erasing the lines between government and corporate interests?  I believe it’s called National Socialism.  Ever heard of it?

email this to a friend

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

We live in an authoritarian police state which is very close to completing the alignment and consolidation of government and corporate power in order achieve total and unchallenged dominance over every single one of its citizens.  But the exercise of that control is currently invisible and not affecting most people’s day to day life, so there is very little awareness or alarm.

So rather than dismiss or belittle your optimism, or your doubt that things have really gotten as bad as the words that I am using might imply, I will agree with you and tell you why most people I know have absolutely nothing to worry about.

The people who are experiencing illegal detention, imprisonment, police brutality and torture fall into categories of people that you don’t.  They are either illegal immigrants, criminals or terrorists, or rabble-rousers who have engaged in questionable activities.  And if a few innocent people get caught up in an attempt to rid our country of these vermin, it’s better than allowing them to go free.  It is far more important for us to be “safe” than to worry about the rights of people who had poor enough judgment to associate with unsavory types and get themselves arrested.

You have money.  You can afford legal help and advice and are in the privileged position to challenge any accusations of wrongdoing in our legal system which grants favor and privilege to those who can afford the legal maneuverings.

You don’t do anything illegal.  Well, nothing big anyway.  You may occasionally bend some rules, drive faster than the speed limit, or take generous deductions on your taxes, but you are essentially a good upstanding citizen and have no worries about selective enforcement of laws or harsh methods of interrogation because you would never deserve such treatment.

You have nothing to hide.  If the FBI raided your house they would find no contraband or any reason to put you in jail.  There is a slight possibility that they could carry things out of your house in full view of your neighbors that could cause you some embarrassment, but nothing that could get you arrested.   The NSA would not find any reason to arrest you based on your internet browser history, though it’s possible that if it were given to your employer, your insurance company or made public, there could be some unfortunate fallout. But just because the government is now legally able to do this does not mean it is going to happen to you.  Things are pretty good.  You are allowed to go about your life, make choices, and generally do whatever you want.

The subjects of the King George led relatively happy lives when the American Revolution took place.  Not everyone under Pinochet, Franco or Mussolini was unhappy.  The aristocracy is usually able to go about their lives happily, and as long as they do not go against the dictator’s orders they were free to choose a life for themselves, shopping, playing, eating, and doing as they wished.  Only people who wished to break the rules in some way were subjected to indefinite imprisonment in the Tower of London or disappeared in Chile.  Most people avoided this fate.

When the United States constitution was written, it was done so in order to guarantee certain rights and liberties to people, and to declare them to be inalienable.  Although it constructed a system of government that allowed power to be maintained by landowners, it mandated a country where the rule of law took precedence over the rule of men.  Many Americans gave their lives fighting for these rights and this nation.  The first ten amendments to our constitution, known as our Bill of Rights, have each been abridged and restricted, and we are now a nation without accountability and no longer under the rule of law, with two political parties more interested in maintaining power than restoring checks and balances to our democracy.

But no, it’s probably not that bad.  You’ll probably be fine.  What could happen?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Journalist Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now!, is the most prominent of an estimated 250 people who have been illegally arrested in St. Paul and Minneapolis in federally coordinated raids during the Republican National convention. Scores of peace activists, anti-war demonstrators, lawyers, and journalists have been subjected to violent raids and detention by police and FBI who have acted on intelligence provided by infiltrators working for the government and newly expanded eavesdropping power, and are charging people with such things as “conspiracy to riot” and other trumped up charges that essentially criminalize political speech and assembly.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon has the best summary of facts and as well as the appropriate context:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Footage of Amy Goodman’s arrest on YouTube:

The statement from the independent news organization Democracy Now! can be found here.

CNN and the like are running brief mentions of the police “clashes” with protestors, and are solely characterizing them as “anarchists.”

The key points to keep in mind about these arrests are:

• The FBI, courtesy of the FISA bill passed in June by the Democratic Congress, used its newly legal powers to spy on Americans to surveil college students and peace activists
• The FBI made infiltrated several anti-war and peace groups and made use of spies and paid informants in its months-long effort to silence dissent at the conventions
• The FBI coordinated surveillance, intelligence, and federal and local law enforcement cooperation
• No one alleges that any of the detainees have actually committed a crime; all of the arrests have been  “pre-emptive” or for “conspiracies”
• The arrests of the legal observers and independent journalists were precipitated by these people asking lawful questions of the police about the arrests

This is a very sad day for America.