A New Geneva Convention

post from TPMCafe on 31 July 2008 01:07:00 PM. © TPMCafe

Jane Mayer's important book, The Dark Side, should be read together with two other significant books, Ben Wittes' Law and the Long War and Philip Bobbitt's Terror and Consent. The reason these books are best studied in tandem is that Mayer convinces the reader that the Bush Administration, especially Cheney and associates, shredded the Constitution and utterly unhinged the check and balance system, all in order to allow an unprecedented, abusive concentration of power in the hands of the president. However, she leaves it to the other two books to answer this question: given that the United States does face a new kind of threat, how should the next administration deal with terrorists within the framework of the Constitution and a well balanced democracy?

Her account of gross and systematic abuses is well documented and horrifying. One sometimes finds it hard to believe that she is writing about the United States. However, by not offering any other way to fight terrorism, she leaves the impression that no significant changes are needed in our laws, which is hardly what Wittes and Bobbitt show. The fact that the Bush Administration went overboard, way overboard, does not necessarily mean that we should or can deal with terrorists by simply adhering to the Geneva Conventions, or that we should deal with them as if they were garden variety criminals. In effect, a case can be made that the best way to ensure that no such abuses occur in the future is to make some limited, and above all closely monitored, adaptations to our laws. One should not overlook the fact that not only our laws but the Constitution itself is a living document that has been repeatedly reinterpreted to take into account changing social and historical conditions. Thus over the last decades, well before Bush, numerous doors were opened in the wall that supposedly separates state and church. The right to free speech was greatly extended , to put it mildly, thanks to ACLU's endeavors in the 1920s. And a wholly new right, to privacy, was forged rather recently.

Mayer is a journalist who works by telling anecdotes. Bobbitt and Wittes are legal scholars. Bobbitt points out, in a highly convincing manner, that none of our old models of thinking fit the new world. The traditional concepts of nation, war, and terrorism, and major parts of domestic and international law--must be recast. Neither the notion of treating terrorists as enemy soldiers nor that of dealing with them as criminals will do. Correctly, Bobbitt is especially concerned about the combination of terrorists and WMDs. Hence, he is calling on us to find ways to abide by our laws but also realize that they must be changed. The specifics Bobbitt's powerful book provides are highly nuanced and complex, but not fully worked out. However, he wisely avoids the trap Mayer falls into, by judging the ways we deal with terrorists by the laws forged for soldiers wearing uniforms that identify them as combatants and indicate which state is accountable for them. In short, in my words, much of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists and the rest will have to be updated.

If Bobbitt approaches the world from 30,000 feet, Wittes' feet are firmly planted on the ground. He provides a fine compliment to Bobbitt by in effect adopting the basic precept that our basic concepts, laws, and treaties must be adapted, and he goes a fair way to outline what must be. For instance, while he rejects the ways Bush et al acted, he favors extended incarceration of terrorists, under procedures to be worked out by Congress, i.e. via new laws, rather than by judges. The detainees will have access to a court, but only to a special one, and will be treated fairly and in line with procedures to be established, but will not be able to enjoy the full rights Americans are entitled to. Wittes would maintain the ban on torture but would allow for some flexibility in integration methods in emergencies. And he acknowledges that what is considered reasonable search must take into account new electronic technologies and new means of communication.

All three books are much richer than can be laid out here. However they all point to the same general conclusion: between mechanically applying pre 9/11 percepts and going wild, lies a world largely yet to be charted. It is a world of carefully modified laws and institutions that take into account the new kind and level of terrorism, without sacrificing our basic commitments to freedom and rights. We need a new Geneva Convention, rather than vainly seeking to apply the old one or running circles around it.

Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international relations at The George Washington University. For more discussion, see Security First (Yale 2007). To contact him, write comnet@gwu.edu or visit www.securityfirst.com

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/tpmcafe-main/~3/-YBaLBg_mEg/

Digg this

Dave Lindorff: A Bush Judge Does the Right Thing

post from BuzzFlash.org - Progressive News and Commentary with an Attitude | Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash on 31 July 2008 01:06:32 PM. © BuzzFlash.org - Progressive News and Commentary with an Attitude | Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash

A federal district judge appointed by President George W. Bush to the bench has done the right thing, ruling definitively this morning that the President's claim of absolute immunity for his advisors from Congressional oversight and subpoena is "entirely unsupported by existing case law."

The ruling by Judge John Bates is as important as much because of who issued it as it is for its impact upon Congressional investigations into presidential wrongdoing.
Bookmark/Search this post with: buzzflash | delicious | digg digg | technorati Technorati Tags: Dave Lindorff George W. Bush Dick Cheney executive privilege Congress subpoena Karl Rove

Read The Full Article:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/lindorff/124

Digg this

The Daily Rant

post from My Left Wing - Front Page on 31 July 2008 12:53:17 PM. © My Left Wing - Front Page

You know how people talk about the good old days? For me, the good old days are the time after Desert Storm when the civilian world seemed to mostly forget the military even existed.

These days, I wish everyone would just shut the fuck up about the military.

Yeah. That Walter Reed hospital story was horrible. Guys living in barracks that should be condemned -- that's awful.

But not fucking news to us. In the 90's, more than 60% of Army housing - barracks and family quarters -- were substandard. Everything from massive mold to bad air to rats to leaky roofs to just plain crappy. And the only coverage on the news about our pathetic housing -- one of the network news anchors had Senator Baker, I think, as his "governmental pork of the day" for all the funds going to rehab military housing.

