the congress is changing | does it matter why?

On Wednesday morning Ted Swartz wrote...

Ok, Jim---the change has been made. It's still early in VA, but it appears Allen is out; isn't that what this election has been about---getting "them" out. I do wonder if the reasons go deep enough, but does it matter?
TKSwartz

I think it does matter how deep the reasons go.

I don't think this election was about getting them out. I think it was about opening the government back up – getting us back in.

All the new Congress has to do is insist on including members of the minority in committee meetings and it will do better than the ones that came before. Think of it . . . over the last six years Republicans routinely excluded Democrats – duly elected by the people of the United States – from committee meetings. I would join the chorus of those screaming bloody murder if Democrats committed that kind of abuse of power.

I expect a whole lot more in the way of good faith from the new Congress. A whole lot more.

Wednesday, Garrison Keillor ended his column with this:
You meet congressmen in private and they're perfectly thoughtful and well-spoken people, nothing like the raging idiots they impersonate in campaign ads, and you think, maybe Congress needs more privacy. Send them off on unchaperoned trips to see the world firsthand. More closed-door caucuses where they can say what they think without worrying that one stray phrase may kill them.

Or maybe Congress simply needed more Democrats. We are a civil bunch, owing to our contentious upbringings. With a smart, well-spoken woman for speaker instead of that lumbering mumbling galoot who covered for the Current Occupant, perhaps the sauce will thicken and life will get more interesting. Maybe they'll do something good. It's possible.
— Garrison Keillor, Living on Hope, Salon.com, 11.08.06

political capital | part two

The day after the 2004 election a reporter asked President Bush, "Do you feel more free, sir?" Mr Bush replied: "Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style."

Something about that line bothered me.

At first I thought it was just that his tone struck me as arrogant. But I think the problem runs deeper. I think what troubled me most was his intent to spend his capital. Not that anyone around the trailer park comes to me for economic insight but I don't think capital is meant to be spent; I think capital is to be invested to generate income and other useful outcomes. Individuals, companies, nations and cultures that live off their capital eventually wake up broke.

I think that's what this President did. I never thought the 2004 elections were as significant an infusion of capital as Mr Bush believed they were. But whatever the case, he employed bullying and fear to spend himself and us into the hole in Iraq, in foreign policy, in the dissolution of the constitutional balance of powers and - literally - in the US budget.

So President Bush is left with too few allies in the Congress, too few allies in international politics, too little progress on the things he said mattered. "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital," he said, "and now I intend to spend it. It is my style."

Indeed, it is his style.

For the sake of argument let's say the new Congress possesses political capital. If that's the case, I think we need to insist that they invest it wisely in constitutionally mandated oversite, in making peace, in crossing political lines to draft, conference and pass sound legislation for the good of the nation and the world. Doing that will increase the income we need to live on and enhance the capital we rely on to build the future.

we know what to do

My friend Al called last week to say, "OK, no more blogging for you until after the election. You're taking this too personally. God help us if the Democrats don't take control of Congress."

I laughed and said, "God help us either way, Al. One way or another, we have a big mess to clean to clean up."

And so we do.

political capital | part one

In Turnabout and the New Congress I wrote:

There has to be a Demcratic majority before anything changes substantively. Which means getting out the vote come hell or high water to put people in the House and Senate who will initiate oversite hearings in earnest. I can imagine the Current Occupant standing before a stacked house on November 8 saying something like, "The American people have retained a Republican majority in the Congress; I have some political capital now and I intend to spend it." In which case, God help us all - and I really mean that.

Today the editors of the New York Times write:

This election is indeed about George W. Bush - and the Congressional majority’s insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.

Talking with friends at the National Youth Workers Convention the last few days I was surprised when some of them seemed taken aback by descriptions of negligence and willfull failure in this Congress.

Those misdeeds are a matter of public record. Please read The Times editorial (concise) or scan my posts in this space over the last couple of months (rambling).

