libertango: (Default)
... the term coming from [livejournal.com profile] pecunium.

Anyway, here's the roll call in the Senate for the FISA bill. This is the one that contains telco immunity, and a number of wholly superfluous security theater style measures that contribute not one whit to stopping actual terrorists in the field.

(Subtle hint: It's been known since Mohamed Farrah Aidid in Somalia that the easiest way to send messages with no wiretap at all is to send individual messengers. The odds are extremely high that no terrorist message will ever be intercepted, because they're not stupid enough to use a medium that can be readily tapped. That means this bill gives powers to the executive branch with no practical purpose other than to spy on everyday citizens.)

Others have commented on Obama's switch on this issue, mostly because the use of the issue of terror has become the Red-baiting of our time, and he doesn't want to be seen as "soft on terrorism" in an election. More disappointing to me was the vote of Webb of Virginia, who has been mentioned as a Veep candidate (including by me). No longer, as far as I'm concerned.

Mad props to Senators Feingold (who led the fight against the measure), Dodd, Cantwell, and Murray (which is to say, both of Washington's Senators remain committed to the Constitution).

2009

Jul. 29th, 2007 07:36 pm
libertango: (Default)
Naomi Wolf writes in the Guardian about the mechanics of replacing a democratic regime with an authoritarian one -- and how the Bush Administration seems to be following that playbook.

[livejournal.com profile] scalzi responds to the spirit of the piece (if not the specifics), by saying, basically, that it's too impractical, and besides, Bush is too unpopular (which is a subset of the first, really).

[livejournal.com profile] jaylake chimes in with his own response -- "(T)hese guys aren't long-term thinkers."

I wrote about this over a year ago, with the rhetorical question, "Why does Karl Rove still have a job?"

See, unlike John and Jay, I think the Bushies do think long term... Just very narrowly. When Scalzi writes, "(A)s I've noted before, the plan for the next eighteen months is a simple one: For Bush and pals to finish out their terms of office without actually admitting guilt about anything, so that when the extent of the damage is finally assessed, it'll look less attractive to punish them because they don't actually have any power any more... The goal now is simply to get out intact."

Here's the trouble with that: I don't think that's an achievable goal. I think a full round-robin of investigations and convictions of Administration officials is now inevitable once the Administration leaves. I think that will happen regardless of which party with the White House, and regardless of which candidate.

I think the Administration is, on the whole, of the same opinion.

These guys aren't acting like they're ever going to leave. They're acting with impunity, and I think that's partly because they think they're not going to be held accountable -- and there's only one way to get that done.

Now, one can say, "Even more practically than that, the military is nowhere near large enough to hold the entire of the United States..." -- as John does. But that's true now, too. One can say because the military oath is to the Constitution and not to The Man, that therefore the military will balk -- as many of Scalzi's commenters do.

But that only means one has to sell such a measure to the military as the Constitutional and legal thing to do. The path to that is fairly clear: It won't be presented as a permanent change of regime, or affairs. It will be presented as a "temporary emergency measure." And, as someone once said, nothing is as permanent as a temporary emergency measure.

If the Bushies are laying the groundwork for such a thing -- and I would argue that I, [livejournal.com profile] pecunium, David Neiwert, Glenn Greenwald, and others have been providing documentary evidence for that over a period of years -- then I think to refute that premise there needs to be a better response than, "La-la-la, it can't happen." You need to address specific items like the USA PATRIOT Act, and the superfluous NSA tapping, and the Executive Order of 17 July 2007, and HR 5122 (now PL 109-364), and...

...and if you say there were incremental, reasonable concerns that each of these measures addressed, and the collective picture doesn't mean much...

You've proved my point.

Insert your own Pastor Niemoller paraphrase here.
libertango: (Default)
According to Mr. Bush's speech last night, Iraq is anywhere from one to five years before being capable of launching a strike against us. Which is why it's so desperately urgent we hit them... um, tomorrow. {cough}

But the most disturbing thing about this whole scenario is how it plays out if you look at it logically.

There're two axes here: Either Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (WMD), or it doesn't. And Iraq will either use them, or they won't.

That means there're four outcomes, one of which is impossible:

Iraq doesn't have WMD, and won't use them. For me, this is the most likely outcome. You can see it all over the place in our own planning, with the devil-may-care attitude we're showing both about how long this war will last (over quickly enough for Tony Blair to stay PM a day or two, we hope), and the possibilities about retaliation. Then again, that means we're about to send 300,000 combined troops over to a country looking for weapons that don't exist. According to some polling data released during today's Talk of the Nation call-in show, 80% of Americans think Iraq has WMD, and that disarming Iraq is a major criterion for "victory". (Dear 80% of the US: Iraq is likely already unarmed, and you're likely to get a massive disappointment.) Either that, or I would look really carfeully at the serial numbers of whatever WMD we "find" -- especially after the fiasco of the forgery of the documents purporting to show Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. Also, this is the scenario most likely to generate the previously predicted 1-14 vote in the Security Council calling for sanctions against the US (and maybe the UK, if they're still in the game).

Iraq has WMD, and uses them. But if that's true... then we're sending 300,000 soldiers good and true to basically be burnt to a crisp so the Administration can then justify massive retaliation. And the Administration is doing this knowingly, with malice aforethought. Oddly, this doesn't comfort me. (Marshmallows at the Reichstag, anyone?)

Iraq has WMD, but won't use them. This appears to be the Officially Approved Plan. I hope Mr. Hussein has been properly briefed, and he sticks to the script. But it's the only way to explain the combination of no obvious contingencies for the use of WMD against our trops, intertwined with no apparent hesitation about the fact that months of concentrated effort through inspection, espionage, satellite flybys, and surreptitious signals listening has turned up... radio chatter with nothing else to back it up. {ooh! aah!} Ruel Marc Gerecht appears to have gotten it right in The Atlantic back in July 2001 -- our intelligence agencies appear to have about zero assets in the Near East region. Almost every breakthrough we've had appears to have been done by either the Israelis or the Pakistanis, with Our Boys brought in at the last minute for the photo op.

Iraq doesn't have WMD, but will somehow use them. This is the outcome that's logically impossible. Unless Mr. Hussein just rang up a massive credit card bill tonight. Or unless he just cut a deal with the North Koreans -- who almost certainly do have WMD at this point, which is why the Cowardly Lion treats them with such shyness -- to bomb us on his behalf.

Profile

libertango: (Default)
Hal

March 2022

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516 17 1819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 19th, 2025 01:24 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios