We can't recall exactly what it was that he did

That was good for the country. Nothing comes to mind. We can't recall.

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- under whose tenure the Justice Department often appeared to take its orders from the White House political office -- sat down with the Wall Street Journal in an effort to clear his name. But we're guessing he did himself more harm than good.

Gonzo appeared genuinely unable to grapple with why he might be unpopular. "What is it that I did that is so fundamentally wrong, that deserves this kind of response to my service?" he asked.

He doesn't recall? Let's help him remember:

Quibbling with the Constitution and the right of Habeas Corpus.

Dragging his heels about sharing info on the anthrax attacks.

Harassing Ashcroft as he was recovering in the hospital from gall bladder surgery, trying to make him sign off on warrantless wiretapping.

Perverting the judicial system and FISA, and demanding that judges do what the president wants.

Lying to Congress. As Attorney General. LYING to the nation. Lying about the firing of the US attorneys.



Caging voters.

Going down to Gitmo and WATCHING an interrogation or two.

Quibbling about the meaning of the word torture and redefining torture so it no longer means torture even though it is just because Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld liked torture. (And those lawyers and doctors who helped establish torture techniques? We want their names.) And no one has asked the question WHY?



Being a total toadie for Georgie Bush. Surrounding himself with toadie minions, zealots intent on bringing the US a theocracy, and loyal bushies.



Being thrown under the bus and thinking we should feel sorry for him.



Blaming everybody else.

Being a toadie sucks when you're facing a war crimes tribunal, doesn't it, Abu?

crossposted at American Street

What would you do if your country was invaded?

You would not surrender even though the soldiers promised a wonderful new government and lots of perks. You would either fight or sabotage their efforts. The occupying military would always be invaders, never friends.

At the time of the invasion, you would not overthrow your own government but hold tightly to it no matter what. You would not be so stupid as to invite even more instability, thus even if you hated your own administration, you would rally behind it. The more the soldiers demanded you give up your support of your government, the more you would protect it.

Two stories come to mind. The police often say that answering a domestic disturbance is one of the most dangerous calls to make. Fighting couples immediately join together to attack the third intrusive party, even if they hate each other. Disagreements are temporarily forgotten.

The second is an old allegory of the sun and the wind having a competition: The sun and wind bet each other they could remove the coat of the man walking far below across the meadow. The wind inhaled deeply and blew and blew. The man gripped his coat tightly and wrapped his arms about himself. As the wind tugged at his coat, the man bent almost double but the wind could not rip the coat away. At last the wind gave up. Then the sun tried. The meadow grew warm and bright. The man straightened up and opened his coat. The sun shone more strongly still. The heat rose from the earth and the air shimmered. The man removed his coat.

What you want cannot be taken by force but must be given by choice. If you take peace by force, it will not be peace. Diplomacy not military might will be the thing that saves the day.

Israel cannot force the Palestinians in Gaza to forsake Hamas when they were the ones building schools and answering their needs. Demanding Palestinians submit to the will of Israel will make them cling more tightly to Hamas. The brutalization of Palestinian innocents by Israel exposes Israel for the thug it has become.

Pakistan and India will not be able to destroy enough of each other so that Kashmir can be claimed, they cannot undermine the other because the blowback comes straight into their cities. And both of them have nukes. Just how far are they willing to go before their political dangers become destabilizing for themselves?

And how about ourselves? How about if our military is turned on us?:

EL PASO -- A U.S. Army War College report warns an economic crisis in the United States could lead to massive civil unrest and the need to call on the military to restore order.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Nathan Freir wrote the report "Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development," which the Army think tank in Carlisle, Pa., recently released.

"Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities ... to defend basic domestic order and human security," the report said, in case of "unforeseen economic collapse," "pervasive public health emergencies," and "catastrophic natural and human disasters," among other possible crises.

The report also suggests the new (Barack Obama) administration could face a "strategic shock" within the first eight months in office.

Fort Bliss spokeswoman Jean Offutt said the Army post is not involved in any recent talks about a potential military response to civil unrest.

