Maddow: "Let Them Eat Fake"

Rachel Maddow does another bang-up job last week in discussing fake Republican outrage over issues that are not exactly rooted in fact.

From the so-called ACORN pimp scandel, to President Obama's recess appointments, to civilian trials for terrorism suspects, Rachel breaks down why all this supposed outrage is nothing more than an effort to win political points:



This is the exact point that so many were making during the health care debate. We can have an honest debate over what is the best way to reform our health care system, it is just hard when you have tea party members running around claiming that "Grandma is going to die" if reform passes.

When you set up a debate where your "facts" are rooted in everything but facts, it is really going to be hard to have a legitimate discussion on how best to move the country forward. When you have a whole news network that is helping to promote these "facts", it is going to be an even bigger struggle to push back against the misinformation with the truth. After all, it is much more interesting to discuss how a guy walked into an ACORN office while dressed as a pimp rather than how this same individual manipulated video in order to destroy a community organizing organization.

Nothing to see here...move along!

Glenn Beck Barks Like a Dog On-air...Seriously

Only so much time can pass before Glenn Beck decides to once again jump off the deep end on his Fox television show. This time, he did not break into tears or pour "gasoline" on a staffer, but barked like a wild dog in response to a video by President Obama:



Remember that this is the man who started the "9/12 Project" and who is the hero of many members of the "Tea-Party" movement.

What is continually interesting about Beck isn't just his circus-like antics that make you question his stability, but also how he has fun with facts. Take this recent spat between Beck and Rachel Maddow which Maddow addressed on her MSNBC show the other night:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I wonder what kind of movement someone like Beck, who plays loose with facts and acts like a madman, would be able to inspire? Oh wait:

Pay No Attention to the Republicans Behind that Curtain...

Part of the responsibility of the media has been and should always be to call out those in power when their rhetoric does not align with the truth. This also includes moments when the rhetoric of those in power is hypocritical in its very nature. It is no secret that this is an exception in the so-called "mainstream media" these days, but you have to give credit where credit is due.

It is because of this that Rachel Maddow gets another "thumbs up" for her coverage of how certain members of the Republican Party have railed against President Obama's stimulus plan, while at the same time graciously accepting stimulus money. Watch:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Hell, the Washington Times even did a piece on this the other day. Maddow makes a point toward the end of her piece that is dead on. The behavior of the Republicans on the issue of the stimulus funds is a prime example that policy is not their focus. Their focus is on opposing anything and everything that the President and that the Democratic leadership endorse. This holds true even for policies that Republicans initially proposed and that they even think are good policies. It matters not when all you are doing is playing politics.

If the Democrats continue to try and reach out to Republicans and if President Obama continues to strive for bipartisan solutions to the problems that face this nation, I think we all know how that will turn out. The Republicans continually show that they are not interested in agreement, cooperation, or honest debate on any of the issues that have come before them. They have (and will continue to) use the filibuster to oppose legislation and will run on this kind of opposition in 2010 and 2012. If the Democrats don't get this by now, then I don't hold out much hope for meaningful legislation to be passed in the near future.

Obama to Announce a Spending Freeze

Well I certainly didn't see this one coming. It is being reported tonight that President Obama is set to announce a three-year spending freeze on discretionary spending...except for the military, Department of Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs or the State Department.

My initial reaction was really one of disbelief as this strategy seems like the exact opposite approach that would have the result that the Administration is hoping to achieve. The reactions from some of the more progressive blogs are quite strong:

Paul Rosenberg puts it like this:

Obama has now gone off the deep end. After passing a stimulus that most economists (not just liberal ones) said was too small, and that was made even more inadequate by being heavily tilted toward poor-performing tax-cuts, Obama is now intentionally recreating FDR's mistake of 1937, when he prematurely cut back spending to try to balance the budget, and sent the country into a new recession.

and David Sirota adds:

This is actually worse - way worse - than John McCain's campaign proposal for across-the-board cuts, as across-the-board cuts would have hit the massive and bloated Pentagon budget. Instead, the Obama administration is specifically and exclusively targeting social safety-net spending for a budget freeze (read: cut in real, inflation-adjusted dollars). Yes, cutting social safety-net programs during a recession, while increasing spending on wars, underwriting a no-strings-attached bank bailout and pushing a health care bill that is a massive giveaway to the insurance and drug companies.

