White House

Last week, it was announced that a District Court of Appeals had found that the classification of a Uighur held at Guantánamo Bay as an “unlawful combatant” was inappropriate; the Government needed to either revisit his classification or release him.   The appellant’s attorney was reported as looking forward to passing along the news…but was unable to do so since his client was being held in isolation, incommunicado.

The New York Times is reporting that the unclassified portion of the opinion has been released.  This passage in the story caught my eye:

With some derision for the Bush administration’s arguments, a three-judge panel said the government contended that its allegations against a detainee should be accepted as true because they had been repeated in at least three secret documents.

The court compared that to the absurd declaration of a Lewis Carroll character: “I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.”

“This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true,” said the panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why our government has a system of checks and balances.  If one branch of the government gets a little too full of itself, another can step in and impose some amount of reason, thereby reducing the chance our government devolves into a totalitarian regime.

I don’t object in principle to the idea that those who really threaten public safety should be detained.  However, the process by which the threat they pose is neutralized must permit a fair process to review the assessment of that threat.

You’d think that given after all this time, the process we have today wouldn’t rely on Executive fiat or the use of a tame, kangaroo court.

Apparently the federal courts would seem inclined to agree.

Seen at CNN:

The Bush administration has launched a "significant escalation" of covert operations in Iran, sending U.S. commandos to spy on the country’s nuclear facilities and undermine the Islamic republic’s government, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.[…]

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have rejected findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran has halted a clandestine effort to build a nuclear bomb and "do not want to leave Iran in place with a nuclear program," Hersh said.

"They believe that their mission is to make sure that before they get out of office next year, either Iran is attacked or it stops its weapons program," Hersh said.

Surely I can’t be the only person speculating about joint American-Israeli operations against Iran being started up on Wednesday, 5 November, too late for it to impact the November elections, but before the Bush administration is removed from power.

If the Dems were truly dovish, they would start wrestling through a prohibition on the expenditure of any funds in preemptive, offensive action against Iran between 1 November and 20 January as part of each and every appropriations bill passed between now and the change in administrations.

If a legitimate need to go to war with Iran emerged, such a prohibition could be rescinded.  And, by setting those particular time limits, the administration would be obliged to weigh the political ramifications of any aggression (as opposed to the potential for a Lame Duck War).

I normally would not be comfortable suggesting that such restrictions be attempted against the Commander In Chief.  However…where are the WMD’s the invasion of Iraq was supposed to protect us from?

I wrote earlier that the wackiest Democratic Presidential contender, Dennis Kucinich, introduced a House resolution calling for impeachment of the President.

A Moment of Truth has posted a copy of Kucinich’s resolution, and I couldn’t help but notice part of the reason he’s calling for Bush’s impeachment:

A Medicare Actuary who possessed information regarding the true cost of the plan, $539 billion, was instructed by the Medicare Administrator to deny Congressional requests for it. The Actuary was threatened with sanctions if the information was disclosed to Congress, which, unaware of the information, approved the bill. Despite the fact that official cost estimates far exceeded $400  billion, President Bush offered assurances to Congress that the cost was $400 billion, when his office had information to the contrary. In the House of Representatives, the bill passed by a single vote and the Conference Report passed by only 5 votes. The White House knew the actual cost of the drug benefit was high enough to prevent its passage. Yet the White House concealed the truth and impeded an investigation into its culpability.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his  trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Man, I did not expect to see an actuarial reference in that document.

Seriously, the document is interesting enough to merit a quick skim-through.  I seriously doubt that many of the points Kucinich raises really rise to the impeachment threshold of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, but the recitation is a decent, if somewhat biased, reminder of the antics that have transpired over the past 7½ years.

Oy vey.  Seen at Raw Story:

“Resolved,” Kucinich then began, “that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate….

“In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the following abuses of power…”

The first article Kucinich presented, and many that followed, regarded the war in Iraq: “Article 1 - Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq.”

This, of course, will go nowhere.  Depending on how you look at it, Dems either:

• Are practical enough to realize that taking such a polarizing action against an impotent, lame-duck President is a really dumb idea in a hotly-contested election season; or
• Are realistic enough to realize that they lack the support to actually make the charges stick; or
• Lack the chutzpah to actually see the thing through; or
• Some combination of the above.