The report become a hot Internet item after Phoenix police told the Phoenix Business Journal they're prepared to deal with such an event, and the International Monetary Fund's managing director, Dominique Strauss-Khan, said social unrest could spread to advanced countries if the global economic crisis worsens.

So many times in the last eight years the things we thought would never happen have happened. Preventive war, the destruction of Habeas Corpus, torture.... so who is to say the military will not be turned on American civilians?

What would you do if your country was invaded?

Obama, the constitutional law professor, will undermine the Constitution

Not by signing statements like Bush, not like getting rid of Habeas Corpus, not like infecting the judicial system with rightwing bias and disregarding the rule of law, not like playing the semantics game so medieval torture could be practiced, not like ignoring the will of the people and silencing critics, not like anything the Bush administration has done for the last eight years.... but apparently because he's a liberal, will appoint liberal judges and he said he'd spread the wealth around...

Maha of Mahablog:

Today the righties are screaming that Obama would undermine the Constitution, never mind that the current GOP administration did more to undermine the Constitution than the previous 43 administrations put together.

And for all their hysteria about “redistribution” of wealth, I second biggerbox — “Pallet loads of cash to Iraq? No-bid contracts for Haliburton, and so many others? Jack Abramoff? Dick Cheney? Ted Stevens? Seven-house McCain?” While the GOP controlled the federal government the Republicans redistributed wealth wholesale — to their supporters and themselves.

Gary Kamiya of Salon:

There's something surreal about how fast the GOP has gone from arrogant triumphalism to its death throes. Just yesterday, the GOP's mighty Titanic was cruising along, its opulent decks lined with fat-cat financiers and neoconservative warmongers, all smoking cigars, drinking champagne and extolling the deathless virtues of their fearless captain. The compliant media issued glowing dispatches. Karl Rove cackled with glee as he plotted out a permanent Republican majority.

Then the luxury liner hit an iceberg known as reality. The biggest damage was done by the Wall Street crisis, which happened just in time to tilt a close race toward Obama. But the economic meltdown was only one of the disasters for which the GOP is largely responsible. The war that was going to establish American hegemony forever turned out to be one of the worst foreign-policy blunders in our nation's history. The GOP's free-market idolatry led to the gravest financial crisis since the Depression. Its ideological insistence on cutting taxes for the richest Americans ran up a record deficit. Its embrace of torture and denial of due process assaulted the Constitution and eroded America's moral standing. Its doctrine of the "unitary executive" concentrated unprecedented power in the hands of the executive branch. Its anti-scientific denial of global warming endangered the entire planet.

It's a historic shipwreck, and the American people are diving off the foundering GOP hulk in droves.

[snip]

But the problem isn't Bush, it's American conservatism itself -- or at least the debased, intellectually bankrupt and utterly failed thing that American conservatism has become. For McCain to truly renounce Bush, he'd have to renounce the tax-cut ideologues who have bankrupted the country. He'd have to renounce the neoconservatives who led us into a catastrophic war. He'd have to renounce the culture-war attack dogs like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin who have coarsened conservatism's soul.

In short, he'd have to renounce the Republican Party -- and himself.

George W. Bush IS the Republican party. They own him and his entire avidly supported eight years in office.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Tell me again just who threatens the Constitution?

Apparently we will ignore you if you start wars,

Destroy the Constitution, remove Habeas Corpus, threaten allies, ignore diplomacy, ruin the environment, poison the judicial system, mock global warming....

But if you fuck with our wallets, we will take notice.



Yes, we ARE FINALLY PAYING ATTENTION, THANK GOD. Who cares if Palin was pretty and pretty coherent? The fact that she's memorized the Republican talking points does not mean she actually has an understanding of the subject matter. We had eight years of such a person and people are finally taking a good look at where we've ended up.

There's not a single thing that the Bush administration has dealt with that isn't gutted, smoking, and lying helplessly on its side. McCain/Palin will guarantee us four more years of George W. Bush.

Don't mock the Constitution!

Ari Melber of the Washington Independent:

Obama is one of the 13 senators to co-sponsor the Restoring the Constitution Act, a bill to restore the rule of law and roll back major parts of the Military Commissions Act, which the Supreme Court recently found unconstitutional. The 5-4 decision was praised by Obama, while Sen. John McCain derided it as one of the “worst” judgments in history.