And if you agree with these calls for change in the US Congress, meet me at the polls.

And please, no champagne for anyone until the ballots are certified. In fact this may be a year when a strong cup of coffee will be the better beverage; there's a lot of work to do.

John Kerry's mea culpa

After yesterday's post about people who can't tell jokes (President Bush, Senator Kerry) my friend Bobbie directed me to Andrew Foster Altschu's Huffington Post piece: Great Apology, Senator Kerry - Now Do It Again... and Again.

Mr Altschu commends the Senator for his apology then writes:

Now here's the thing: You should keep apologizing. You did it on Imus - now do it on Air America. And Larry King. And Keith Olberman. And Leno. And You Tube. Anywhere. The media will give this another two or three days of attention if you (or the right-wingers) are keeping it alive - so go out there and apologize to everyone who will listen. Tell them how sorry you are that people misunderstood your attempt to point out what a feckless, incompetent, uneducated, dishonest crook this President is. Go out and remind them, again, that none of these warmongers ever put on a uniform, that the President himself went AWOL (in Alabama, no less!) but still feels no remorse about sending 3,000 Americans to their death in a war that he lied to get us into. Go out and tell anyone who will listen that you made a mistake, a mistake that may have hurt some feelings, but that unlike the mistakes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al. it hasn't killed any Americans or made our country less safe or destroyed another country or dramatically increased terrorism in the Middle East. Tell them sure, you wish you hadn't said it, and then ask whether Bush wishes he hadn't gone into Iraq, wishes he hadn't declared "Mission Accomplished," wishes he'd kept enough troops in Tora Bora, wishes he hadn't taken his eye off Bin Laden, wishes he hadn't been asleep at the wheel for the past five years, wishes he'd fired Rumsfeld before so many American lives were lost. Make it a challenge: I can admit when I'm wrong, Mr. President - can you?

Believe it or not, you've got the upper hand, Senator. There are six days to go, and every moment the focus is on Iraq the Republicans lose another seat in Congress. So don't stop. Keep apologizing. Keep talking about it. Use the media attention to keep saying the things that need to be said. If Republicans want to keep bashing you for a couple more days and giving you a platform from which to remind the country of this administration's mistakes, crimes, and betrayals, and how the Republican Congress has rubber-stamped it every step of the way, you know what your answer should be: Bring It On.

Yes. This is about accountability. If you want a really stiff belt of that controlled substance, send the kiddies to bed and read Keith Olbermann's special comment last night on this whole sordid mess.

what have we learned: some people can't tell a joke

This week we've learned that no one who ran for President of the United States in 2004 can tell a joke.

First Mr Bush botched a despicable lie in the form of a joke. Though the joke lies in shards on the campaign stump, the lie remains.

Then Mr Kerry of Massachusetts butchered an ad hominem quip at the President's expense which allowed a momentary loss of focus on two very important issues:

1. This President is stuck in Iraq and us with him and almost everyone who was looking saw it coming (though more than a few of us weren't looking, so...)

2. People with a demonstrated inability to tell jokes should refrain from doing attempting to do so. I'd be willing to bet people close to the President and Senator could have told them this decades ago. Individuals who persist in trying to be funny long after it's clear they are not may be stubborn and intemperate in other ways as well; this is just a theory.

Mr Clinton could (and can) tell a joke. Mr Gore appears to have recaptured a latent capacity to make funny. Mr Lieberman, in my opinion, can tell a joke the way most sound engineers can play musical instruments - they understand the physics but no one downloads their singles.

Senator McCain tells an OK joke from time to time. Not a headliner but a pleasant opening act. Senator Obama can definitely tell a joke. He may prove to be as good on his feet as the best of them.

