Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Media awakening to Bush lawlessness

by Glenn Greenwald

(updated below)

There is a potentially significant front-page article today in USA Today which claims -- with a mild amount of persuasiveness -- that "there are tentative signs that Congress and the courts are beginning to push back against what has been the greatest expansion of presidential powers in a generation or more." The article details various incidents which, it suggests, demonstrates that courts, Congress and even the American people are finally awakening to just how extremist the Bush administration's seizures of power are, and are beginning to take steps to impose restraints on the President.

According to the article, public opinion has clearly shifted on these issues:

Now, about half of Americans surveyed by USA TODAY/Gallup from Thursday to Sunday say the Bush administration has "gone too far in expanding the power of the presidency." About one-third say it has struck the right balance. Just 14% say it hasn't gone far enough.

To buttress the claim that there is a sea change in the willingness of Congress to stand up to the President's claims of limitless power, the article cites examples such as Congressional anger over the Jefferson search, the recent 9-6 vote of the Senate Intelligence Committee (with two GOP defections, Snowe and Hagel) to require full briefings on all intelligence matters, the Dubai port rebellion, and the alleged attempts by Congress to force the administration to comply with the McCain anti-torture law which Congress passed overwhelmingly but which the administration clearly intends to ignore.

The article also references the judicial rebuking of the administration by Judge Luttig in the Padilla case, as well as the Supreme Court's imminent decision on the legality of Guantanamo military tribunals, as evidence that courts are becoming increasingly skeptical of the administration's radical power theories. All of these events led Bruce Fein, who has great credibility on these issues, to observe:

Still, Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration, says Congress' attitude toward the White House is toughening a bit. "We're seeing, maybe, the embryonic stages of drawing the line and saying: 'Here. No more,' " he says.

And in a perversely amusing paragraph, Arlen Specter obviously thinks that it is now safe to meaningfully oppose the administration, because he tries, in the article, to depict himself as one of the early, lone warriors standing up to the administration's excesses when nobody else was brave enough to do so:

"You ask, 'Is the tide shifting?' and I say, 'Maybe, maybe,' " says Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has pushed for stronger congressional oversight of intelligence operations. "If you ask me if I still feel like a lonely voice, I would say that I feel like a member of a small chorus."

The article is most notable for its accurate description of the Bush power theories as being unprecedented in our nation's history -- one of the very few times this self-evident fact has been stated clearly and unapologetically in a national media outlet outside of The Boston Globe:

Tom Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, says Bush has exceeded even the expansive view that Franklin Roosevelt took of the presidency during the buildup to World War II.

Analysts credit Bush's ability to prevail in large part to the aftermath of 9/11, which buttressed Americans' backing for a president with the power to battle a shadowy and terrifying foe. In the fiercely partisan climate of Washington, the Republican-controlled House and Senate generally have lined up behind Bush, not challenged him.

"For five years, this Congress has been breathtakingly supine in the face of the most aggressive assertions of executive power we have seen in modern American history," Mann says. Even now, he says, the House "blowback" over the Jefferson search "probably wouldn't have happened if we didn't have a president whose popularity is in the low 30s."

While I don't yet share this optimism over Congress' supposed re-discovery of its institutional purpose, it is clearly the case that Bush's weaknesses are significant and growing, and those weaknesses render him far more vulnerable to being challenged on all fronts. The USA Today article accurately describes the reasons why some optimism on these issues is justified:

Bush's dismal job-approval ratings have made critics in Congress and elsewhere more willing to confront him. Another factor: As time passes the threat of
terrorism remains a potent argument but may no longer automatically trump other issues.

The only real weapon this administration possesses -- exploiting fears of terrorism -- simply isn't working well any longer. The growing emotional distance between now and 9/11 has -- for all but the most hysterical and frightened Americans -- put the terrorist threat into its proper perspective along side other threats. And even for those still vulnerable to fear-mongering, the lack of trust in the president means that mere invocation of protection promises no longer suffice to induce the public to overlook the administration's ineptitude and misconduct.

The theories of power claimed by this administration are so patently contrary to the ingrained beliefs which Americans have about our country that I do not think it will take all that much to induce real opposition and anger. The reason the opposition has been muted is not because Americans know what the administration is doing but don't care. It's because they don't know what the administration has been doing, because the national press has so profoundly failed in its duty to inform them. Articles such as this one from USA Today were unthinkable several months ago -- when the only discussion of Bush lawlessness was taking place in the blogosphere. But the steady emergence of articles like this one signify that these issues will, finally, receive the attention they deserve.

UPDATE: I will be at the University of Florida today at 4:00 p.m. for a Book Talk, at the Civic Media Center. Tomorrow, I will be in San Francisco at Book Passages for a book signing at 7:00 p.m. (1 Ferry Bldg # 34). On Thursday, I will be on the Will & Willy Show from 8:00-8:30 a.m, and then at a W&W book signing from 8:30-10:00 a.m. (Hotel Vitale, 8 Mission St.). The same day, there will be a Book Launch Party from 6:00-8:00 p.m. at Swig (561 Geary); if you are interested in attending, please e-mail Jennifer Nix (JNix@wafs.com) for a ticket. On Friday, from 12:00-1:00 p.m., I will be at the Working Assets Speakers Series Lunch (101 Market - RSVP: 415-369-2158). I'll post other SF events, including media appearances, as they are confirmed.

From June 10-12, I'll be in Las Vegas for Yearly Kos, including a book signing, along with a panel I am on (regarding privacy and civil liberties issues) with Ralph Neas of People for the American Way and Jeani Murray, the National Field Director for the ACLU. I'll be in Washington, DC from June 12-14 and then New York from June 15-18 and will post the specific events as those dates approach.

51 comments:

  1. Anonymous11:21 AM

    Glenn, why do you constantly point to arlen sphincter as some sort of potential "savior" - he is a lying liar that has constantly provided cover for this administration.

    He makes a statement that sounds like he is providing the "oversight", people like you make a bunch of noise about it, and then sphincter flip-flops and caves in.

