|
Obama Has Stumbled Into a Constitutional Firefight |
 |
|
Thursday, 13 March 2014 16:29 |
|
Parry writes: "When historians set off to write the story of Barack Obama's administration, they will have to struggle with why the 44th President chose not to hold his predecessor accountable for grave crimes of state and why he failed to take control of his own foreign policy."
President Barack Obama during his remarks on the George Zimmerman case. (photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP)
Obama Has Stumbled Into a Constitutional Firefight
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
13 March 14
 hen historians set off to write the story of Barack Obama’s administration, they will have to struggle with why the 44th President chose not to hold his predecessor accountable for grave crimes of state and why he failed to take control of his own foreign policy.
This failure, which began with Obama’s early decision to “look forward, not backward” and to retain much of George W. Bush’s national security bureaucracy, has now led Obama into a scandal over the CIA’s resistance to the Senate Intelligence Committee drafting of a long-delayed report on the Bush-era policy of torturing “war on terror” detainees.
This clash surfaced publicly on Tuesday when Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein delivered an extraordinary speech on the Senate floor accusing the CIA of sabotaging the panel’s oversight work through subterfuge and legal threats.
But the biggest mystery may be why the Obama White House has been so solicitous of the CIA’s desire to keep secret the history of a torture program authorized by President George W. Bush and overseen by Vice President Dick Cheney. As Commander in Chief, President Obama has the ultimate say over what stays classified and what gets declassified.
Yet, as the CIA has dragged its feet about declassifying what are now historical records – by claiming factual inaccuracies – the Obama White House has adopted a posture of powerless supplicant. “We’ve made clear that we want to see the report’s findings declassified,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney, as if the President has no power over this process.
Obama could simply issue a declassification order that would allow the release of both the Senate’s 6,300-page report and an internal CIA review (with whatever redactions would be appropriate). If the CIA wishes to dispute some of the Senate’s findings, it could issue a rebuttal, which is how such disputes have been handled throughout U.S. history.
If every government report required that the party being criticized agree to every detail of the allegations, no report would ever be issued. This idea that secretive CIA officials, who have already obstructed the investigation by destroying videotape of the torture sessions, should now have the right to block the report’s release indefinitely grants the spy agency what amounts to blanket immunity for whatever it does.
So, the question is why. Why does President Obama continue letting holdovers from the Bush administration, including current CIA Director John Brennan, control U.S. national security policies more than five years after President Bush and Vice President Cheney left office?
The Ukraine Crisis
A similar question arises over the Ukraine crisis in which neoconservative holdovers, such as Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, and the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy were allowed to spur on the violent coup that overthrew democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych and precipitated a dangerous confrontation with Russia.
This Ukraine “regime change” served neocon interests by driving a wedge between President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin, disrupting their behind-the-scenes relationship that has proved useful in averting U.S. wars in Syria and Iran, conflicts that the neocons have long wanted as part of their grand plan for remaking the Middle East.
Nuland’s husband, former Reagan administration official Robert Kagan, was a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, which in 1998 called for the first step in this “regime change” strategy by seeking a U.S. invasion of Iraq. After the neocons gained control of U.S. foreign policy under President Bush, the Iraq invasion went ahead in 2003, but the occupation proved disastrous and put off the next stages, “regime change” in Syria and Iran.
Barack Obama’s election in 2008 was, in part, driven by public revulsion over the bloody conflict in Iraq and revelations about the torture of detainees and other crimes that surrounded Bush’s post-9/11 “war on terror.” Yet, after winning the White House, Obama shied away from a clean break from Bush’s policies.
Obama was persuaded to staff much of his national security team with “a team of rivals,” which meant retaining Bush’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates (something no previous president had ever done), appointing hawkish Sen. Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State, and ordering no shake-up of Bush’s military high command, including media-favorite Gen. David Petraeus.
Longtime CIA apparatchik Brennan, who was implicated in some of Bush’s most controversial actions, was named Obama’s White House counterterrorism adviser. As former CIA analyst Ray McGovern wrote, Brennan was “a senior CIA official during President George W. Bush’s ‘dark side’ days of waterboarding detainees, renditioning suspects to Mideast torture centers and making up intelligence to invade Iraq.”
Part of the reason for Obama’s timidity may have been his lack of experience and his fear that any missteps would be seized on by his opponents to question his fitness for the job. By surrounding himself with Bush’s advisers and Democratic adversaries, he may have thought that he was keeping them safely inside his tent.
The Democratic Party also has a very thin bench of national security experts. Official Washington has been so dominated by foreign policy “tough-guy-ism” for decades – at least since Ronald Reagan crushed Jimmy Carter in 1980 – that most Democrats who could survive a congressional confirmation hearing have had to bow to this prevailing sentiment.
There’s also the U.S. news media, which readily joins any war-fevered stampede. Obama may have calculated that his presidency would have been trampled by endless recriminations if he had fully repudiated Bush’s legacy.
Getting Sucked In
But the consequences of these trade-offs have been severe. For instance, Gates wrote in his memoir Duty that he was persuaded to support an Afghan War “surge” of 30,000 troops by neocon theorist Frederick Kagan (Robert’s brother and Victoria Nuland’s brother-in-law). Though Obama was skeptical, the plan was backed by Petraeus (and other Bush-promoted generals) and Secretary of State Clinton. Ultimately, Obama acquiesced, to his later regret.
Arguably, there were similarities between Obama’s predicament and what confronted a young President John F. Kennedy when he took office in 1961 with the “red scares” of the McCarthy era still fresh in the minds of badly scarred Democrats. Kennedy was persuaded by holdovers from the Eisenhower administration, such as CIA Director Allen Dulles and some of the Pentagon’s high command, to press ahead with the Bay of Pigs invasion against Cuba.
After that disaster, Kennedy ousted Dulles and developed his own informal circle of foreign policy advisers, including his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy. During the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, President Kennedy relied on these close advisers to counter the pressure from senior generals to escalate this nuclear Cold War confrontation.
Kennedy appeared ready to chart a course toward greater cooperation with Soviet leaders and to disengage from Vietnam at the time of his assassination on Nov. 22, 1963, though it will never be known how Kennedy would have ultimately addressed those challenges if he had won reelection in 1964.
However, after Kennedy’s death, President Lyndon Johnson agreed to Pentagon calls for sending combat troops to Vietnam. The historical record shows that Johnson’s decisions were influenced by his fears that otherwise Democrats would be accused of “losing” Indochina, much as Sen. Joe McCarthy and other right-wingers had accused them of “losing” China.
Despite some parallels between the Kennedy-Johnson era and the present, Obama’s secretive conduct of his foreign policy – without offering a thorough explication to the public – may be unprecedented. While displaying a surface “tough-guy-ism” of counterterrorism, including drone strikes and Special Forces raids, such as killing Osama bin Laden, Obama has maneuvered quietly toward a slow and steady pullback from America’s war footing.
To continue that process – often in the face of belligerent rhetoric from key members of Congress and prominent U.S. pundits – Obama has relied not only on an inner circle at the White House (buttressed by some sympathetic CIA analysts), but on cooperation from President Putin and other Russian leaders.
Not Taking Command
Though the original “team of rivals” is gone (Gates in mid-2011, Petraeus after a sex scandal in late 2012, and Clinton in early 2013), Obama still has not grabbed control of his national security apparatus. Secretary of State John Kerry often behaves as if he thinks he’s President John McCain’s top diplomat – or a captive of the hawkish State Department bureaucracy, the likes of Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power.
For example, amid murky evidence regarding a chemical weapons attack in Syria, Kerry delivered what sounded like a declaration of war on Aug. 30, 2013, only to have Obama walk the U.S. bombing threats back over the next few weeks and finally put them to rest with the help of Putin who got the Syrian regime to agree to surrender all of its chemical weapons.
Similarly, Obama and Putin oversaw the hammering out of a framework to resolve the Iran nuclear dispute last November. Kerry was supposed to go to Geneva and sign the deal, but instead inserted some last-minute poison-pill language advocated by the French (who were carrying water for the Saudis), causing a breakdown of the talks. I’m told that White House officials then instructed Kerry to return and sign the deal, which he finally did.