Meanwhile, I call on Mr Bush and Mr Kerry to cease and desist. Mr Bush's funniest moments have had nothing to do with joke-telling bless his heart. And Mr Kerry is much clearer (though certainly no funnier) when he remains serious, as when in 1971 he asked Congress, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

pants on fire? stop, drop + roll

On October 11, I said I wished I had the opportunity to tell the President I believe he is a liar.

The context was that day's Rose Garden press conference in which Mr Bush repeatedly mischaracterized those who oppose his mad adventures in government and military conquest.

I think it's unpresidential to lie about the loyal opposition and I think the Current Occupant has a long history of behaving unpresidentially – both directly and by proxy. I believe a Leader of Substance could and would have put a stop to that behavior long ago. Failing that, I believe Mr Bush can and should put a stop to it now.

Last weekend Mr Bush said (I saw it on television):

"The Democrats in Washington follow a simple philosophy: Just say no.

When it comes to listening in on the terrorists, what's the Democratic answer? Just say no.

When it comes to detaining terrorists, what's the Democrat answer?"

And crowd chimed in: "Just say no!"

"So when the Democrats ask for your vote on Nov. 7, what are you going to say?"

"Just say no!" the audience replied less forcefully, thrown off by the President's syntax.

Beyond the misdemeanor of blowing the punch line, what the President said was simply, plainly false - what the adult supervision likes to characterize as a series of carefully considered lies.

Mr Bush's pants are on fire. If he won't stop, drop + roll, we will have to throw a blanket over him and smother the flames.

We can't fix everything he's broken in a single move but, remarkably I think, we can restore the balance of powers in US government by the single act of voting-in a Congress that will dedicate itself to holding the Executive accountable for his behavior in office while behaving in a superlative manner themselves.

The people who oppose this President's aberrant behavior want him to straighten up and fly right. I hope the number of voters who insist that he do so reaches the critical mass of 51% in every state on November 7.

send a Democrat to Washington Nov 7

Please help send a Democrat to Washington next week.

If you don't like how it turns out you can bring him or her home next time.

This time we need Members of Congress who understand their mandate includes government oversight – just like in the Constitution!

turnabout and the new Congress

"We haven't had any oversight hearings in six years, except for cheerleading sessions," said Rep. Pete Stark of California, who is in line to chair the House health subcommittee should Democrats become a majority.

"Over the years," writes Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman, "majority Republicans have developed an all-purpose reply to Democrats' gripes: When they gain control, they can run Congress as they please."

Two things worth noting from where I sit West of the 101 in California:

1. There has to be a Demcratic majority before anything changes substantively. Which means getting out the vote come hell or high water to put people in the House and Senate who will initiate oversite hearings in earnest. I can imagine the Current Occupant standing before a stacked house on November 8 saying something like, "The American people have retained a Republican majority in the Congress; I have some political capital now and I intend to spend it." In which case, God help us all -- and I really mean that.

So, vote first and no champagne until the ballots are certified.

2. Turnabout is not fair play. This Congress and those immediately preceding it have been models of what not to wear in the halls of government. Should we in fact deliver a Democratic majority to Capitol Hill only to have them behave as poorly as the Republicans have behaved we will sooner than later face a different version of the same awful mess we're in.

This is not about that. This is about fixing what's broken, not leaving it broken in a different way.

This may be an opportune time to read or review Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them wherein he reminds us of the liberal conscience that has over the years attracted skeptical folk like me. Mr Franken doesn't have to run for the Senate if he keeps delivering funny, reasonable on our political lives.

Just a thought on the way to the polls two weeks from now . . .

David Kuo blows the whistle on the White House

In his compelling Time Magazine piece, Why a Christian in the White House Felt Betrayed, former Deputy Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, David Kuo writes:

Then the questions began. "Since the President brought up money, where, exactly is that money?" asked one pastor. "We've talked to the Cabinet Secretaries, and they say there isn't any new money." They peppered him with questions for several minutes. Finally he smiled at them and said, "Tell you what, I'm going to get those guys in a room and bash some heads together and get to the bottom of this. I'll be back in touch with you." He left confidently.