    Not really a rational post, glenn.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Glenn, why do you constantly point to arlen sphincter as some sort of potential "savior" - he is a lying liar that has constantly provided cover for this administration.

    Please read posts a little more carefully before commenting on them. I said that the paragraph featuring the Specter quote was "perversely amusing" because Specter tries to depict himself as being a real warrior against the Administration.

    In other words, the part of the post on which you commented meant the opposite of what you suggested. I have repeatedly pointed out, and lamented, Specter's lack of follow through on all of his pretenses to independence. Nonetheless, between Republicans who never criticize the president and those who do criticize the president, I prefer the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous11:27 AM

    *)*

    Arlen Specter needs to understand that saying you oppose something and doing nothing about it when you are th head of a the Judiciary committee is a far cry from being a trailblazer. He frustrates me because he clearly gets it, but is unwilling to have the courage to follow through on his convictions.

    If I interpret your general viewpoint to be that US Today (haven't read it yet) is correct that a pattern of opposition is emerging but that they overstate it as being the fullblown insurrection that will be needed and should have been the response a long time ago to the Adminstration, then we are in agreement. And the media is to blame. They could have and should have made the Republican tricks in the '04 election apparent and they should be telling the story every day of the dangers of this administration and its usurpation of power.

    Why do Keith Olberman and Steven Colbert get ti and so few others?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous11:39 AM

    Glenn, sadly I am not optimistic at all. the bushies are gangsters and they will resort to what ever it takes to keep and solidify control. I see them staging a terrorist attack and going for martial law. I don't think this is beyond them in the least.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous11:43 AM

    I will believe the backlash when I actually see it. Bush's attitude, efforts, and actions have been no secret since before 9-11. (It started with his sealing of presidential records on the day he took office.) We've heard these sorts of murmurings before.

    Unfortunately, there is no end of media lackeys--including the New York Times and Washington Post--that will eagerly step up to tell us that Bush needs all the powers of an absolute dictator to keep us safe and snug. And with all the lapdogs in the Republican congress, and geniuses like Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court, I doubt we'll see any real action toward curbing Bush's power.

    Indeed, it will take the election of a Democratic president before Congress and the courts step in to dramatically curtail the power of the president.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous11:45 AM

    *)*

    yes I agree, teh election of Hillary Clinton will do more to reign in presidential power than all of the proclamations from Specter and his ilk...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous12:05 PM

    I'm inclined to give Ken Paulson, USA Today's editor, credit for the recent uptick in the quality of their journalism. Here's hoping their competitors feel compelled to keep up.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous12:07 PM

    Glenn says:
    The theories of power claimed by this administration are so patently contrary to the ingrained beliefs which Americans have about our country that I do not think it will take all that much to induce real opposition and anger.

    The keening about presidential power is just pitiful not to mention hypocritical. How about putting up pictures of Japanese internment camps to remind yourself how little Bush has extended the Presidency relative to FDR.

    This isn't about Presidential power it's about politics and the effort to denigrate Bush and everything he affects. As always, it's easier to tear down than build. One only need see the lack of alternatives offered to understand the real point.

    As example I offer Mr. Jefferson Democrat Louisiana. The man has been videotaped, caught with marked bills, and evaded subpeonas for months, but the controversy is whether his offices are sacrosanct not that he is part of the "culture of corruption" Democrats used to be crowing about.

    Too bad the troops in Haditha don't get the same presumption of innocence. This is a beautiful example of why liberal protestations
    don't carry weight. The absurdities are too compelling.

    I think USA today is on the way to the MSM "B" team along with the NY Times and CBS. Between this and the rehash of the NSA non-eavesdropping, they are wasting our time with non-journalism.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous12:09 PM

    If I remember correctly, the Iran-Contra story broke within a day or 2 after the 1986 midterm elections made Reagan an official lame duck. I would expect that there will be an serious backlash against Bush beginning after these midterms also, especially if the Democrats do well (unless of course he plays the war card as he did in 2002). As long as Bush retains political and fund-raising power, a lot of powder will be kept dry - but after November that all dissipates.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous12:30 PM

    Cooter speaks

    As always, it's easier to tear down than build.

    Projection at it s finest. Cooter pretty much describes the Republican playbook. 1992-2000 comes readily to mind.

    As example I offer Mr. Jefferson Democrat Louisiana. The man has been videotaped, caught with marked bills, and evaded subpeonas for months, but the controversy is whether his offices are sacrosanct not that he is part of the "culture of corruption" Democrats used to be crowing about.

    Possibly one of the most fucktarded paragraphs ever written. Culture would indicate plural. As in more than one
    And I believe most Dems who haunt the netroots demanded Jefffersons imeadiete resignation. Oh, and what was that congresspersons name who did the same? Pelosei was it?

    Compare and contrast with Republican reaction to their multitudes of crooks, starting with the bug-man himself. No calls for anything other than gutting the ethnics committee.

    Oh and wait, who was howling about the sancrosisity of congressional offices? Wassn't that fat little Denny Hastert himself?

    Cooter, do you even read anything before you shoot off your fat stupid chicken-hawk mouth?

    Or do you just rush over here and vomit up the latest Oxy-cotin kings talking points. Dont forget that your hero and sage was stoned on powerfull narcotics pretty much the whole time he was deliviring your Pavlonian programming.

    For Gods sake man, doesn't it bother you in the least to be so tranparently perdictable. Have you never ever wanted to have an original thought of your own?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous12:32 PM

    'Here. No more,'

    It's the "here" that is the problem.

    Even if the press and Congress now think "here" is where things should stay, what good is it?

    America is headed for a soft dictatorship by the end of Bush’s second term. Whether any American has civil rights will be decided by the discretionary power of federal officials. The public in general will tolerate the soft dictatorship as its discretionary powers will mainly be felt by those few who challenge it.