Seriously, if Kucinich were serious about seeing justice done, he’d be pushing for a way to ensure that pardons couldn’t be issued for Bush and his cronies.   And, even that sort of an act would seem to be doomed to failure by the political need of appearing inclusive to maximize the results of the November elections.

One thing that seems virtually certain about this year’s election is that the climate in Washington will likely be different. If Hillary or Obama win, the Dems will control the executive and legislative branches, leaving them mostly free to pursue their own, probably somewhat pro-consumer agenda. And if McCain wins…well, let’s be diplomatic and express some expectation that he seems somewhat less likely to demonstrate the “creativity” of our current MBA-in-chief.

So, it’s probably no surprise that big business and certain interest groups are pushing for some regulatory changes and decisions to be resolved before 20 January. Seen in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal (free link):

This week, the Interior Department is expected to publish its decision to remove the gray wolf from its endangered species list in three Northern Rockies states. Ranchers sought such a decision, which angers environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is fighting the de-listing.

The Small Business Administration recently released its Top Ten list of rules businesses want changed before President Bush leaves office in January. Business owners and their representatives nominated more than 80 rules for the list, including workplace safety, tax, and contracting regulations.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is challenging several pending employment and labor rules, including one that would tighten the requirements for employees seeking family medical leave. If the lobbying group can’t influence the wording of regulations, it will try to influence the instructions on interpreting them issued by the agency, said Randel Johnson, vice president of the group, which lists battles against regulation as a key challenge for the next five years.

While some acceleration in the turning of the wheels of bureaucracy would be most welcome, I suspect that not everyone would be happy with what the Executive Branch will be publishing into the Federal Register in coming months….

Electoral-Vote.com has an interesting post up today.  Since the hot topic in the race between Hillary and Obama seems to be experience, E-V looks at whether experience and Presidential greatness are correlated.

The conclusion?

That looks like an awfully poor correlation to me.   (”Greatness” as measured by various surveys is the vertical access (bottom = best), and “experience” as measured by years of elected office is the horizontal axis (right = most time served).)

Clicking on the image will take you to the original, along with the discussion at E-V.

I posted earlier about thinking I heard a veiled reference to signing statements in the State of the Union address.   Looking through the text of the speech, I appear to have been in error:

The people’s trust in their government is undermined by congressional earmarks, special interest projects that are often snuck in at the last minute without discussion or debate. Last year I asked you to voluntarily cut the number and cost of earmarks in half. I also asked you to stop slipping earmarks into committee reports that never even come to a vote.

Unfortunately, neither goal was met. So this time, if you send me an appropriations bill that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half, I’ll send it back to you with my veto. And tomorrow I will issue an executive order that directs federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by Congress. If these items are truly worth funding, the Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote.

(Emphasis mine)

I’ve become too cynical, perhaps.   I can respect the issuance of an executive order against earmark expenditures.  Whether it will have teeth or be enforced, remains to be seen.

(*yawn*  Is it January 20th yet?)

Was it me, or was the State of the Union speech rather uninspiring, if not boring?

Granted, the talk on stopping earmarks sounded interesting and promising…although his veiled promise to use signing statements as part of his strategy to stop them sounded like an ominous way to achieve back-door legitimization of his favorite trick.

As for the rest…didn’t they seem to mostly be the same old unfulfilled proposals?   (Well, with the exception of the monologue on the stimulus package, the substance of which isn’t particularly new.)

Just a reminder for those of you who might be interested, Bush 43’s final State of the Union address is tonight, at 9pm Eastern.

Some of you may be more interested in knowing that the rules for the State of the Union drinking game should be available at drinkinggame.us.

You know, I realize that it is just the Onion, and it can’t possibly be true….but it amuses me, and so I’ll share it:

“My fellow Americans, I am sick and tired of not being president,” said Clinton, introducing his wife at a “Hillary ‘08″ rally. “For seven agonizing years, I have sat idly by as others experienced the joys of campaigning, debating, and interacting with the people of this great nation, and I simply cannot take it anymore. I have to be president again. I have to.”

He continued, “It is with a great sense of relief that I say to all of you today, ‘Screw it. I’m in.’”

In a show of respect, Clinton then completed his introduction of Hillary Clinton, calling her a “wonderful wife and worthy political adversary,” and warmly shook her hand as she approached the podium. A clearly shocked Mrs. Clinton got halfway through her speech about the nation’s obligation to its children before walking briskly offstage.