At the meeting's end, several of the pastors said they wanted to pray for my healing. They placed their hands on my shoulder and called on God to hear their prayers on my behalf. I listened and loved it and said a prayer of my own: that I would have the courage to tell them what was really going on at the White House.

That was more than three years ago. Their prayers have worked on my body. I am still here and very much alive. Now I am finding the courage to speak out about God and politics and their dangerous dance. George W. Bush, the man, is a person of profound faith and deep compassion for those who suffer. But President George W. Bush is a politician and is ultimately no different from any other politician, content to use religion for electoral gain more than for good works. Millions of Evangelicals may share Bush's faith, but they would protect themselves--and their interests--better if they looked at him through the same coldly political lens with which he views them.

MSNBC's Countdown got a prerelease copy of Kuo's book by walking into a bookstore and asking to buy one . . . Who knew? On October 13 Countdown producer Jonathan Larsen wrote:

. . . the Bush administration often promoted the faith-based agenda by claiming that existing government regulations were too restrictive on religious organizations seeking to serve the public.

Substantiating that claim proved difficult, Kuo says. “Finding these examples became a huge priority.… If President Bush was making the world a better place for faith-based groups, we had to show it was really a bad place to begin with. But, in fact, it wasn’t that bad at all.”
In fact, when Bush asks Kuo how much money was being spent on “compassion” social programs, Kuo claims he discovered the amount was $20 million a year less than during the Clinton Administration.

How rich.

God knows these people are not the first to have hocked their souls for the promise of political power. But they're the ones we're talking about now – and they are certainly no better – or even all that different – from progressives, liberals, moderates and conservatives who walked this path before.

Saying this particular set come across as more sanctimonious than others like them may only be saying they come across as more sanctimonious to me. No news there. We are what we are. But if we're even a little bit right about the goodness of God, it's barely begun to dawn on anyone what we will be when we come face to face with our maker.

That's then. Now we have an ugly mess to clean up. We might begin with Andrew Sullivan's advice:

Memo to faithful [insert any theological persuasion you like]: you get entangled with Caesar and you'll regret it. Conflate politics with religion and you do mortal damage to both.

The operative word is entangled – that's what got evangelicals in trouble with this Administration. Engagement on the other hand means everything in politics (and, come to think of it, even more in the life of faith).

Military Commissions Act of 2006 | Two Centuries of American Democracy Undone with the Stroke of a Pen

Tonight it's official: Mr Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006 passed by the 109th Congress — and with the stroke a his pen gave the terrorists a significant victory. The effect of this law increases presidential power to operate in secret and without checks and balances by the Congress or the courts in ways that have been steadfastly rejected by Americans through 217 years, 108 Congresses and 42 presidents. A few notes on the text, and a word after . . .

The President now has the authority personally and through tribunals appointed by him or the Secretary of Defense to hold and try unlawful enemy combatants.

(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
– ec. 948a. Definitions

Though elsewhere designated as individuals who are not US citizens, this definition is broad enough to include anyone on the planet.

`(d) Inapplicability of Certain Provisions- (1) The following provisions of this title shall not apply to trial by military commission under this chapter:
`(A) Section 810 (article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to speedy trial, including any rule of courts-martial relating to speedy trial.
`(B) Sections 831(a), (b), and (d) (articles 31(a), (b), and (d) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to compulsory self-incrimination.
`(g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.
–`Sec. 948b. Military commissions generally

This law explicitly takes exception to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the international conventions signed by the US at Geneva on August 12, 1949. In particular, this law suspends the legal requirement for a speedy trial and the rules regarding torture as a means of obtaining self-incriminating statements. The military is hereby permitted to hold people indefinitely and use nonlethal force to extract confessions.

(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.
`(d) Punishments- A military commission under this chapter may, under such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when authorized under this chapter or the law of war.
– `Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions

Under this law, if a tribunal rules that someone is an unlawful enemy combatant, that's that. No challenge. No review. No oversight. No repercussions.