    -Paul Craig Roberts

    "Here" is a soft dictatorship.We've reached the "don't move and you will not be aware of the chains" stage.

    It's better than a "hard dictatorship" for sure, but is this what people are going to have to settle for?

    I'm not even saying "here" is still not better than the rest of the world. But it's hard to be completely happy "down on the farm" after one's seen Par-ee.

    And we did see "Par-ee" in this country, with all its flaws and warts, despite what David Byron and others maintain.

    Words by Sam M. Lewis, 1885-1959
    and Joe Young, 1889-1939
    Verse1:

    “Reuben, Reuben, I’ve been thinking,”
    Said his wifey dear;
    “Now that all is peaceful and calm,
    The boys will soon be back on the farm;”
    Mister Reuben, started wink-ing,
    And slowly rubbed his chin;
    He pulled his chair up close to mother,
    And he asked her with a grin:


    CHORUS [sung twice after each verse]
    How ’ya gonna keep ’em, down on the farm,
    After they’ve seen Pa-ree?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous12:36 PM

    shooter242: "As example I offer Mr. Jefferson Democrat Louisiana. The man has been videotaped, caught with marked bills, and evaded subpeonas for months, but the controversy is whether his offices are sacrosanct not that he is part of the "culture of corruption" Democrats used to be crowing about.

    Too bad the troops in Haditha don't get the same presumption of innocence. This is a beautiful example of why liberal protestations
    don't carry weight. The absurdities are too compelling."

    What's absurd is that you think you are making a point. "Liberal protestations"? Against what? No one has defended this William Jefferson guy. I don't even think anyone here has defended him at all. So how can that be an example? Besides, Denny Hastert seems to be his biggest defender.

    "Yeah, but Democrats are corrupt to" doesn't mean it's okay. Two wrongs do not make a right. I don't support crooks and liars, so that excludes almost all Republicans and many Democrats.

    shooter242, you do know we can read your comments, right? We can tell that you are trying to change the subject. Thanks for the red herring.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous12:45 PM

    Shooter says:
    The keening about presidential power is just pitiful not to mention hypocritical. How about putting up pictures of Japanese internment camps to remind yourself how little Bush has extended the Presidency relative to FDR.

    FDR might still be getting elected if they could re-animate him and he had not decided that four terms was un-American. Just burns you up, doesn't it? As to the internment camps, there are just so many things wrong with this comparison, I'll just say they in hindsight, though a draconian measure, it was probably in their best interests. Protective custody if you like because anti-Japanese sentiment in people like you may have led to inevitable physical harm.


    This isn't about Presidential power it's about politics and the effort to denigrate Bush and everything he affects. As always, it's easier to tear down than build. One only need see the lack of alternatives offered to understand the real point.

    Politics is about power. Clinton.

    As example I offer Mr. Jefferson Democrat Louisiana. The man has been videotaped, caught with marked bills, and evaded subpeonas for months, but the controversy is whether his offices are sacrosanct not that he is part of the "culture of corruption" Democrats used to be crowing about.

    Too bad the troops in Haditha don't get the same presumption of innocence. This is a beautiful example of why liberal protestations
    don't carry weight. The absurdities are too compelling.


    He would get bail, maybe even OR'd, and you'd be fine with it. You'd be the first screaming bloody murder if a group of people who were accused of a massacre weren't held without bail, especially if they were black people. It seems the Republicans are some of Jefferson's biggest supporters. Why is that? This is about the power to steal with impunity. It has little to do with political party affiliation.


    I think USA today is on the way to the MSM "B" team along with the NY Times and CBS. Between this and the rehash of the NSA non-eavesdropping, they are wasting our time with non-journalism.

    Pray tell. What is a class "A" journalistic outfit in your humble estimation, Shooter?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous12:49 PM

    The War on Terra is making its regular election year appearance. "Experts" are predicting, oddly enough, the likelihood of a terrorist attack by the end of the year.

    Imagine that. Since the whole Orange, Yellow, Red crap doesn't blow anymore, they need to actually come up with a little attack, or "credible" threat of an attack in order to try to stop the stampede away from the GOP in this year's election.

    It is just so amazing how the universe manages to bring on terra activity that is coincident with American elections of late. There must be some hidden "natural law" at work.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous1:01 PM

    If another terrorist attack takes place and succeeds, it will just be the latest example of the excruciating incompetence of this administration.

    And, it should be the final straw before impeachment that rids us of this dangerous gang of criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous1:05 PM

    The reason the opposition has been muted is not because Americans know what the administration is doing but don't care. It's because they don't know what the administration has been doing, because the national press has so profoundly failed in its duty to inform them.

    The press, and of course congress, have indeed rolled over on these issues, but I'm afraid that they can bear only part of the burden.

    What truly worries me is the degree to which the esteem that Americans accord to constitutional rights has declined.

    Just from the major news stories, the public has seen enough to know where this administratin is taking us, and yet there has been no great protest.

    Torture in Guatanamo, Abu Ghraib and in secret prisons received a lot of media attention, but had zero effect on the 2004 elections. Plenty of evidence about Presidential manipulation of the facts for war - the "yellow cake" scandal in particular - has reached a majority of Americans. And the latest revelations about the NSA's country-wide dragnet of phone conversations are also well known.

    So far, the national response has been relatively ho-hum. The fact that any of these policies are still even open for debate is sadly telling.

    On top of that, add the following into the mix:

    That the long campaign to undermine the judicial system and the press has been fairly successful.

    That national surveys show significant numbers of Americans preferring to give up "some freedoms" in exchange for security.

    That, in a survey of 100,000 highschool students, a third consider first amendment rights to freedom of speech to "go to far". Only half believe that newspapers should be allowed to publish stories without approval from the government. And more than a quarter disagreed with the statement, "People should be allowed to express unpopular opinions."

    I admire your optimism, Glenn, but I'm afraid that the only reason we're starting to see any real opposition is because the President's approval is so weak now.

    What if, instead of Bush, we had a similarly minded administration which was actually competent in governing and in carrying out its military adventures abroad.

    That thought frightens the hell out of me.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous1:11 PM

    That national surveys show significant numbers of Americans preferring to give up "some freedoms" in exchange for security.

    Yeah? Ok, let's have an opt out system. The cowards and idiots can sign away their Constitutional Rights, but that's it. Only their own. The rest of us get to keep them...all...unweakened and unsullied by cowardice.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous1:23 PM

    When they say "some freedoms", I think they mean someone else's freedoms - the freedoms of dissenters like us.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous1:32 PM

    The Congressional 'drawing a line in the sand' is meaningless. Until they are willing to challenge Bush's signing statements, they will remain impotent, and they might as well be pissing in the sand for all he cares.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Damn. Gonna miss you, Glenn (unless you're somewhere late Friday). I'm in Seattle this week, and won't get back to the Bay Area until after 6 on Friday....

    Send me a JPEG of your sig, and I'll print it and paste it into the book. ;-)

    Anyway, best wishes, and hope you enjoy the Bay Area (and get lots of attention).

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  21. Glenn:

    There is a potentially significant front-page article today in USA Today which claims -- with a mild amount of persuasiveness -- that "there are tentative signs that Congress and the courts are beginning to push back against what has been the greatest expansion of presidential powers in a generation or more."

    Actually, this article only reveals the rank ignorance of the reporters who wrote it.

    According to the article, public opinion has clearly shifted on these issues:

    Now, about half of Americans surveyed by USA TODAY/Gallup from Thursday to Sunday say the Bush administration has "gone too far in expanding the power of the presidency." About one-third say it has struck the right balance. Just 14% say it hasn't gone far enough.


    You notice how these poll-itorials never describe which powers of the Presidency. As soon as you accurately define an actual executive act like surveilling international al Qaeda calls, support goes through the roof.

    To buttress the claim that there is a sea change in the willingness of Congress to stand up to the President's claims of limitless power, the article cites examples such as Congressional anger over the Jefferson search...

    You mean the search conducted pursuant to a court warrant of the place of work of a Donkey congressman who allegedly was videotaped taking a $100,000 bribe. That vote looks more like institutional CYA. I imagine the board of directors at Enron would have voted to object to the search of their records as well.

    the recent 9-6 vote of the Senate Intelligence Committee (with two GOP defections, Snowe and Hagel) to require full briefings on all intelligence matters...

    Briefings do not limit the President's Article II power in the least.

    the Dubai port rebellion

    Actually, this was hunky dory with the reviewing congressional committees until the yellow press played the Arab = Terrorist card and our shameless representatives of both parties crapped all over one of our best allies in the ME.

    This also has nothing to do with the exercise of the President's Article II power because the port management approval process is performed pursuant to a congressional statute enacted under its Article I power.

    and the alleged attempts by Congress to force the administration to comply with the McCain anti-torture law which Congress passed overwhelmingly but which the administration clearly intends to ignore.

    What attempts are those?

    The article also references the judicial rebuking of the administration by Judge Luttig in the Padilla case, as well as the Supreme Court's imminent decision on the legality of Guantanamo military tribunals, as evidence that courts are becoming increasingly skeptical of the administration's radical power theories.

    :::chuckle:::

    Luttig was the author of that Circuit Court of Appeals opinion which supported the Administration's "radical power theory" used to detain Padilla. Luttig was hardly a judicial backlash. Rather, he was pissed because the Administration declined to defend his opinion before the Supremes.

    And in a perversely amusing paragraph, Arlen Specter obviously thinks that it is now safe to meaningfully oppose the administration, because he tries, in the article, to depict himself as one of the early, lone warriors standing up to the administration's excesses when nobody else was brave enough to do so:

    "You ask, 'Is the tide shifting?' and I say, 'Maybe, maybe,' " says Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has pushed for stronger congressional oversight of intelligence operations. "If you ask me if I still feel like a lonely voice, I would say that I feel like a member of a small chorus."


    Arlen is right, he is part of a small chorus. Arlen is mostly ticked off because he is not a member of the Intelligence Committee and is not being briefed on the NSA Program.

    Tom Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, says Bush has exceeded even the expansive view that Franklin Roosevelt took of the presidency during the buildup to World War II.

    LMAO!!!

    Mr. Mann should know better than this.

    Roosevelt imprisoned nearly all American's of Japanese descent for the duration of WWII and freely wiretapped American citizens suspected of subversion with the assistance of DA Jackson of future Youngstown fame in the face of Congressional statutes and dissent.

    Bush has returned Presidential power to where it was prior to the radical 1974 Congress. It isn't even close to where it was during WWII.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous2:16 PM

    While it is a shift in coverage of the Administration’s power grab, this can change in a matter of minutes.

    "The growing emotional distance between now and 9/11 has -- for all but the most hysterical and frightened Americans -- put the terrorist threat into its proper perspective along side other threats."

    All progress would be wiped clean from a new attack. It would not surprise me if Bush, Chaney, and Rove are praying in the bowels of the Whitehouse for a reminder to the American people.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Oh, hey, welcome to Gainesville. Won't be able to make it but hope you get a good-sized turnout.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Paul Rosenberg said that "The fact that USA Today is writing this story is the story"

    I agree. I'm even willing to take that one step further and speculate that these sorts of stories could be self-fulfilling. The more people realize that reasonable people are outraged, and that Bush isn't invincible, the more people will join in. That may be true both for the general public and for Congress.

    Here's hoping.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Oh, and all of those complaining about the word "unprecedented" need to read more carefully. His actions aren't necessarily unprecedented; his theories are. If you're interested in actually having a discussion rather than ridiculing the other side, feel free to ask why the theories are unprecedented. But don't waste our time with what you've been doing so far.

    ReplyDelete
  26. HWSNBN has a mouse in his pocket:

    Actually, this article only reveals the rank ignorance of the reporters who wrote it.

    The troll HWSNBN has better facts than we do (or than the reporters).

    Game, set, and match, I guess.

    You notice how these poll-itorials never describe which powers of the Presidency. As soon as you accurately define an actual executive act like surveilling international al Qaeda calls, support goes through the roof.

    The standard dogshit on HWSNBN's shoes doesn't smell any better the 364th time around. No one is against surveilling al Qaeda (not to mention that surveilling foreign al Qaeda isn't even covered by FISA). But Don Quixote here fares much better tilting at the windmills of his mind than he does in the "reality based community", so that's where he will tilt his lance....

    Luttig was the author of that Circuit Court of Appeals opinion which supported the Administration's "radical power theory" used to detain Padilla. Luttig was hardly a judicial backlash....

    Glenn's pointing out that when you've lost Luttig, you're really in the downward slope.

    ... Rather, he was pissed because the Administration declined to defend his opinion before the Supremes.

    Evidence? Oh, sorry, this is HWSNBN, Master Of The Repeated Bald Assertion. I forgot, folks...

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  27. HWSNBN:

    Roosevelt imprisoned nearly all American's of Japanese descent for the duration of WWII and freely wiretapped American citizens suspected of subversion with the assistance of DA Jackson of future Youngstown fame in the face of Congressional statutes and dissent.

    Bush has returned Presidential power to where it was prior to the radical 1974 Congress. It isn't even close to where it was during WWII.

    HWSNBN is a fan of FDR!!! Who wouldda thunk it? FWIW, most people nowadays think that the interning of the nisei during WWII was wrong. Not HWSNBN. He'd defend Stalin, "summary executions" and all, if Stalin was a Republican. "Security of the state", yaknow....

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous3:22 PM

    It's pretty amazing that in a lengthy article they somehow managed to avoid mentioning Feingold's name. Still, we should be grateful the article was published at all.

    ReplyDelete
  29. OK, so I start my day at various big name sites to see what are the issues being talked about today. Unfortunately, I read this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/05/terror/main1683852.shtml
    Before I read Glenn’s post today.

    Now, supposedly the USA Today is showing just the meekest of signs that a backlash against presidential power grabs is on the ascent. I’d find that to be a questionable assertion. Because the repeated nut stompings that this administration has subjected our Constitution and Congress to has not garnered much more than minor protestations from Congresscritters. And, has generated very little in the way of MSM news coverage, or analysis.

    The USA Today story’s interest is twofold. 1. The story being printed itself. 2. The amazingly tepid “backlash” that the story describes. I feel as if this administration has almost completely sawed the legs off some of the very underpinnings of this great society and now were just listening to the creaking timbers, waiting for the disasters they have set in motion (WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT!) to fall upon our collective heads.

    But, take a good look at that CBS story. There are ‘anonymous’ government sources that are predicting that a terrorist attack will occur before the end of the year. So, will there be any criminal investigations into the journalists that had the temerity to publish such vital national security information? Will there be a searching a fearless investigation into the anonymous government sources that are revealing this to CBS news?

    Glenn, the fear machine has just coughed out its coming message for the campaign season. If I’ve been reading you right, you assert that public opinion and pressure on our public officials is about the only way we are going to see any meaningful backlash from the Congress against the Administration and that any attempts at litigation will be unsuccessful. Well, if that is the case our only hope is the establishment media. Calling congressional offices with outrage will have an affect but that has not shown to be ineffective in stopping Hayden, Alito nominations as examples.

    I’m at a loss as to how we can influence the media to assert itself as the fourth check on government when it has steadfastly refused that role since 2001.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Paul:

    In a better universe, Arlen Specter and Joe Biden would be doing a lounge act in Vegas, dreaming of headlining someday.


    I JUST LOVE THAT.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous3:51 PM

    Bart... Roosevelt imprisoned nearly all American's of Japanese descent for the duration of WWII and freely wiretapped American citizens suspected of subversion with the assistance of DA Jackson of future Youngstown fame in the face of Congressional statutes and dissent.

    Bush has returned Presidential power to where it was prior to the radical 1974 Congress. It isn't even close to where it was during WWII.



    Two of the three countries of a real "Axis of Evil" (not some pre-packaged and pre-digested) PR fantasy) that had declared war and attacked us actually had the most powerful armies on the planet, and naval and air forces to match. Not like today where we cower in fear because nineteen guys got onto a few planes and hijacked them flying them into a building. Maybe we should build smaller buildings.

    Tell us again how we are at war and in a global struggle with a guy hiding in a cave on a dialysis machine. Iraq doesn't count. We don't belong there. Never did. And if I was an Iranian, I'd be trying to get something to defend my country too. What with a dangerous rogue predator on the loose, from an Iranian's point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous4:34 PM

    DavidByron -

    Consider the Coney Island hotdog eating contest.

    Eating 75 hotdogs in one hour is unprecedented, even though people eat hotdogs all the time.

    I hope that simple example makes it clear how the scale of President Bush's use of signing statements is actually nprecedented, even though presidents have issues them in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous5:30 PM

    What exactly has Bush supposedly done that is literally unprecedented in US history?

    Oh, like delegating to himself the power of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. The vehicle is signing statements wherein he, in unprecedented manner, REWRITES or NEGATES laws passed by Congress, the ONLY authority for passing laws.

    He unprecedentedly hasn't vetoed a single bill, favoring instead an illegitimate "signing statement" that claims bills he doesn't like are essentially null and void.

    Here's the thing. The President doesn't get to decide what is or is not Constitutional. If he doesn't like a law, s/he gets to veto it. Period. If the veto is overridden and s/he still strongly feels it is unConstitutional, the s/he gets to appeal to the Supreme Court. Period. S/he does NOT get to ignore the law. S/he has no power to nullify the law beyond a veto that withstands a vote in the Senate ("Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law."). Nope, no signing statements here that allow a pass on the laws.