But Obama’s back-pocket foreign policy – and the extra energy that such an indirect management style requires – have allowed for some serious mischief-making by neocons in the government and their sympathizers in the media, especially in areas of the world where Obama has not directed his personal attention.
The crisis in Ukraine apparently caught the President off-guard, even though elements of the U.S. government were stoking the fires of political unrest on Russia’s border. Assistant Secretary Nuland was openly advocating for Ukraine’s “European aspirations” and literally passing out cookies to anti-government protesters.
Meanwhile, the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy (essentially a three-decade-old neocon-controlled slush fund that pours money into “democracy building” or destabilization campaigns depending on your point of view), was running 65 projects in Ukraine. Last September, NED’s president Carl Gershman called Ukraine “the biggest prize” and expressed hope that “Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”
In other words, even as Obama leaned on Putin to avert more wars in the Middle East, the U.S. government was seeking to embarrass and undermine Putin at home. Not surprisingly, this double-dealing has provoked the Russian government’s suspicion and confusion, made worse because the latest U.S. media swagger in support of the coup regime in Kiev has forced Obama to puff out his own chest and do some breast-beating at Putin’s expense.
One Putin adviser compared Obama’s treatment of Putin to a married man with a mistress who – when things get touchy – pretends not to know the mistress.
Now, Obama’s reluctance to confront the CIA over its Bush-era crimes has created another controversy. CIA Director John Brennan is resisting release of investigative reports critical of the CIA’s torture policies, a standoff that, in turn, has led to alleged CIA efforts to intimidate and spy on staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank has dubbed the public clash between Sen. Feinstein, defending the committee’s investigation, and Director Brennan, defending the CIA’s reaction to the investigation, “a true Obama scandal.” Milbank noted the seriousness of the controversy as Feinstein accuses “Obama’s CIA of illegal and unconstitutional actions violating the separation of powers by searching the committee’s computers and intimidating congressional staffers with bogus legal threats.”
At the heart of this “scandal” is Obama’s decision to let Brennan have control over an investigation that threatened to embarrass if not directly implicate Brennan in Bush’s torture of detainees. The problem could have been avoided if Obama had simply asserted his presidential authority to declassify the torture reports in a timely fashion.
But Obama seems to feel that even though he’s been Commander in Chief for half a decade he still must tread softly to avoid upsetting the Bush holdovers and their many influential friends in Official Washington. It’s an attitude that historians may find puzzling.
 |
|
FOCUS | This Is Why Midterm Election Turnout Matters |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 13 March 2014 11:53 |
|
Pierce writes: "Somebody is going to have to explain to me why the Democratic 'base,' which is presumably younger and more spry than the older and whiter Republican 'base,' is nonetheless less likely to turn out for midterm elections than the That Sean Hannity Reminds Me Of My Grandson crowd."
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, left, talks with the committee's ranking Republican Sen. John McCain. (photo: AP)
This Is Why Midterm Election Turnout Matters
By Charles Pierce. Esquire
13 March 14
 omebody is going to have to explain to me why the Democratic "base," which is presumably younger and more spry than the older and whiter Republican "base," is nonetheless less likely to turn out for midterm elections than the That Sean Hannity Reminds Me Of My Grandson crowd. It is taken as a given, and past performance indicates clearly that it's usually the case, but I'm not sure why it has to be. So, in the interest to changing this curious dynamic, let me take this red-hot poker and shove it up the base's ass.
Jim Inhofe as the chairman of the Senate Environment Committee? Chuck (Bag Of Hammers) running Judiciary? Grumpy McCloudyeller with an even bigger platform as chairman of Armed Services? Jefferson Davis Beauregard Sessions as chairman of anything?
Go ahead. Stay home now. I dare you.
|
|
|
Democrats Join Republicans in High-Tech Lynching of Black Nominee |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 13 March 2014 09:45 |
|
Boardman writes: "When the United States Senate voted against the United States Constitution on March 5, 2014, the anti-constitutional majority included, as expected, all the Republican senators voting, but also, more unexpectedly, seven principle-free Democrats."