As for the health care, I had major flare-ups of Crohn's disease for FIFTEEN years before I finally got a diagnosis. Yes, part of that was my personal reluctance to see a doctor (I am still kinda surprised I actually went to the ER last Friday when it felt like I was having a heart attack...) but mostly it's that it takes months sometimes to get a referral appointment, the continuity of care was pathetic -- you saw whatever doctor was available, instead of being assigned a doctor, and even getting a regular appointment could be hard. Hell, in Tucson I had to lie about my kid having a sore throat to get an appointment for him to be seen about his allergies. (They would only see sick people at that Air Force clinic, and wouldn't refer people to outside providers.)[I just edited that...originally I said "provide providers." I really suck at proof-reading.]

And I would really really like both campaigns and their staff and their advocates and their opponents would just shut the fuck up about the military.

I have never seen such unhappiness and anger among the military and family members toward a president as there was toward Bush, especially when they first started extending tours in Iraq. The Democrats and lefties had a golden opportunity to start to damage the "the military is Republican" idea then, but instead the loudest messages I have heard from the left and liberals are that white guys in the military are psychopaths who joined up because they want to kill brown people, and that people only join the military because they don't have any other choices. That's not insulting at all.

Whoops. Just fucking hand the troops a reason to go back to the Republicans. Way to go. Sure. That's not the only message, and Democrats are really the ones who do seem to actually care about the people in the military, while Republicans simply see the people in the military as tools for huge cash transfers from the government to their districts and states and corporations, but that's only gonna help Democrats win over the military if they can get that message out there. So far, from where I am sitting --

and this is all based on my own personal experience, as an Army wife for more than two decades --

the Democrats were handed the military on a silver platter. And they screwed it up.

Read The Full Article:
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=22418

Digg this

Dr. J.'s Commentary: No Obamallusions

post from BuzzFlash.org - Progressive News and Commentary with an Attitude | Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash on 31 July 2008 12:52:50 PM. © BuzzFlash.org - Progressive News and Commentary with an Attitude | Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash

Since he secured the Democratic nomination for President, Sen. Barack Obama has been moving rapidly to organize, re-organize, and expand his policy staff. One feature has been the increasing presence of "Clinton people" such as Robert Rubin and Madeleine Albright. The response to this from an increasing number of progressives and leftists has ranged from raising caution flags to expressing outright horror: "what's he doing on Israel?" "what's he doing on FISA?" "what's he doing on campaign finance reform?" "what's he doing on 'free trade'?" There are three principal issues to consider here. First, do these appointments indicate any major changes in Sen. Obama's principal campaign theme of "Change We Can Believe In?" Second, whether yes or no, were they predictable? Third, what should the progressive/leftist response be?
Bookmark/Search this post with: buzzflash | delicious | digg digg | technorati Technorati Tags: Steven Jonas Barack Obama John McCain lesser of two evils

Read The Full Article:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/122

Digg this

First reported allegation in Corsi's Obama attack
book is false

post from Media Matters for America on 31 July 2008 12:49:15 PM. © Media Matters for America

A July 30 WorldNetDaily.com article about author Jerome Corsi's forthcoming book, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politicsand the Cult of Personality (Threshold Editions),asserts that the book "points out" that "Barack Obama admitted using drugs in his autobiography but neverrevealed if or when he stopped." WND quotes Corsi, who is also a WNDstaff reporter, asking in the book: "Did Obama ever use drugs in his daysas a community organizer in Chicago, or when hewas a state senator from Illinois?... How[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.mediamatters.org/~r/mediamatters/latest/~3/351659961/200807310003

Digg this

Keep it Short and Vivid, Obama Camp

post from TPMCafe on 31 July 2008 12:48:00 PM. © TPMCafe

In response to McCain charge that Obama is playing the race card, KEEP IT SHORT!:

"McCain is playing the Desperation Card again and again. They will say anything they can to keep the focus off the bad economy, the real struggles of America's families, and their lack of ideas to make things better. Barack Obama is going to keep talking about his plans to revive the American Dream for all of us."

Say this every day, to every distracting accusation. And run some ads about McCain/Bush's bad economic ideas.

Theda S.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/tpmcafe-main/~3/rVh0blWNkNk/

Digg this

Clinton not VP

post from MyDD on 31 July 2008 12:37:16 PM. © MyDD

Yes, it would seem that's the case. First, you've got the announcement for when Clinton is speaking at the convention, "Tuesday night is Hillary night," said one supporter. Second, VoteBoth.com is shutting it down, saying, "Regretfully, this means that[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mydd/~3/351676946/504

Digg this

The Swing-State Politics of Oil and Taxes

This is an ongoing series from the national tour for THE UPRISING. You can order The Uprising at[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/OpenLeft-FrontPage/~3/351703304/showDiary.do

Digg this

The Swing-State Politics of Energy and Taxes

Digg this

House and Senate Dems Claim Victory, Say Miers,
Rove Should Testify

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) hailed today's court ruling and said he expects former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and political director Karl Rove to testify on Capitol Hill in September.

"Today's landmark ruling is a ringing reaffirmation of the fundamental principle of checks and balances and the basic American idea that no person is above the law.
Judge Bates' decision makes clear that the Congress had the right to subpoena Harriet Miers to learn of her role in the US Attorney firings, that her claim to be immune from subpoena was invalid and that the Committee was entitled to challenge that claim in Court. The Judge also ruled that the White House may not claim Executive Privilege over documents without describing them in reasonable detail so that these claims of privilege can be evaluated by Congress.
We look forward to the White House complying with this ruling and to scheduling future hearings with Ms. Miers and other witnesses who have relied on such claims. We hope that the defendants will accept this decision and expect that we will receive relevant documents and call Ms. Miers, as well as ex-White House official Karl Rove, to testify in September"

Later, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) echoed Conyers' statements:

The claims are part of an arrogant White House cover up, designed to shield from public view the inappropriate and illegal actions of this administration. It is past time for senior administration officials to abide by the law and appear before Congress to offer testimony compelled by subpoena.