`Military commissions under this chapter may be convened by the Secretary of Defense or by any officer or official of the United States designated by the Secretary for that purpose.
–`Sec. 948h. Who may convene military commissions
`(a) In General- Any commissioned officer of the armed forces on active duty is eligible to serve on a military commission under this chapter.
`(b) Detail of Members- When convening a military commission under this chapter, the convening authority shall detail as members of the commission such members of the armed forces eligible under subsection (a), as in the opinion of the convening authority, are best qualified for the duty by reason of age, education, training, experience, length of service, and judicial temperament. No member of an armed force is eligible to serve as a member of a military commission when such member is the accuser or a witness for the prosecution or has acted as an investigator or counsel in the same case.
`(c) Excuse of Members- Before a military commission under this chapter is assembled for the trial of a case, the convening authority may excuse a member from participating in the case.
– `Sec. 948i. Who may serve on military commissions

The Secretary of Defense can under this law designate anyone in the government to convene a military commission. The one who convenes a military commission may under this law excuse any member of the commission for any reason from participating in a case. Another word for excuse might be exclude.

`(c) Statements Obtained Before Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--
`(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and
`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.
`(d) Statements Obtained After Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained on or after December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--
`(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value;
`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and
`(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.
– `Sec. 948r. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited; treatment of statements obtained by torture and other statements

In general, the introduction into evidence of self-incriminating statements obtained by torture is discouraged — however such evidence is not prohibited.

`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), hearsay evidence not otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence applicable in trial by general courts-martial may be admitted in a trial by military commission if the proponent of the evidence makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to meet the evidence, the intention of the proponent to offer the evidence, and the particulars of the evidence (including information on the general circumstances under which the evidence was obtained). The disclosure of evidence under the preceding sentence is subject to the requirements and limitations applicable to the disclosure of classified information in section 949j(c) of this title.
– `Sec. 949a. Rules

Hearsay evidence that would ordinarily be excluded under the law is, under this law, permitted.

`(2) The military judge may close to the public all or a portion of the proceedings under paragraph (1) only upon making a specific finding that such closure is necessary to--
`(A) protect information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security, including intelligence or law enforcement sources, methods, or activities; or
`(B) ensure the physical safety of individuals.
– `Sec. 949d. Sessions

The military judge may at his or her discretion make secret the proceedings of a military commission.

`(1) NATIONAL SECURITY PRIVILEGE- (A) Classified information shall be protected and is privileged from disclosure if disclosure would be detrimental to the national security. The rule in the preceding sentence applies to all stages of the proceedings of military commissions under this chapter.
`(B) The privilege referred to in subparagraph (A) may be claimed by the head of the executive or military department or government agency concerned based on a finding by the head of that department or agency that--
`(i) the information is properly classified; and
`(ii) disclosure of the information would be detrimental to the national security.
`(C) A person who may claim the privilege referred to in subparagraph (A) may authorize a representative, witness, or trial counsel to claim the privilege and make the finding described in subparagraph (B) on behalf of such person. The authority of the representative, witness, or trial counsel to do so is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
– (f) Protection of Classified Information
`(B) PROTECTION OF SOURCES, METHODS, OR ACTIVITIES- The military judge, upon motion of trial counsel, shall permit trial counsel to introduce otherwise admissible evidence before the military commission, while protecting from disclosure the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence if the military judge finds that (i) the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence are classified, and (ii) the evidence is reliable. The military judge may require trial counsel to present to the military commission and the defense, to the extent practicable and consistent with national security, an unclassified summary of the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence.
`(C) ASSERTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY PRIVILEGE AT TRIAL- During the examination of any witness, trial counsel may object to any question, line of inquiry, or motion to admit evidence that would require the disclosure of classified information. Following such an objection, the military judge shall take suitable action to safeguard such classified information. Such action may include the review of trial counsel's claim of privilege by the military judge in camera and on an ex parte basis, and the delay of proceedings to permit trial counsel to consult with the department or agency concerned as to whether the national security privilege should be asserted.
`(3) CONSIDERATION OF PRIVILEGE AND RELATED MATERIALS- A claim of privilege under this subsection, and any materials submitted in support thereof, shall, upon request of the Government, be considered by the military judge in camera and shall not be disclosed to the accused.
`(4) ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS- The Secretary of Defense may prescribe additional regulations, consistent with this subsection, for the use and protection of classified information during proceedings of military commissions under this chapter. A report on any regulations so prescribed, or modified, shall be submitted to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 60 days before the date on which such regulations or modifications, as the case may be, go into effect.
– INTRODUCTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