Rachel Maddow also had an interesting exchange with Jared Berstein tonight on this topic:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There will be more on this story later and it will be interesting to see the reaction of not only the Republicans, but the tea-party movement who has complained about the so-called "runaway spending" in Washington.

Report Casts Serious Doubts on Military Success in Afghanistan

NBC's Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel was just on the Rachel Maddow Show this evening discussing a report that he was exclusively provided. The report is on the war in Afghanistan and was prepared for military leaders by an independent research group.

The findings were in stark contrast to some of the optimism that has been expressed by those who feel that President Obama's troop escalation will prove adequate for stabilizing the country. Here is the segment:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As Rachel Maddow expressed on her show's Twitter feed, if this represents the view of the Department of Defense, then the military is fighting a war that they know they cannot win.


This is cross posted here.

Why Lindsey Graham Can't Afford to Have Health Care Reform in South Carolina

It's because of the unemployment numbers and the blacks!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A Continued Breath of Fresh Air

Last night Rachel Maddow showed everyone, yet again, how the media should behave.

This time, Rachel interviewed Richard Cohn of the International Healing Foundation. Cohn says that he is an ex-homosexual who is now working to help council other gay members of society out of their feelings and into heterosexuality.

Maddow was her usual polite self, letting the guest make his points, but used preparation, facts, and uncomfortably probing questions to destroy Mr. Cohn. This is precisely how the media should operate. Journalists should ask tough questions without worrying weather the guest likes them, call the guest on blatant lies and use facts to challenge the guest when they simply make things up.

Here is Maddow's full interview of Cohn. It is a thing of beauty and it is an understatement to say that we need more of this in order to move society forward.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rachel Maddow to Liz Cheny: "I Will Not Bite"

Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, and Bill Kristol have launched a new organization called "Keep America Safe" whose mission statement reads in part:

Since 9/11, the United States Government, through our armed forces and our intelligence and law enforcement professionals, has succeeded in preventing any further attacks on the American homeland. This is a major achievement. By turning away from the policies that have kept us safe, by treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter, giving foreign terrorists the same rights as American citizens, launching investigations of CIA agents, cutting defense spending, breaking faith with our allies and attempting to appease our adversaries, the current administration is weakening the nation, and making it more difficult for us to defend our security and our interests.

Keep America Safe believes the United States can only defeat our adversaries and defend our interests from a position of strength. We know that America has, for 233 years, been an unparalleled force for good in the world, that our fighting forces are the best the world has ever known, and that the world is a safer place when America is trusted by our allies and feared and respected by our enemies. Keep America Safe will make the case for an unapologetic approach to fighting terrorism around the world, for victory in the wars this country fights, for democracy and human rights, and for a strong American military that is needed in the dangerous world in which we live.

They have also launched a new web ad:



Cheney's group is obviously targeting MSNBC in this ad though it is unclear whether the "they" that are referring to in the ad is MSNBC specifically or anyone who opposes the agenda of this conservative group. Regardless, Rachel Maddow responded last night on her show:



Considering that Rachel Maddow has invited many guests on her show to debate substantive issues in a respectful manner, it is going to be interesting to see if Cheney decides to take up Maddow's offer. I know one thing, if this does happen, it will be must see TV and I would like to see Maddow's full hour show devoted to this discussion.

Rachel Maddow Interviews Tom Ridge

Rachel Maddow interviewed former Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, earlier this week on The Rachel Maddow Show. The interview covered Ridge's recent book release, in which he seems to claim that he was pressured to raise the color-coded terror alert system in order to give President Bush's approval ratings a boost prior to the 2004 election. In this three part interview with Maddow, Ridge backtracks on these claims as he tries to "clarify" what he meant.