    NO president prior to Bushbot has used signing statements to rewrite or nullify laws. It is particularly egregious as most of Bushie's claims of Article II authority, none tested in court, ignores the fine print in Articles I of the Constitution: such as that it is expressly the Congress that gets to make the rules on captures and prisoner handling, NOT the President ("To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water")...pretty friggin clear here. Congress has stated clearly and without ambiguity: no torture, no abuse. Bushie has to obey. Period.

    It is the Congressional prerogative to regulate the military as well beyond captures, etc ("To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces"). Bushie doesn't have regulatory authority over the military.

    Neither the President nor Abu Gonzales nor Rummy nor Cheney can simply abrogate treaties, even they think "quaint" or "outdated ("This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.").

    Finally, in the Bill of Rights, it is patently clear that the President (nor Congress for that matter) has NO authority to spy on American citizens sans warrant. He can spy on foreigners, he can collect foreign intelligence in a manner that would otherwise violate the 4th Amendment, but he cannot do so exclusively against American citizens.

    Bush violates the Constitution just by breathing.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "We're seeing, maybe, the embryonic stages of drawing the line and saying: 'Here. No more,' "

    Not good enough. To stop the damage to our Constitutional system is important, but not near so as reversing the damage already done.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous6:49 PM

    The bigerns writes:

    "We're seeing, maybe, the embryonic stages of drawing the line and saying: 'Here. No more,' "

    Not good enough. To stop the damage to our Constitutional system is important, but not near so as reversing the damage already done.


    Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. I can't see what good it is locking the stall door after the horse has already bolted.

    The Patriot Act (and all its ramifications) is not something which can be lived with and "tolerated." It has to be repealed, which is why Sen. Feingold voted against it in the first place, and sanity has to be restored to this country.

    Personally I think the main way a Patriot would act is to work first to repeal the Patriot Act. It was a hoax to begin with, an attempt under the guise of "security" to introduce America to Orwell and to start dismantling the Fourth Amendment and other parts of the Constitution which are central to our concept of government.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous7:18 PM

    Sure he was the worst for those but other presidents were worse at other things. Who counts worse overall for abuse? And is anyone a clear winner in the manner of your example? Or is it that the worst guy (whoever he is) is eating 75 dogs and the next guy is at 69?

    Bush's use of signing statements is "literally unprecedented in US history", that was my only point.

    And I don't really feel the need to look at it more broadly. I don't care if there have been other presidents in U.S. history worse than George W. Bush on quantitative grounds. I'll let people with more knowledge of the subject decide that.

    Qualitatively, I know enough to know that he's awful.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous7:45 PM

    What the major said at 6:30pm...sheer genius. You, sir, have encompassed the entirety of the thought process (such as it is) AND highlighted the typical edumacation level of these cretins in one perfect post.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous7:50 PM

    Glenn, I have read your post as closely as I care too -- perhaps you didn't read mine. Arlen is much more than "perversely amusing" because Specter tries to depict himself as being a real warrior against the Administration.

    In fact, he is one of their major enablers - talking stands that get trumped up in the MSM and even on the "so-called-liberal" blogosphere. By Friday's "news-dump" time, he reverses himself and consistently shows himself to be a major enabler, running distractions and creating the impression that the "adults" are in charge.

    IMHO, you consistently have missed that and miss it again -- arlen is like the rodeo clown, taking the heat off and then hiding in the barrel, waiting until he is needed for the next distraction.

    Sorry, I find the quality of your posts rapidly diminishing, but then I know that I can't expect much from "darling" of FDL, atrios, and the rest of the fake latte liberals that thow the "L" word around while abandoning the progressive/liberal issues that made the democrats a viable party.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous7:54 PM

    first of all, anonymous, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Reagan all used signing statements. The difference is that gW has used them MORE THAN ALL PRESIDENTS COMBINED.

    No, it goes beyond that. Neither Clinton nor Bush Sr used signing statements to override or nullify laws. Bush has with abandon. Invalid and unbinding. He violates a law, regardless of his signing statement that he doesn't like the law (such as he really really WANTS to torture prisoners because he's "the War President(tm)) are irrelevant. They are also indicative that it is worse than the signing statements indicate.

    He claims in his 750 signing statements, unlike Clinton or Bush Sr, that law after law after law doesn't apply to King George. They do.

    And again, if he has a problem with the legislative branch's laws, then he has one and only one out: veto, followed by court challenge if he's overridden. The end. Get it?

    The problem isn't just the number of signing statements, it is the fact that not all signing statements are equal. Bush's signing statements are far beyond acceptable and far beyond all past examples of signing statements, claiming in them powers for which he does NOT have.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous8:37 PM

    "That's just not interesting. Bush is also "unprecedented" for having twin daughters in the WH. So what? I thought the point was to say Bush was doing something bad somehow?

    If plenty of other presidents issued signing statements, not just one or two each but scores, hundreds of them, I just don't see any big deal, and I don't think -- I certainly hope this isn't why Glenn is saying Bush is "unprecedented". "


    So you've accepted that the number of times Bush has issued signing statements is in fact unprecedented, right?

    I think they are bad because he uses them to cheat the process intended in the Constitution (which he swore on the Bible to uphold).

    When he disagrees with a law passed by Congress Bush issues a signing statement in order to ignore that law rather than vetoing it. If Clinton, Bush, Sr., or Reagan did the same then shame on them.

    It seems too obvious to explain why this is bad, but if you disagree I'll try to explain some other time.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Michael Birk,

    During WWII, did President Roosevelt have the constitutional authority to sign Executive Order 9066?

    "Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion"

    If not, why not?

    David Byron 2:03 PM,

    "What exactly has Bush supposedly done that is literally unprecedented in US history?"

    Respond to a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 civilians?

    David Byron 9:50 PM,

    "what is the basis for the claim that Bush is unprecedented in his claim of presidential powers?"