The source, method of acquisition and substance of evidence against the accused may be declared privileged as a matter of national security in which case the accused may be prohibited from responding to evidence presented as fact in the case. This might be called the "If we told you, we'd have to kill you" clause.

On 60 days notice, the Secretary of Defense may change the rules regarding privileged national security information by notifying the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in writing.

`The punishment which a military commission under this chapter may direct for an offense may not exceed such limits as the President or Secretary of Defense may prescribe for that offense.
– `Sec. 949t. Maximum limits

The President or Secretary of Defense establish the limits of punishment for offenses under this law.

(a) In General- Under such regulations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, a sentence of confinement adjudged by a military commission under this chapter may be carried into execution by confinement--
`(1) in any place of confinement under the control of any of the armed forces; or
`(2) in any penal or correctional institution under the control of the United States or its allies, or which the United States may be allowed to use.
– `Sec. 949u. Execution of confinement

`(c) Action by Convening Authority- (1) The authority under this subsection to modify the findings and sentence of a military commission under this chapter is a matter of the sole discretion and prerogative of the convening authority.
– `Sec. 950b. Review by the convening authority

The convening authority – the President, Secretary of Defense or a designee – is empowered under this law to override the findings and outcomes of military commissions at his or her sole discretion. This gives the convening authority the leverage to cut deals with those convicted by military commissions.

`(a) Finality- The appellate review of records of trial provided by this chapter, and the proceedings, findings, and sentences of military commissions as approved, reviewed, or affirmed as required by this chapter, are final and conclusive. Orders publishing the proceedings of military commissions under this chapter are binding upon all departments, courts, agencies, and officers of the United States, except as otherwise provided by the President.
`(b) Provisions of Chapter Sole Basis for Review of Military Commission Procedures and Actions- Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.
– `Sec. 950j. Finality or proceedings, findings, and sentences

The President is in this regard more or less declared King just 217 years after the US Constitution launched the grand experiment we still – albeit somewhat cynically – call American Democracy. Not that his power is absolute but that it is unchallenged and unchecked when it comes to the dispensation of justice in anything he can construe as the war on terror. In that singular change we have become what we declared unlawful and unacceptable in 1776, fought against until 1783 and carefully designed our Constitution to prevent in 1789. Our oppressors and enemies in that conflict followed us into the spirit of that new social covenant. The US Constititution changed the game.

Now this President and Congress have changed it back and 74 million Baby Boomers failed to stop them. This is what The Big Chill looks like.

I suspect our passivity about this when it was right in front of us may prove to be my generation's most enduring public failure (I certainly hope it doesn't get worse than this but more on that later). I fear this failure will take a very long time to correct. I recommend we get started November 7, 2006 by sending a cohort to the 110th Congress who will begin the process of restoring the Constitutional separation of powers and mending the breach between the US and our allies – indeed to mend the breach between what we dreamed and what we are becoming.

pants on fire

i'm listening to the president's press conference going on as I write.

I wish I had the opportunity to say to his face, "Mr Bush, I believe you are a liar. Prove me wrong."

I've read the Bible; I know what it says about liars . . .