Watching both parties’ conventions, you wouldn’t know the rule of law has been seriously undermined by the Bush administration, or that torture, rendition, domestic warrantless surveillance and other crimes have become common tools of U.S. policy under a corrupted Justice Dept.

It was heartening, if only for a few moments, to watch a citizen raise those issues, and for a presidential candidate to respond with principle and passion for restoring the constitutional order.

And Ari offers this YouTube:

11% approval rating for Congress is understandable

With Habeas Corpus and the Webb Hagel amendments denied a vote (as well as a denial for representation for Washington D.C.), I felt a great flood of despair that as Americans we have lost our way. Only 11% of Americans think Congress is doing anything useful:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress registered record-low approval ratings in a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday, and a new monthly index measuring the mood of Americans dipped slightly on deepening worries about the economy.

Only 29 percent of Americans gave Bush a positive grade for his job performance, below his worst Zogby poll mark of 30 percent in March. A paltry 11 percent rated Congress positively, beating the previous low of 14 percent in July.

What on earth are the Democrats doing in Congress? Or not doing?

Mustang Bobby of Bark Bark Woof Woof reminds us:

While I agree with Bryan that this was more a bit of drama than is was genuine legislation -- he notes that if you really want to get something attached to a bill, do it to the House appropriations bill and force it to a vote in conference -- it does bring home the point that the Democrats are willing to put up a measure that would in turn measure the Republicans as far as their loyalty to the president is concerned. What this filibuster and the one before it on the reinstatement of habeas corpus make abundantly clear is that as far as the Republicans are concerned, political considerations -- i.e. don't embarrass the president -- take precedence.

There are those who say that the Democrats are wasting valuable time by putting up amendments and proposals that they know will lose. When you have an evenly-split Senate, it seems academic to try to pass something that will not get ten Republicans to go along with you and defeat a filibuster. You fight the fights you know you can win, they say. But you also fight the fights that need fighting, even if you know you will lose. At some point it's going to become breathtakingly clear that the Republicans are on the wrong side of this battle. Until then, the opponents of this tragedy should not rest.

Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly points out that the media is avoiding showing the filibusters and the blocking of votes comes from the Republicans:

I see that Republicans have successfully filibustered two more bills today: one to give a House seat to the District of Columbia (57-42) and one to restore habeas corpus rights to terrorism suspects (56-43).

[snip]

So, for the record, here are the votes. On the habeas bill, Democrats and Independents voted 50-1 in favor. Republicans voted 42-8 against. On the DC bill,

Democrats and Independents voted 49-1 in favor. Republicans voted 41-8 against. Would it really be so hard for reporters to make it clear exactly who's responsible for blocking these bills?

Meanwhile people are dying violently while we play this painstakingly slow Congressional chess game with the Republicans.

Could you guys hurry the fuck up and end this pointless war?

Sign the petition

Via Steve Bates of The Yellow Doggerel Democrat, remind our politicians that we love Habeas Corpus and due process more than them:

The petition demands that they:

1. Restore habeas corpus and due process.

2. Pass the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007.

3. End torture and abuse in secret prisons.

4. Stop extraordinary rendition: secretly kidnapping people and sending them to countries that torture.

5. Close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay and give those held there access to justice.

6. Investigate wrongdoing and ensure those who broke the law are held accountable.

7. Restore American values and the rule of law.

Habeas Corpus

Via whig at cannablog, this video:



Sign the petition.

Also

The Senate Judiciary Committee [] voted for the Specter/Leahy habeas restoration bill. The committee sent it to the floor with no amendments, no debate and on almost a party line vote (with the GOP sponsor, Senator Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania voting in favor).

Kudos to all the Democratic senators who showed up and waited for a quorum (critical mass for a vote); Senator Feinstein came in just under the buzzer.

Senators voting aye: Leahy (D-Vt.), Specter (R-Pa.), Kennedy (D-Ma.), Biden (D-Del.), Kohl (D-Wis.), Feinstein (D-Cal.), Feingold (D-Wis.), Schumer (D-N.Y.), Durbin (D-Ill.), Cardin (D-Md.), Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

Senators voting nay: all the other Republicans (Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, Brownback, Coburn).

Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, Brownback, Coburn voted AGAINST the Constitution. Remember that.

Indignant, immoral, huffy, corrupt, pompous, hypocritical, greedy, insincere....

Republicans have been and are all that. (Did I miss anything?) So why on earth should we do business with them?

Republicans are trying to call Democrats angry and asking why should they do business with us. Sure, I'll own up to being angry. Wouldn't you be angry after six plus years of this shit?

Mustang Bobby at Bark Bark Woof Woof:
So why, the Republicans innocently ask, are the Democrats so angry? Would you like a list?

- Iraq
- Katrina
- Valerie Plame
- Tom DeLay
- Terri Schiavo
- Randy "Duke" Cunningham
- the fired US attorneys
- Abu Ghraib
- Scooter Libby
- warrantless wiretapping
- the USA PATRIOT Act
- tax cuts for the rich
- the Federal Marriage amendment that would put gay-bashing into the Constitution
- stem-cells
- and on and on

(I'll add three, Mustang Bobby: Habeas Corpus, the Kyoto Accord, and the Geneva Convention).


It's like having your drunk brother-in-law moving into your house AFTER your sister has thrown him out. He parks his car on your lawn, maxes out your credit card, and starts a fight with your wife. He then proceeds to leer at your underage son, grope your daughter while preaching about morals and the dangers of homosexuality. He listens to your phone calls and reads your emails. He watches porn and snuff tapes. Finally, he burns the neighbor's house down, then threatens the neighbor beyond him. He then wonders why you are angry.

'Who has time to read the Constitution?' asks Abu Gonzales.

'Anyway, the Constitution says what I say it says, got it Senator?'

Think Progress:

"Yesterday, during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed there is no express right to habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution. Gonzales was debating Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) about whether the Supreme Court’s ruling on Guantanamo detainees last year cited the constitutional right to habeas corpus. Gonzales claimed the Court did not cite such a right, then added, “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.” Specter pushed back. “Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?” Specter told Gonzales, “You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.”

Can we save Habeas Corpus?

Glenn Greenwald is doubtful of the efforts at this moment:
"If Leahy, Chris Dodd and other Democrats are going genuinely to pursue the restoration of habeas corpus, they should do so in a way that creates some genuine opportunity for succeeding. The bill introduced yesterday has none. Their intention might be to introduce a full-fledged habeas restoration bill at first and then negotiate a more limited version that can attract the 66 votes needed to override a presidential veto (even forcing a presidential veto by overcoming a filibuster would be worthwhile on many levels). But it remains to be seen if this will be a real attempt or just a symbolic, futile one."

In the news:
"Specter on Tuesday repeated his contention that the act violates the Constitution.

"The Constitution of the United States is explicit that habeas corpus may be suspended only in time of rebellion or invasion," Specter said on the floor. "We are suffering neither of those alternatives at the present time. We have not been invaded, and there has not been a rebellion. That much is conceded."

His co-sponsor, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who'll become chairman of the Judiciary Committee when the Democrats take over in January, noted that the effort to secure habeas appeals for all detainees failed by only three votes.

"Since then, the American people have spoken against the administration's stay- the-course approach to national security and against a rubber-stamp Congress that accommodated this administration's efforts to grab more and more power," Leahy said. "Abolishing habeas corpus for anyone who the government thinks might have assisted enemies of the United States is unnecessary and morally wrong. It is a betrayal of the most basic values of freedom for which America stands.""

Senator Lindsey Graham is working actively to prevent modification of the Military Commissions Act of 2006:
"But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who's served as a military lawyer and a judge and who helped craft the detainee legislation, said he'd oppose the move. And he said he doubted that even a Democratic-led Senate would go along with it. During the debate, Republicans had sought to portray Democrats who were opposed to lifting such rights as soft on terrorists.

"I'm curious to see what the five new Democrats would think about giving terrorists the ability to sue our troops in federal court and having federal district court judges make wartime decisions," Graham said Wednesday. "I got a feeling a lot of them would agree with me.""

Remember Keith Olbermann's take on this in his October 11th broadcast.