Ridge and Maddow also discuss the impact that the Department of Homeland Security had on the government's lack of response to the citizens of New Orleans during the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina back in 2005 and how Ridge was very vocal in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and 2003. As you will see, Ridge is still very adamant that invading Iraq was the correct thing to do and that the failure was one of faulty intelligence. Maddow presses him on the Iraq War being a war of choice in which the evidence was fixed around a political policy, but Ridge is adamant that this was not the case. The interview concludes with one of the more interesting exchanges of all three segments.

It is also worthy to note that Maddow's style and temperament are top-notch and, as Ridge even states, this turns out to be a very good discussion that allows for an open exchange of views. Maddow does a good job in pressing Ridge on various points and while there is much more that I would have liked to have seen covered, she does a good job given the time constraints. Below are all three segments:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama Administration Hints That the Public Option is Not Essential

In my post last night I mentioned the comments that were made by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. Sebelius stated that the public option was not "essential" to the passage of health care reform legislation which shows that the Obama Administration may be sending the signal that they would not be pushing for the presence of such an option in the final version of a bill.

While this morning's top story at The Huffington Post states that the White House is sending "mixed messages" on the issue of health care reform, I think that the indications are troubling. Sebelius has stated that the public plan is not "essential" to the passage of legislation, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs continues to say that the White House supports the public option, and health care reform spokesperson Linda Douglass also indicated that the President is supportive of the public option.

In this instance it is important to remember that while President Obama may offer his support for the public option, it doesn't necessarily mean that he would veto legislation that did not contain such a provision. The Administration is looking for a win on this issue and I think it is pretty clear that if a political win can be obtained through passing a bill that doesn't have the public option attached, then Obama will probably sign such a bill. We have seen this type of behavior from Obama throughout his political career and it is what led many to emphasize (pre-2008 election) that Obama is a centrist Democrat who is more willing to adapt to existing institutions than fundamentally fight to change them.

This is the very reason why I found Rachel Maddow's comments so on point yesterday during her appearance on Meet the Press. If Obama chooses to spend his political capital by signing a bill that does not fundamentally change the health care system and is a watered-down version that contains mild reforms, then it is almost certainly going to be a failure. It will be a failure for the millions of Americans who are in need of health care, it will be a failure for progressives who voted for Obama last November, and it will be a failure for true reform. On the flip side of this equation it would certainly be considered a victory for the health care lobbyists (who have been pushing for meaningless "reforms" from the very beginning), it would be considered a victory for Republicans, and it would be considered a victory for the type of behavior that we have seen from the Republican's right-wing base who have been showing up at these town hall meetings. The only thing that would have been accomplished is that the Obama Administration got a lot of very angry Conservatives riled up over moderate to conservative reforms to a system that is in need of a radical overhaul.

Here are some other voices that are beginning to weigh in on the reports that the Administration is not married to the public option:

Matt Taibbi:

Now, obviously (and this is will be explored in more detail in the forthcoming piece, which will be out this week), the public option was not a cure-all. In fact, the Democrats had in reality already managed to kill the public option by watering it down to the point of near-meaninglessness. But the notion that our president not only does not have any use anymore for a public option, but in fact “will be satisfied” if there is merely “choice and competition” in the market is, well, disgusting.

Paul Krugman:

If we were starting from scratch we probably wouldn’t have chosen this route. True “socialized medicine” would undoubtedly cost less, and a straightforward extension of Medicare-type coverage to all Americans would probably be cheaper than a Swiss-style system. That’s why I and others believe that a true public option competing with private insurers is extremely important: otherwise, rising costs could all too easily undermine the whole effort.

But a Swiss-style system of universal coverage would be a vast improvement on what we have now. And we already know that such systems work.

So we can do this. At this point, all that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies.

Papamoka:

What it all comes down to is yet one more politician that happens to be the President selling out the millions of people that fought so hard for him to get elected. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the only ones with workable plans for a public option for health care during the election and that is why it was basically a battle of the super stars of politics right down to the actual vote in the presidential primary. And a public health care option is why so many people worked to elect a Democratic party lead congress in both houses.