    I think it goes something like this David:

    1) Some claim that by authorizing warrant less surveillance of international communications starting in October 2001, with congressional oversight mind you, President Bush "broke the law" [FISA] and;

    2) The unprecedented part seems to be a result of the president claiming that he has both a duty owed to the American people, as well as the inherent constitutional authority, to defend the nation against foreign attack.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous10:26 PM

    According to the article, public opinion has clearly shifted on these issues:
    Now, about half of Americans surveyed by USA TODAY/Gallup from Thursday to Sunday say the Bush administration has "gone too far in expanding the power of the presidency." About one-third say it has struck the right balance. Just 14% say it hasn't gone far enough.


    This is utter rubbish. Even if we accept the premises of this highly biased article we have the following breakdown of public opinion:
    49% - Bush has gone too far
    34% - Bush has struck the right balance
    14% - Bush is too soft on this issue
    That is almost an even split. Of course, this depends greatly on the exact phrasing of the question, choice of random sample, etc., and we may rest assured that the leftists who comissioned this poll tilted it as much as possible to get the desired result. Nevertheless despite their best efforts, they managed this pathetic near draw. A more fair and balanced poll would show an overwhelming majority of Americans support our great President on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  43. anonymous:

    [USA Today]: Now, about half of Americans surveyed by USA TODAY/Gallup from Thursday to Sunday say the Bush administration has "gone too far in expanding the power of the presidency."

    49% - Bush has gone too far
    34% - Bush has struck the right balance
    14% - Bush is too soft on this issue


    That is almost an even split. Of course, this depends greatly on the exact phrasing of the question, ...

    Yeah, I suppose they could have been more accurate and asked:

    "Do you think that Dubya's gone too far in wiretapping people without warrants despite laws prohibiting such, threatening reporters with espionage prosecutions, vacuuming up the telephone billing records for the whole country, holding people indefinitely without charges, torturing people, 'rendering' them to other coutries with even less scruples, stamping every gummint activity with a "top secret, we won't tell ya, neener-neener" designation, etc., etc.?..."

    That might shed more light on the real situation.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous2:44 AM

    Please get a handle if you want to continue back and forth conversations.

    Sorry, I probably won't. I usually don't post in discussion forums and don't have enough time to start.

    Thank you for the debate. We'll just have to disagree that Bush is a historically poor president.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Some of us Republicans have been criticizing Bush (and Congress) for power grabbing for a couple of years now. Real Republicans oppose excessive federal (and other government) power, and want government to Stop Wasting Money.

    Warren Redlich
    Republican Candidate for Congress
    NY - 21st Congressional District

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymous3:55 AM

    David Byron: I object to your rude, vile post to Paul Rosenberg.

    Tend to your own house. You have nothing to offer here. Hate America on your own time, not ours.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous6:43 AM

    The Major said...
    Another bad thing about liberals is they always blame everybody else for there mistakes.
    Everytime they screw up its never there fault its always President George W. Bush's fault.
    Like with Iraq. Everybody knows that we arent loosing there but if we are its because the liberalsa re always giving aid and vomfort to the enemy. But to them its always George W. Bush's fault evnen though hes done everything right and there traitorous liberal fifth columnests.
    So what part of everything changes on 911 dont you understand you selazy liberals.
    Oh and you might as well not ty to argue with me cause youl loose bad so why not give up right now its what liberals do best anyway.

    9:34 PM


    If this is parody, I hope it's your first attempt. It's difficult to tell. If it's not parody, I wasn't aware they had the rank of Major in the Boy Scouts.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous1:41 PM

    So can we quit talking about arlen sphincter as the guy that will save us? Even if we add "qualifiers" to the statement - he is just part of the propaganda machine, granstanding and providing the illustion that there is adult oversight.

    Specter Won't Subpoena Telecom Executives

    By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer

    Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Tuesday he will hold off subpoenaing the telecommunications chiefs while he works with the White House on his legislation that would ask a secretive federal court to review the constitutionality of Bush's surveillance operations.
    =================================

    Glenn you don't add anything to the dialog by even mentioning the "media stunts" sphincter creates as distractions.

    Would also appreciate if you left out the snarky comments about not reading your posts carefully enought - there is no need to when you are just spewing BS.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous1:42 PM

    Many do read your posts fully, just think that you are not always bringing a responsible dialog to the table.

    But feel free to disagree..

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous2:14 PM

    It's More Than a 'Legal Matter'
    NSA spying is about right and wrong


    Please read the article below, all.

    Frankly, this is a criticism I also have with Glenn and Sen. Feingold, if I am reading them correctly.

    In fact, Sen. Feingold could be said to be one of the greatest co-conspirators in this attempt to distract the American people with this narrow focus on "the law" and keep them from focusing on the real issue.

    I hereby withdraw any support I said at an earlier time I had for Sen. Feingold. As things stand now in my mind (always open to change upon learning new facts) Sen. Feingold and Sen. Specter are two peas in a pod.

    I want people like Paul Craig Roberts and Justin Raimondo's view of a constitutional republic to be the one which prevails. Not any of the current elected officials and that means every single one of them with the possible exception of Ron Paul about whom I would have to learn more to come to a conclusion.

    I may repost this one article going forward every day as my future sole contribution to this blog. It says it all, (other than wars and foreign policy and specific economic theories) in my opinion.

    Why all this focus on "the law?"
    Is there anyone on this blog whose primary concern is with the "breaking of the law" and the "accountability" associated with that limited issue?

    Glenn, hypatia, jao, cynic, phd9, Paul Rosenberg, Disenchanted Dave, etc?

    Mine certainly isn't, which is what I have been saying all along. I see zero difference between a legally enacted police state and a different color police state.

    It's the police state, the invasion of privacy, the abandonment of the true meaning of the Fourth Amendment (early ominous signs of which can be found in Alito's pre-SC rulings)and the undermining of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that I have been concerned with all along, not how fast both parties and Congress rush to make every new outrage legal and symbolically slap the hands of those who stole from the cookie jar before taking cookies was made legal.