Debo Adegbile. (photo: AP)
Democrats Join Republicans in High-Tech Lynching of Black Nominee
By William Boardman, Reader Supported News
13 March 14
Seven Democratic dwarves prefer police state veto to due process of law.
hen the United States Senate voted against the United States Constitution on March 5, 2014, the anti-constitutional majority included, as expected, all the Republican senators voting, but also, more unexpectedly, seven principle-free Democrats.
The majority vote represents an affirmation of imaginary guilt by association, with deep racial overtones, in what amounted to a Senatorial lynching of an attorney who dared participate in the constitutionally-mandated legal defense of a pre-judged black man long since found guilty and still in prison after thirty years. These senators were less persuaded by the Supreme Court's finding of a flawed trial than by the orchestrated baying by white vigilantes whose police state mentality allows no nuance when they want someone dead no matter what.
The Senate vote in question on March 5 was whether to end a Republican filibuster against President Obama's nominee to serve as the United States Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice – attorney Debo Adegbile, 48, who is currently senior counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. A native New Yorker, he was born Adebowale Patrick Akande Adegbile (his father Nigerian, his mother Irish) and raised by his single mother. As a child he was an actor on Sesame Street for nine years. He earned his law degree from New York University law school in 1994.
After seven years in private practice at the N.Y. law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, & Garrison, Adegbile joined the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, where he was a respected litigator from 2001 to 2013. He argued his first Supreme Court case in 2009, defending the Voting Rights Act. His career path, without the major cases, is similar to that of the late Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall, but only up to this point.
Republicans opposing Adegbile are vehement, adamant, and dishonest in their opposition, which is rooted in passion and prejudice. Their critique does not challenge Adegbile's competence or qualifications to be in charge of the Civil Rights Division, which currently has an acting head. Arguing Adegbile's nomination on its merits is not something Republicans even tried to do. Their "case" against Adegbile was an ugly, demagogic stew of partisanship, race baiting, and irrelevance worthy of the late Senator Joe McCarthy at his worst.
"I stand with the Fraternal Order of Police in opposition to Debo Adegbile…. We all should agree that those who go out of their way to celebrate, to lionize, convicted cop killers are not suitable for major leadership roles at the Department of Justice. Under Adegbile's supervision, LDF lawyers fanned the flames of racial tension through rallies and protests and a media campaign all to portray Mumia Abu-Jamal, an unrepentant cop killer, as a political prisoner." – Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, on the Senate floor, March 4, 2014
In this brief statement, Cruz manages to:
- Defend what amounts to a police lobby veto over presidential appointments to the Justice Department;
- Lie about Adegbile's activities (no evidence to support Cruz's smear);
- Invent "lionization" of the man at the center of a case that is genuinely about due process and the death penalty, a case that has been found wanting by the Supreme Court;
- Pretend that racial tensions have not been present in this case since the moment it started (the trial judge promised "I'm going to help them fry the nigger," and a higher judge found the comment not prejudicial);
- Lie about Adegbile's "supervision," offering no evidence, using only a kind of "guilt" by association that also attacks free speech;
- Reach final judgment on a case in which he has played no role, and in which both sides have arguable positions for which neither side has managed to provide ultimately definitive evidence;
- Illustrate one of the ways Abu-Jamal is used as – and is, in fact – a political prisoner, whatever else he may be.
Cruz and other senators opposing Adegbile got many of their distorted talking points from the National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), a Washington-based labor union and lobbying organization that claims membership of more than 330,000 police employees and whose motto is "Building on a Proud Tradition." (According to FBI statistics, there are more than a million full-time law enforcement employees in the U.S.) In a letter to the president dated January 6, 2014, FOP president Chuck Canterbury expressed his organization's opposition to Adegbile with a rambling argument in which FOP's apparently real issue doesn't appear until the fourth paragraph, which complains: "The Administration did not consult the FOP during the decision-making process for this nomination…. This nomination can be interpreted in only one way: it is a thumb in the eye of our nation's law enforcement officers."
More raw emotionalism of Canterbury's letter came earlier:
As word of this nomination spreads through the law enforcement community, reactions range from anger to incredulity. Under this nominee's leadership, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People volunteered their services to represent Wesley Cook, better known to the world as Mumia Abu-Jamal – our country's most notorious cop-killer. There is no disputing that Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner was murdered by this thug. His just sentence – death – was undone by your nominee and others like him who turned the justice system on its head with unfounded and unproven allegations of racism.
As Canterbury is presumably well aware, Abu-Jamal remains in prison under a life sentence, and his death sentence was undone by the Supreme Court under John Roberts (who has also done pro bono work for a man who killed eight people). But logic requires the FOP to falsify the facts in order justify their seemingly race-based and untenable argument: "We are aware of the tried and true shield behind which activists of Adegbile's ilk are wont to hide - that everyone is entitled to a defense; but surely you would agree that a defense should not be based on falsely disparaging and savaging the good name and reputation of a lifeless police officer."
This claim, unsupported by evidence and rooted in irrelevance (even if true in any respect), is essentially an attack on the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment – not an effort to eliminate completely the right of a defendant to have legal representation, but an effort to give others the power to decide which defendants shall have constitutional protection, and which shall not.
The Sixth Amendment does not allow for such intervention by hostile parties like an enraged and frustrated police union. The amendment says, in pertinent part: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." In its own brief statement of Goals, the FOP states: "We believe that Law is the safeguard to freedom, and it is our duty to defend it." The effect of the FOP's letter to the president is to carve out arbitrary exceptions to its stated "belief" and "duty" whenever constitutional law serves a defendant that the FOP just wants to kill. The FOP stands ready to defend the law only to the extent that the law does its bidding.
The FOP's attack wasn't intended to have integrity, logic, or supporting evidence. Its primary purpose was political, to block a non-white defender of civil rights whose record suggested he would be effective in the civil rights job at Justice. The shortest, quickest route to blocking Agedbile would be to panic enough Democrats to prevent the Senate from even voting on his nomination. Democrats, with a 54-46 vote advantage in a party line vote, could lose four members and still shut down the Republican filibuster against Agedbile (with Vice President Biden present to break a tie). The challenge for Republicans was to terrorize more than four Democrats into cutting and running. What better way to panic politicians than to scream, irrelevantly, "cop-killer" and imply that a vote for a qualified attorney was the same as supporting a hated black man? To Democrats' shame, the deceitful race-baiting worked.
Quick to pick up on the FOP's "thumb-in-the-eye" letter was the FOP in Philadelphia, where the killing took place in 1981. Philadelphia in 1981 had been close to open race war for years, with Police Chief/Mayor Frank Rizzo often making matters worse with pre-emptive raids, a vicious cycle that culminated in the Police bombing of the MOVE house, killing eleven people, including five children. That's context missed by the FOP tunnel vision: "It's [Adegbile's nomination] an absolute slap in the face to every police officer, especially those who gave their lives in the line of duty. There's outrage, there's resentment there's disapproval – you name it and our cops are feeling it," said the Philadelphia FOP president, adding that he'd be lobbying his senators on the nomination, meaning Democrat Bob Casey, since Republican Pat Toomey was already in the bag (and among the vigilantes).
A few weeks later, Senator Bob Casey abjectly caved to the pressure in a sadly craven political statement, issued on a Friday (February 28):
I believe that every person nominated by the President of the United States for a high level position such as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights should be given fair and thoughtful consideration as senators discharge their responsibility of 'advise and consent.' I respect that our system of law ensures the right of all citizens to legal representation no matter how heinous the crime. At the same time, it is important that we ensure that Pennsylvanians and citizens across the country have full confidence in their public representatives – both elected and appointed. The vicious murder of Officer Faulkner in the line of duty and the events that followed in the 30 years since his death have left open wounds for Maureen Faulkner and her family as well as the City of Philadelphia. After carefully considering this nomination and having met with both Mr. Adegbile as well as the Fraternal Order of Police, I will not vote to confirm the nominee.
Instead of "fair and thoughtful consideration," Casey voted for a filibuster. Instead of respect for our system, this lawyer and Democrat voted for random application of the law, sometimes dictated by dishonest hate-brokers.
Casey was the first Democrat to collapse completely in the face of the emotional illogic of anti-constitutionalists. Casey, 54, a child of white privilege and a career politician, was first elected to the Senate in 2006. Even though he's not up for re-election this year (not till 2018), he could not find the strength to stand for principle against a baying mob.
Public reaction was even harsher on philly.com, where "Attytood" was able to distinguish between his own feeling about Abu-Jamal ("the guy murdered a cop in cold blood") and the value of the Constitution: "Faced with the choice of voting for a good man or responding to the bullying tactics of the Fraternal Order of Police, Casey wilted. I don't know why that's a surprise. Spinelessness has been a trademark of Casey's career…. What does Bob Casey stand for? Cowards tend to congregate, and so Casey's chickenry encouraged six other feckless wonders – [Senators] Pryor, Walsh, Manchin, Heitkamp, Donnelly, and Coons (say it ain't so, Chris) – to join in…."
Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas, 51, another son of white privilege and career politician, is running for a third term in the Senate. After two easy races in 2002 and 2008, he's now considered one of the most vulnerable Democrats in 2014. His record has no well-known highlights. He has voted to keep prisoners in Guantanamo, to set up extra-constitutional military commissions, and to block background checks for gun purchases. Pryor issued no statement explaining his vote against his party's president's nominee, and if he made any public comment, it remains obscure.
Senator John Walsh of Montana, 54, was appointed to the Senate on March 9, 2014, having already announced his plan to run for the seat in the 2014 election. He's not a career politician, but as a retired National Guard general, he's presumably drawing both a pension and a salary from the government. Walsh's campaign website slogan is "Montana courage," but the site has no information about his vote against Adegbile, or much of anything else requiring courage. A Montana newspaper reported that: "Walsh said through a spokeswoman that he voted against Adegbile because the controversy over his appointment would 'follow him to the Justice Department and distract from the important work of defending civil and voting rights.' " A few days later, Walsh was criticizing his opponent in the Montana Senate race of having "a cruel ideology, a cowardly ideology."
Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, 67 and a former governor, was first elected in 2010 (a special election) and won a full term in 2012 with 60% of the vote. He is devoted to the coal interests of his state, supports the Keystone XL pipeline, and was named second most bi-partisan senator in 2011 by Congressional Quarterly. After voting against Adegbile, according to the Washington Post, the usually chatty Manchin was tight-lipped with reporters, saying only, "I made a conscientious decision after talking to the wife of the victim, I made a conscientious decision, I made a conscientious decision" repeatedly. Manchin's campaign website offers an "editoial" written by the campaign claiming Manchin was "Right to Follow Conscience." The "editorial" does not mention the Constitution.
Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, 59, an attorney and former state attorney general, was first elected to the Senate in 2012. A search for "Adegbile" on her official webpage turns up nothing. In an email statement, Heitkamp explained her anti-constitutional vote with suitably craven illogic in support of the demagoguery that intimidated her, affirming the right of police state tactics to trump due process:
Mr. Adegbile has had an impressive career advocating for civil rights. But, as a former Attorney General, I was very concerned about a nominee who would face such staunch opposition from law enforcement officers from day one, as that will only make it more difficult for the Civil Rights division at DOJ – a very important and needed group – to do its job. I agree with North Dakota law enforcement officers that the President would be better served by nominating another individual who is not so controversial.
The speciousness of this argument prompted Ari Melber of MSNBC to write Heitkamp an open letter calling her on the hypocrisy of claiming to defend voting rights in a fundraising letter sent out after she has just undermined a strong defender of voting rights. His letter concludes, "President Obama called the vote a 'travesty.' And if this is the precedent you want to set – that no one who's defended 'controversial' clients can serve the public – then it's a travesty for all of us."
Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana, 59, an attorney, former Congressman, and child of white privilege, was elected to the Senate in 2012. His official website has no mention of "Adegbile," but touts a ranking that rates him slightly more conservative than liberal, neither of which explains a vote against constitutional principle by a lawyer. Appearing briefly on an Indiana TV station, Donnelly followed the Heitkamp script to explain his vote against Adegbile: "In Sen. Donnelly's interview with Amos, Donnelly stressed that while he respected Adegbile's qualifications for the job, Donnelly was convinced that the controversy would 'undermine' Adegbile's 'ability to work with law enforcement officials,' given the fierce opposition by police organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, to Adegbile's involvement in the Abu-Jamal case." Or in other words, why defend a qualified non-white man from being hounded by police bigots who don't even tell the truth?
Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, 51, a child of white privilege, has Yale graduate degrees in both divinity and law. A former county council president, Coons won the 2010 Senate special election against Christine O'Donnell. He is running for a full term in 2014. Coons initially came out in support of Adegbile, only to cave under pressure and make this statement after flip-flopping on his vote in favor of Adegbile in the Judiciary Committee: "At a time when the Civil Rights Division urgently needs better relations with the law enforcement community, I was troubled by the idea of voting for an Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights who would face such visceral opposition from law enforcement on his first day on the job. The vote I cast today was one of the most difficult I have taken since joining the Senate, but I believe it to be right for the people I represent."
If, as Coons says, the "Civil Rights Division urgently needs better relations with the law enforcement community," why is that not a sign that the law enforcement community is having trouble enforcing the law? Coons's full statement, on his official website, only makes his weakness look more pathetic:
Last month, I voted in the Judiciary Committee to move his nomination to the Senate floor because I believed his nomination should be debated and considered by the full Senate. As a lawyer, I understand the importance of having legal advocates willing to fight for even the most despicable clients, and I embrace the proposition that an attorney is not responsible for the actions of their client.
The decades-long public campaign by others, however, to elevate a heinous, cold-blooded killer to the status of a political prisoner and folk hero has caused tremendous pain to the widow of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner and shown great disrespect for law enforcement officers and families throughout our region. These factors have led me to cast a vote today that is more about listening to and respecting their concerns than about the innate qualifications of this nominee.
These seven Democratic dwarves agree on one thing: when a thuggish police-based minority dishonestly attacks democratic due process, it's the Constitution that should suffer. These people, like the rest of Congress, have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, even against a mob of cops outraged by the courts' denying them their lynching. They have enabled a cowardly tactic, but one that works: that the best way to avoid losing an argument is to prevent it from happening.
"Cop-killer" is a powerful epithet, rooted in an understandable outrage, but it is also a verbal barrier to any disinterested understanding of the underlying case, the 1981 murder of officer Daniel Faulkner, which is an undisputed fact. Also a fact, Mumia Abu-Jamal (born Wesley Cook) was convicted in 1982 of the murder. Another fact, usually omitted from summaries of the event, is that Abu-Jamal was also shot, in the lower abdomen, a wound that prevented him from fleeing the scene. This matters because none of the eyewitness statements describe the officer or anyone else firing any weapons, and no one says Abu-Jamal shot himself. That's only the beginning of the evidentiary strangeness of this case. It appears, from a brief review, that the jury verdict was supported by at least a preponderance of not very strong evidence, but perhaps not enough to meet the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Unlike some cases of wrongful conviction, this one lacks any credible alternative to the central conclusion reached by the jury, but there are enough contradictions, omissions, and procedural failures to make anyone wonder, with some humility, just what really happened.
With Abu-Jamal in prison for life, the appearance of justice has been met – except for those who will settle for nothing but the death penalty. But that is an emotional demand, not a legal or rational one. It is the reflexive but unreflective emotional cry of pain from Faulkner's widow and his fellow officers, as expressed here in Maureen Faulkner's online petition on change.org, with extreme bitterness: "In the three decades that followed [the murder], Abu-Jamal filed appeal after appeal – each rooted in lies, distortions and allegations of civil rights violations. Today, as Officer Faulkner lies in his grave, Abu-Jamal has become a wealthy celebrity and continues to spew his vitriol from prison."
This isn't argument, it's ad hominem attack. Although the consequences here do not include thousands of dead Iraqis and Americans, this is hysterical manipulation every bit as much as the scare-mongering of "a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud." And yes, it is also a protected form of free speech. But it is not a reasonable basis for governing, especially when it stampedes a majority in the Senate. That majority has done a lynch mob's job metaphorically and the White House called them on it with startlingly mild language:
The Senate's failure to confirm Debo Adegbile to lead the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice is a travesty based on wildly unfair character attacks against a good and qualified public servant. Mr. Adegbile's qualifications are impeccable. He represents the best of the legal profession, with wide-ranging experience, and the deep respect of those with whom he has worked. His unwavering dedication to protecting every American's civil and Constitutional rights under the law – including voting rights – could not be more important right now. And Mr. Adegbile's personal story – rising from adversity to become someone who President Bush's Solicitor General referred to as one of the nation's most capable litigators – is a story that proves what America has been and can be…. The fact that his nomination was defeated solely based on his legal representation of a defendant runs contrary to a fundamental principle of our system of justice….
That Senate majority – but especially those seven Democratic Senators – who voted against Adegbile's nomination did much worse than merely deny advancement to a capable and principled lawyer without any cogent reason for doing so. Adegbile may well be hurt, but he seems likely to survive this assault, which he has apparently suffered with a silent grace.
The seven timorous Democrats, in their collaboration with a nihilistic Republican strategy, have added to the damage from which American democracy will be a long time recovering, if it ever can.
These seven democrats represent profiles in no courage, running scared on a vote that should not have required any courage. These seven Democrats have colluded in a vote that reeks of racial bigotry:
- A vote that attacks due process of law;
- A vote that undermines vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act;
- A vote that reinforces Republican efforts in recent years to prevent certain categories of Americans from voting ever;
- A vote that ignores relevance, logic, and facts;
- A vote that promotes filibuster as an acceptable evasion of public responsibility;
- A vote that punishes civility and allows the screeching of a hate mob to overwhelm reasoned debate;
- A vote that punishes an innocent man for serving the Constitution;
- A vote that punishes the Constitution for giving rights to all.
After these seven Democratic quislings had collaborated in stopping Adegbile's nomination in its tracks, another Democrat switched his vote to join them. The eighth Democratic vote to sustain the filibuster was majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada who changed his vote for tactical reasons. Under Senate rules, only a senator who has voted against the nomination is entitled to bring it the floor again, and that's just one of many good deeds the other seven Democrats can't be trusted to do.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
|
G.O.P. Race Turns Ugly as Paul Head-Butts Cruz |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 12 March 2014 16:30 |
|
Borowitz writes: "In a preview of what promises to be a heated race for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2016, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) head-butted his rival Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on the floor of the United States Senate this morning."
(photos: Getty)
G.O.P. Race Turns Ugly as Paul Head-Butts Cruz
By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
12 March 14
The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."
 n a preview of what promises to be a heated race for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2016, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) head-butted his rival Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on the floor of the United States Senate this morning.
The melee "came without warning," one observer said, as Sen. Paul took to the well of the Senate to give a speech recommending a strong but measured response to the crisis in Ukraine.
Almost immediately, a furious and beet-red Sen. Cruz began heckling Sen. Paul, calling him a "Kentucky-fried Communist" and demanding that he "apologize to Ronald Reagan this very instant."
Sen. Paul seemed to ignore the heckling at first, but as Sen. Cruz's taunts descended into a stream of profane name-calling, the Kentuckian leapt from the well of the Senate and began throttling Sen. Cruz before administering the decisive head-butt.
"Shut up, you bastard!" Sen. Paul reportedly shouted during the brawl. "Shut up, or I'll make you shut up!"
A group of horrified senators - including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) - pulled the two men apart, aided by a C.I.A. agent who had been monitoring the Senate's activities at the time.
Within moments, the free-for-all was over, but not before more fists were thrown and a gash was opened over Sen. Cruz's left eye.
In the aftermath of the skirmish, Sen. Paul seemed pleased with the outcome. "Sen. Cruz and I may not always agree, but we're both passionate about our views," he said. "This kind of debate is healthy for the Republican Party."
Under the rules of the Senate, head-butting another senator results in a mandatory suspension of seven days, experts said.
|
|