As a Democrat, and now somewhat progressive in thought person, I feel like I just got stabbed in the back. If President Obama wanted the full healthcare bill passed then he could have simply negotiated with his own political party to get the job done.

The Health Care Debate on "Meet the Press"

I decided to watch Meet the Press this morning because the panel of guests was quite intriguing. The full hour, save a tribute to Eunice Kennedy Shriver at the end, was devoted to discussing the issue of the health care with the following guests:

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD)
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX)
Host of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, Rachel Maddow

The conversation ended up being pretty even-keel and brought up many of the same points that are often advanced in this debate. Host David Gregory tried to focus on the more "contentious" issues, like the anti-health care reform protests and the inclusion of a "public" option and there were some good exchanges between panel members which you will see in the video clip that I have posted below. One of the most important responses came from Rachel Maddow and is below (emphasis mine):

MR. GREGORY: Rachel, let me ask you this question. What will progressives, what will liberals, the president’s base accept as reform? Do the independent voters he’s courting out in Colorado and Montana need to be placated, a big part of his base, or not?

MS. MADDOW: I, I, I mean, I don’t, I don’t think liberals monolithically feel one thing about this. I think most liberals would probably prefer a single payer system, honestly. But ultimately, if the president decides that he’s going to go with a reform effort that doesn’t include a public option, what he will have done is spent a ton of political capital, riled up an incredibly angry right wing base who’s been told that this is a plot to kill grandma, grandma, and he will have achieved something that doesn’t change health care very much and that doesn’t save us very much money and won’t do very much for the American people. It’s not a very good thing to spend a lot of political capital on.

I certainly agree that most liberals would like to see a single payer system and I also think that Maddow's point about political capital is spot on. Her point is especially poignant considering today's report that the Obama Administration is not considering the public option as vital to the passage of health care legislation. If Obama decides to compromise with Republicans and with the health care industry in order to simply pass a bill to claim a legislative victory, what he will actually accomplish is revitalizing the right-wing Republican base while advancing watered-down reforms that would not create the change that our health care system needs.

Also worthy of mentioning was a comment by Maddow in the Meet the Press: Take Two webcast that you can find here. Gregory asks Maddow the following:

GREGORY: Do liberals think he (Obama) has lived up to his promise?

MADDOW: I don't think liberals thought he had much liberal promise. I mean, I think that he was a very good candidate and I think that he did get a lot of liberal support but I don't think that liberals believed that he wasn't...that he was anything other than a centrist. He's a centrist Democrat, and so I think that liberals knew...at least liberals that I know, knew that coming into it.

GREGORY: No different than Bill Clinton?

MADDOW: Not really no, I wouldn't say that. I mean the way that he said he would be different than Bill Clinton were matters of style not substance.

Maddow went on to say that during the campaign, when Obama was campaigning against the Clintonian legacy in Washington, he talked about how to be more effective. This difference doesn't differentiate what he would like to see done however and this is an important distinction to make. This is what many have been saying this entire time, Obama is not some staunch liberal politician who is reigning in a new era of socialism. Obama is a centrist Democrat and this is what makes the protests and labeling of Obama as a socialist even more amazing.

Here is a clip from Meet the Press:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

How Will All This Rage Come to a Head?

Rachel Maddow had an explosive and very relevant segment at the beginning of her show this evening regarding the health care debate. It updates some of the events that I didn't get to post about today (including comments from Sarah Palin) and for the first time openly injects the word "assassination" into the conversation about all the rage that we are seeing at these town hall meetings. You can feel the anger building and I think it is quite proper to have this discussion at this point:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Water Continues to Boil

There was a town hall meeting on health care reform in Tampa, Florida last night with Rep. Kathy Castor (D) as the featured speaker. More than 1,000 people showed up for this forum and like we have seen in other parts of the country (including here in Cincinnati) things quickly got out of hand. The venue could not hold all of the people that showed up and when some were denied entry into the building, they began banging on the windows and chanting. Here is a report from the FOX affiliate in Tampa:



If you are like me, you are probably thinking, how on Earth can anything get accomplished in a setting as crazy as that? Well, it appears that nothing did get accomplished in Tampa last night (emphasis mine):

Moments later, violence broke out just outside the main auditorium doors, prompting police to close off the meeting room. A freelance photojournalist was among those roughed up suffering damage to both his glasses and camera equipment.