    The news last month that the government has been goggling over the private phone records of millions of Americans for the last four years was not even half a day old when the boundaries of debate were marked off. Nobody issued any edict. Nobody made any announcement. But, unmistakably, as if by an invisible hand, a convention settled over the virtual public square. The coming conversation (as brief as it would be) needed to be about the "law."

    The milquetoast media, unable to provide its own informed critique, assumed once again the role of sound stage for the bloviatocracy. This dictated that the dispute, if any, would be about the legality of the conduct.

    As a result, the only discussion that matters – whether we Americans want our government sticking its snout in our phone records – would be buried.

    This wasn't the first time that a normal response to the Bush government's outrageous conduct got derailed by trivia. This has been standard operating procedure for almost five years now. Every time an ugly truth about this regime and its destructive behavior pops up, serious reaction quickly fades beneath obnoxious, noisome, repetitive ranting over some short-lived, sophomoric distraction.

    For the administration and its media thralls, the "legal question" has become a potent artifice of misdirection.

    Just a few months ago, the Bush regime deftly deployed this legal card to dupe the liberal nitwit set into debating the legality of the NSA's warrantless interception of phone conversations. Caught with its pants down, the administration avoided the spanking it so richly deserved simply by asserting that the "program" was legal. It was, of course, a ridiculous claim. But it didn't matter. By throwing down the legal gauntlet, the regime knew that the suckers on the other side would feel compelled to pick it up and counter with a brilliant analysis to show the illegality of domestic spying. The discussion shunted into FISA courts, Fourth Amendment "construction," statutory interpretation, legislative history, footnotes in obscure legal opinions, and assorted other legal blah, blah, blah. News of this brazen breach became a "moot court" topic for TV jawboning. Merely by mounting a rebuttal to the regime's moronic claim, the opposition made it a legitimate "issue." The "opposition" thus snatched defeat from the lips (if not jaws) of victory.

    Once the Bush administration recovered its balance, it pulled out all the stops in flogging its pretext for the "program"– the all-purpose "war on terror." In fact, the White House con artists were so successful in playing the "law card" that the NSA is still listening in on our private phone conversations whenever it wants. As absurd as it is, the regime has been given a pass for its past and continuing invasions of Americans' most intimate speech.

    The "legal issue" ruse is effective because it sounds sober, responsible, and boring. It turns off the vast majority of Americans, who yawn and change the channel without any real worries or doubts, comforted that those in the know are giving serious treatment to the "issue." With the matter entrusted to experts, Americans are given something they seldom turn down – a reason to stop thinking about uncomfortable truths.

    To state the obvious, the "legal card" trick assumes that law determines collective judgment – rather than the other way around. Laws are not goals. They are instruments. Even as tools, laws usually do a poor job. A really good law requires tons of care, thought, authentic civic spirit, and good writing. On those rare occasions when these elements come together, the nation's fundamental values and interests – in their complexity and inconsistency – will inform laws or judicial decisions to deal modestly with a narrow range of circumstances. But even this almost never happens. Most of the law consists of rules designed to promote short-term interests of the rich and powerful, and has no connection to America's foundational political values. Law does not create, inspire or, in the end, do much to protect the national ethos.

    In the NSA revelations, what matters – still matters, I hope – is whether this is the America that Americans want. In its political roots, the American spirit is profoundly repulsed by government agents, at their whim, listening in on our private conversations. The Bush regime's subterranean assault is so deeply odious and noxious to any mature sense of liberty that the law should not even be considered necessary to protect against it – for, as everyone can now see, law never will be sufficient for the job. These incursions should be felt by each of us for what they are – an affront to our individuality, a smashing through the zone of our most delicate social existences, a personal region that should be protected by a thick cloak of sheer and voluntary respect – not the coercive threat of law. These values – ones every American at least can understand – are the "issue." Whether the "program" is illegal is trivial.

    In reporting on the NSA's phone-conversation-interception "program," the New York Times handed America an advanced draft of a bill of impeachment. But America blew it. Americans saw and heard about a "legal issue." The ordinary law-abiding American did not see or hear the state security police rummaging through the drawers of his own personal life. The last best chance America had to disrupt the momentum toward a police state fizzled away in the frothy ambiguity of legal points and authorities.

    It has now happened all over again. The uproar over NSA's latest-revealed occupation of our zone of privacy rapidly dissipated as soon as "legal question" got attached to any mention of it. Within 24 hours, the logorrhea of law defused any real counterattack on the regime's romp through our phone activity. The final blow in this rout of reason came when the noble Senate confirmed Gen. Michael Hayden, the regime's top human tool in executing its Homeland Security lockdown, as new CIA chief.

    Just how bad things have gotten, however, is best demonstrated by widespread acceptance of the notion that, if he NSA's outrages do violate the law, Congress can change the law so that those outrages are made legal. Ten years ago, it would not have been necessary to point out the stupidity of the idea that the government's illegal abuse of its citizens can be solved by legalizing the conduct. The regime has sold America on inverting the relationship between law and political values. This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt – make that beyond a moral doubt – that any will to preserve American democracy is dying.

    I point this out now – but, frankly, this may be just for the record. This "nation of laws" is devolving into a nation of frightened men and women, bowing before talismanic invocations of a mythical war on terror, the willing subjects of a rapidly consolidating autocracy.


    Peter M. Casey is a litigation attorney with over 15 years of practice in class-action defense. He lives in North Andover, Mass.

    I think Glenn is going to have to address this issue. Bush "lawlessness" is not what is going to ruin this country. Will "Clinton" lack of lawlessness, if that comes to pass, restore American values?

    Hardly. Every lawless thing that Bush has done will have been written into law and the next President can proceed to dismantle America lawfully.

    I understand exactly why Glenn's initial focus was on the "lawless" NSA eavesdropping. That was a proper place to start, and it made sense and was a vital analysis and Glenn's voice has been a tremendously important one, about that and other hugely important issues to do with habeas corpus, Padilla, etc. etc. etc.

    If Glenn stays there now, however, well......

    ReplyDelete