Event Horizon

FISA Politics

Longtime readers of this blog know that I've been following the politics behind the FISA issue for some time, so I was not surprised this week to learn that the House version of the "new and improved" Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies and weak judicial oversight. Congress essentially told Bush, "hey, that law your breaking now, we'll just amend it so you can keep doing what your doing but it won't be illegal anymore." I have a visceral reaction to an Executive Branch that believes it is above the law and doesn't have to bother with the checks and balances that were put into place precisely to prevent the abuse of power. What did surprise me though, was learning that Barack Obama supports the amended law (Politico - Netroots jilted by Obama FISA stand):

Disappointed over his position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the online activists feel jilted and betrayed and have taken to questioning his progressive credentials. One prominent blogger, Atrios, has even given him the moniker “Wanker of the Day.” “He broke faith,” said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and blogger at OpenLeft.com. “Obama pledged to filibuster, and he is part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasn’t. It will spur us to challenge him.”

It's interesting to me that this has become an issue for those on the left, when I see it as a particularly sensitive issue for those on the right as well. After all, changing our American system and getting away from the checks and balances that our Founder's wisely put into place between the branches of government is not a conservative idea, it's a radical idea. As things stand now, unless the Senate takes a stand, the Congress will have handed President Bush almost unlimited authority to spy on citizens. And it's not really Bush that bothers me, it's the precedent and the absolute certainty that eventually power will be abused in the absence of checks and balances. It's just human nature, and our system of government was designed to function in defiance of a human nature which tends to tyranny and not liberty.

Court Recognizes Right to Guns

The Supreme Court made an important ruling today on the Second Amendment, affirming that the U.S. Constitution does recognize a right to gun ownership in general, and for personal defense in particular. At issue in the case was whether this right was retained by the people or was associated only with membership in a militia (AP - High court affirms gun rights in historic decision):

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades. The answer: Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

I've been a proponent of gun rights for many years and for me it goes back to some early research I did for a school project that convinced me that reference to "a well regulated militia" in the Amendment actually supported the idea of the right belonging to the people. I participated in an (and won) an essay contest sponsored by the Daughters of the American Revolution. The essay was on life in early America and in researching it I found that guns were part of the fabric of colonial life and much more prevalent than they are now. Guns were needed for personal protection from both other humans (criminals and thugs) and from animals (it was an agrarian society, after all, and wild nature was much closer). So when a local militia was called up the men would serve just as they were, as most militias were ad hoc at the time (which means uniforms were not provided, nor were weapons), the men would bring their own guns with them, and this was not a burden, since most men had their own guns to begin with. So, if anything, militia service depended on the right of local men to have their own guns. The causal chain seemed clear to me in the phrasing of the amendment, namely, that because it's necessary for neighbors to sometimes band together for the defense of life, liberty and property, their right to arms is protected. It's only because we, from our modern standpoint, confuse the idea of a militia with an organization like the National Guard, that we started questioning this right. Hopefully, the Court's ruling today will put an end to that questioning.

Remembering Tim Russert

I watched the memorial service held today (MSNBC video) in memory of Tim Russert. The service was moving and I was impressed with the speakers and the memories they imparted. I was also impressed with the wisdom they shared, wisdom distilled from the life of Tim Russert. The passing of a great public figure helps us to grapple with the great questions of life and death. How does one live a well-lived life? What really counts in life? From those who shared their memories we learned that he had a great joy and passion for living and that he shared this with his family, his friends, and his co-workers. He had a genuine love of people, a sense of caring and compassion that was authentic, a rarity in politics and media, and something which others sensed in him, and it endeared him to them. He also had great professional and personal integrity and a sense of calling that allowed us to believe with him that politics could be noble. In a mean partisan season he raised the level of public debate by holding politicians accountable in a civil yet firm manner. I never met Tim Russert, but as a citizen I was a beneficiary of the gifts he so freely shared with the country he loved, and it's my hope that his colleagues will honor his memory by resolving to maintain and carry on his tradition of high journalistic standards. He would expect nothing less.

MSM and Impeachment

I was reminded of President Bush's former spokesman, Scott McClellan, today as I watched the NBC Nightly News broadcast and heard nothing about what I was sure would be one of the top news stories of the day:  Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the former Democratic presidential contender, said he would like to introduce 35 articles of impeachment against the President (C-SPAN video). You will recall that McClellan had criticized the American news media for failing to fulfill the role of an independent press in the run up to the Iraq War, which prompted some media personnel to say that they felt pressure from their media companies to spin the news. Is that happening here, is the media purposely not reporting a major news story because it would adversely impact the Bush White House? Say that you like about President Bush, love him or hate him, impeachment is serious business and even if only one of the thirty-five articles of impeachment has merit, then Congress has a duty to at least hold hearings and vote, and the media has a duty to at least report that 35 articles of impeachment have been proposed by a distinguished member of Congress.

I don't know the answer to my question, I don't think the news media is monolithic and can conspire to totally suppress a story (I first read about it on the internet), but they certainly have it in their power to under-report a story. For example, compare these two news reports, one from the Associated Press and the other from the Belfast Telegraph. What do you notice about how the U.S. report compares to the Irish news report? Notice how brief the U.S. report is, and then notice how richly detailed the Irish report is, full of background information, an itemized list of the proposed articles of impeachment, and video of Rep. Kucinich delivering his remarks. Did a domestic editor for the AP request such a brief report, or did they edit a larger report down to size? And how did it work in the NBC newsroom? Did an editor consciously decide that in all of the important news of the day (about the weather, killer tomatoes and the wonderful world of insects) that they had no time to report on a matter of Constitutional importance? Is the modern media mindset so well constrained by subtle corporate control that they no longer consciously consider broadcasting reports that may challenge the vested political interests? I kept expecting to receive a CNN Breaking News Alert about it, but the alert never came, nor did CNN rate it as a top news story.

There are very good political reasons why Rep. Kucinich will not get his articles of impeachment before a committee, much less to the floor of the House, but as an American, as a voter, and as a taxpayer, when someone seeks to impeach my president, I'm interested and I'd like to learn about it from the mainstream media, if that's not asking too much. Mainstream news media, that brief period of self-reflection you flirted with after reading McClellan's book, it wasn't long enough.

Clinton Endorses Obama

I've been watching Sen. Clinton's concession speech and I'm quite impressed. If she brings that fire and passion to the ticket he would be foolish to reject her as his running mate. It occurred to me that if he does choose her, and if McCain chooses Carly Fiorina or some other notable Republican women, the days of the all-male ticket in presidential elections may be permanently over and that could well prove to be the most enduring and significant legacy of Clinton's campaign.

An Ending, A Beginning

The long national nightmare is over. I refer, of course, to the seemingly endless Democratic primary, which is limping towards a final close (The Associated Press - Obama seals nomination: 'This is our moment'), forestalling the the dark drama of Democrats managing to lose another national election before the polling even begins. Hillary has not yet conceded, she is holding on to her leverage to negotiate surrender on her terms, and I admire that. I also feel a bit sorry for her. As this AP report (Analysis: What does Hillary want? Respect and more) makes clear, her once inevitable victory appears in hindsight to have been doomed from the start:

Running as the establishment candidate against the headwinds of change, a hawk in a party of doves, a Clinton for better and worse, the New York senator couldn't match Obama's timing. His celebrity was too big, his political savvy too much and Internet-driven ground game too powerful for the candidacy of the '90s.

Timing, as they say, is everything in politics, and his time had come, and there was nothing Hillary could do about it. Still, in as much voters were not rejecting her, but were embracing him, she retains the political appeal that would make her a great running mate. And who knows, as Vice-President, she would be in an ideal position to begin her campaign for 2012 or 2016. She may yet be the first woman president.   

Hillary's Mistakes?

This report (Time - The Five Mistakes Clinton Made) reviews the mistakes that Hillary Clinton has made in her campaign. It will be interesting to revisit this in hindsight (and after books have been written) to see how accurate it proves to be. Some of the mistakes seem wildly improbable, like this assertion that one of her key aides was not familiar with how the Democrats apportioned delegates:

As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all.

Even if we are to assume this is correct, and that Penn didn't know this, how is it that a savvy political operative like Hillary didn't know this, to say nothing of Bill? I suspect that this report is erroneous and later insider revelations will confirm that, though to be sure, much of the rest of the analysis of her mistakes appears to be on the mark.

Genetic Profiling

It looks like the U.S. may have avoided a dystopian future in which a persons social and economic status is determined by their genetic profile (AP - House approves anti-genetic discrimination bill):

Companies would no longer be able to use genetic information like a person's predisposition for breast cancer, sickle cell or diabetes to make insurance or job decisions under a bill passed by Congress on Thursday.

If President Bush signs it into law it will mean that the film Gattaca will stay safely in the realm of science fiction.

FISA Follies

On Friday, the House passed an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by a vote of 213-197 (The Gavel - House Passes FISA Amendments Act). The legislation "does not provide retroactive immunity for telecom companies but allows the courts to determine whether lawsuits should proceed." I'm happy with this outcome, but I always thought that the immunity issue was not the central issue. Far more important, in my opinion, is the issues of warrantless wiretaps on American citizens. What would the Founder's think about an America in which the Executive Branch can apply the the police power of the state against a citizen without due process or judicial checks? Isn't this the kind of abuse of (royal) authority they sought to protect us against? Given that, I'm very happy to note that the House amendment "grants new authorities for conducting electronic surveillance against foreign targets while preserving the requirement that the government obtain an individualized FISA court order, based on probable cause, when targeting Americans at home or abroad." Let's hope this stays in there after the bill is reconciled with the Senate version. I'm not opposed to the surveillance of terroirst suspects, I just think that if they are citizens, then the government should follow established procedure and precedent and obtain a warrant before conductiing surveillance. The danger to the republic in ignoring the rights of citizens and the American tradition of checks and balances is far more severe than any loss of life that may result in the slight delay in surveillance needed to obtain a warrant.

Sympathy For Hill?

I've finally figured out why I've been slow to jump on the Obama bandwagon (AFP - Fighting Clinton seeks a lifeline) and it has to do with a shared sense of shock with the Clinton camp:

Defeat in Ohio and Texas Tuesday, would leave her facing the humiliating prospect of ejection from the race, and dash her hopes of a Clinton restoration -- all at the hands of a man she sees as short of presidential mettle.

And since I share this sense of shock, I have a certain sympathy for the Clinton camp. I think that I had internalized the Clinton presumption of inevitability and had reconciled myself that it would be Hillary vs. whoever the Republicans nominated, and I was ok with that. With Obama, I can't quite shake the feeling that he is too young, too inexperienced, that he needs to put in his time, pay his dues, and maybe when he had a more substantive Senate record to campaign on, then his time will come. Well, we will see what the voters of Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont say on Tuesday.