Before September 11, 2001, the idea of American Justice stood as a symbol to all the world for the rule of law.  Our founding fathers were radicals, students of monarchy and tyranny, who designed a political system which has at its heart a dispersion of power, inefficient governance to be sure, but designed to make ironclad the idea that the law was the only king.  A legal framework was carefully constructed to give rights to the accused, making transparent all charges, evidence and testimony, and placing judgement in the hands of the people.  This safeguarded liberty by preventing any one person or power from controlling the entire process, and inhibit the emotions of heinous acts to get in the way of justice.  This was not only considered reasonable and rational, but also moral.

Unfortunately, after the attacks on the United States, Congress passed a 342-page bill called The USA PATRIOT Act, which many lawmakers admitted to not reading.  It curtailed our liberties and consolidated our government’s power in the name of making us safer.  Our Vice President told us that we had to work through “the dark side” in this new era of terror.  New powers were claimed by our executive branch, and a system of military law was set up that followed neither established military law, ratified international treaties (which are binding American law), or our constitution.  Both President Bush and President Obama have presided over a regime of indefinite detentions and targeted assassinations, in which one branch of the government acts as officer, judge and jury, and unilaterally decides the fate of those poor souls unlucky enough to be caught up in their net.

I lived in New York City on September 11, 2001, and I share the grief of a city and a nation for the horrific loss that occurred that day. The painful memories for me are tied up in the horrifying odor seared into my brain, which will remain with me for the rest of my life. I celebrate the honor of the first-responders who risked their lives and I honor the memory of the victims who lost their lives.  Ten years later, however, my grief has changed into permanent sadness at the idea that Bin Laden’s attack on the United States may have successfully destroyed our democracy.

To be sure, Osama Bin Laden was guilty of planning and financing the attacks upon us, and proclaimed it on video to tell the world.  Bin Laden declared war on the United States and rules of war certainly allow for killing.  And the 2001 Congressional Authorization for the use of Military Force makes this action legal, unlike our military actions in Libya, Iraq or Yemen.  But when President Obama proclaimed last night that “justice has been done,” our constitutional lawyer-turned-Commander in Chief was terribly mistaken.  Surely we feel a sense of relief, but revenge is not the same as justice.

But Jane Harman’s fear-mongering is no laughing matter. There is no more shrill voice on the Democratic side of the House aisle than Rep. Harman, who sees terror and danger around every corner. Perhaps it’s because her Los Angeles district is home to some of the writers and locations for the FOX terrorism-in-the-homeland spectacle 24, but her knack for smelling danger in our midst is unparalleled. Last month she published an editorial for the San Jose Mercury News (also published in The Huffington Post ) beginning with a breathlessly vivid scene of suicide bombers exploding dirty bombs at LAX airport and New York’s Times Square. The point in her litany of danger-porn was that “security strategy” is a huge priority for the next president, and her first suggestion is to “anticipate and prevent attacks” by better understanding the “motivations and capabilities” of our enemies.

Just who these enemies might be is one of the scariest things about Rep. Harman’s singular focus on terror prevention. Much like predicting in advance who will become a criminal, predicting who among us might become a terrorist is a difficult task. Harman has taken to it aggressively, sponsoring a bill which sailed through the House last year called the “Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007“, ominously subtitled “to prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.” The act establishes a commission to hold hearings around the country and a “Center of Excellence” to study the findings on what might make individuals “born and raised” in the US tend towards violence in support of their ideological leanings, or “to advance political, religious, or social change.” The bill has earned the nickname “The Thought Crimes Bill” because of its Orwellian language and its focus on dissent as an indicator of potential violent radicalization. The RAND corporation, which has close ties to Rep. Harman and is rumored to have written the bill, has long studied this issue and identifies environmentalists and anti-globalization activists as target groups to watch for ideologically-based violence.

Jane Harman is a “Blue Dog” Democrat who is reported to have once called herself “The best Republican in the Democratic Party.” She is a multi-millionaire (Harman/Kardon electronics) and a pro-war hawk who voted twice for the PATRIOT Act. She was in line to become the chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence when the Democrats regained Congress in 2006 but was passed over by Speaker Nancy Pelosi when it was reported that Harman was under federal investigation for allegedly improper dealings with AIPAC lobbyists.

As the ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, Harman was part of the “gang of eight,” a select few with whom the Bush Administration shared its classified and illegal domestic spying programs. Eric Lichtblau, the New York Times reporter whose work with James Risen first exposed the program to the public, writes in his new book Bush’s Law, that Harman was in total support of the eavesdropping program, even imploring the Times not to reveal it to the public (and attacking the paper on “Meet the Press” when they did), only to later flip-flop and turn against it after the public outcry, claiming to have consulted with constitutional experts once it was legal to do so. Harman has even written in defense of her position(s) on a popular blog, writing “The premise of strong Congressional intelligence oversight is that members will guard sensitive information.” Actually, Ms. Harman, the premise of strong Congressional intelligence oversight is that members of Congress will act as a check and balance on the executive branch and act as a watchdog for abuse and illegality as a representative of the people.

In 2006, Jane Harman fought off a primary challenge from progressive Marcy Winograd, who garnered nearly 40% of the vote. California’s 36th Congressional district is safely Democratic, having gone for Kerry by a nearly twenty-point margin in the 2004 election. By many accounts, Harman has tacked to the left in the last two years and is now very aware of how out of step she is with her Venice constituents. But although she may now be cautious about her hawkish votes on Iraq, she has really only shifted tactics in support of her defense contractor lobbyist/supporters. Hyping threats and policing the internet are not making us safer, and Rep. Harman is an example of exactly the kind of incumbent that makes a Democratic Congress so useless.

email this to a friend
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

No mainstream press outlet has covered this story at all. Glenn Greenwald of Salon has trained his legal brain and journalistic prowess on this speech because Mukasey, as he points out, is lying about what the 1978 FISA law already authorized (it certainly would have authorized the tracking of that call), and if the phone call was real and in fact, missed, it is new evidence of incompetence on the part of this Administration in keeping the public safe. Greenwald points out that this represents either a) new information about the events leading up to 9/11 that have not yet appeared in the public record, or b) a new low point for the Bush Administration in which the country’s chief law enforcer is completely fabricating a lie in order to use the specter of 9/11 to scare people into agreeing to a massive forfeiture of civil liberties. Greenwald has now received responses from members of the 9/11 Commission indicating that they do not know anything about the incident to which Mukasey refers.

The FISA reauthorization issue has (fortunately) stalled for the moment because the Senate passed legislation written by the Bush Administration giving on everything they asked for and granting full immunity to the telecoms, but the House has held strong in the face of GOP pressure and passed a bill that limits the scope of executive authority, refusing to grant immunity to the telecoms. The House and Senate versions have not been reconciled and the Administration continues to press for a “compromise” version, continuing to try to extract further demands from the House. Meanwhile, Michael Mukasey continues the reprehensible practice of using the Justice Department as a political arm of the Republican party and has demonstrated a great willingness to lie to achieve his ends. California and New York voters should be reminded that the Democratic caucus was lined up ready to reject Mukasey’s confirmation until Senators Schumer and Feinstein broke ranks and voted with the GOP.

Previously in The Frankfurter School: What’s All The Fuss About FISA?

email this to a friend

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

One cannot help but take away the impression that the US invasion has created most of these terrorists, but like the insurgents in Iraq, most of them seem motivated far more by ousting the foreign occupying powers than in any global jihad, giving lie to the claim that if we weren’t fighting them there, we’d be fighting them here.

An in-depth and very human look at the people we are fighting against that could only have come from a newspaper in another country.

[click photo for the link]