"That's the most violent anyone has been towards me," said Mark Bishop, who drove from Orlando to video tape the event. "It was surprising to say the least."

At least one person was treated for minor injuries following the altercation and could be seen on video with a shirt partially torn off his body.

Outside, both those for and against President Obama's health care reform ideas chanted and yelled, at times banging on the outside of the auditorium windows. Some argued face to face in the parking lot, shouting and screaming at each other as police officers looked on.

"We walk a fine line between freedom of speech and public safety," said one of the commanding Tampa Police officers on scene who indicated no arrests were made.

Not long into the meeting, Rep. Castor was escorted out of the building after being encouraged by an event organizer to leave. It appeared the congresswoman gave up on trying to get her points across after the crowd inside grew unruly.

While there have been threats of violence and while members of Congress have received death threats over this issue (more on this in a moment), this appears to be the first instance where we actually have reports of violence breaking out at one of these town hall meetings. Here is another amateur video from last night:



There are two points that I would like to make. The first is that what happened last night in Tampa, is a goal of this movement. The town hall meeting had to be shut down and that is a win for the Republicans and Conservatives who oppose health care reform. Instead of offering solutions or constructive ideas to revise the health care system, they simply have taken the position that it will lead to "socialism" and all conversation about it should be shut down.

The second point is that this type of anger is not rooted in, nor is it specifically about, health care reform. This is the same kind of rage that we saw during the campaign for President when the right-wing supporters of John McCain claimed that Obama was a terrorist, that his friends were terrorists, and that he was going to destroy America. This is the same kind of rage that we saw once Obama took office and tea parties were organized in opposition to the stimulus. This is the same kind of rage that we see from time to time when the issue of race is brought up either in the Henry Gates case, the nomination of a Latina to the Supreme Court, or the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. They claim that Obama is a racist, a foreign-born operative, and imply that he isn't really "one of us". This rage has now morphed into the opposition to health care reform, but it still has the same ugly undercurrent that is all too recognizable.

Here is another interesting wrinkle in all of this (from the St. Petersburg Times):

Instead, hundreds of vocal critics turned out, many of them saying they had been spurred on through the Tampa 912 activist group promoted by conservative radio and television personality Glenn Beck. Others had received e-mails from the Hillsborough Republican Party that urged people to speak out against the plan and offered talking points.

This behavior is being encouraged (and in some cases organized) by some Republican and Conservative groups for political gain. This is actually being viewed as a political strategy that benefits the health care industry (which donates money to many politicians) as well as allowing these politicians to cloak themselves in this astroterf populism as they prepare to run for office in the next election. This rage is also being encouraged by people like Glenn Beck (who thinks Obama is a racist) and Rush Limbaugh which not only has the profitable result of gaining them ratings, but of whipping up the rage of fringe elements of the movement that may feel it necessary to stop (in their view) the "destruction of America" at all costs.

To be frank, I worry about where this rage is heading. I fear that the encouragement of these actions will allow for their continued embrace as a legitimate means to an end. When things begin to escalate from words, to symbolic hangings (in the video below), to fights...one only has to wonder where this stops and what goals are to be achieved by such practices.

Rachel Maddow spoke about this on her show last night and I it relates to this discussion and is on point:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Rachel Maddow Fact Checks Pat Buchanan in a Follow-Up Segment

Last week I posted the video of a debate from The Rachel Maddow Show between host Rachel Maddow and MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan. The debate focused on the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor by President Obama. Buchanan claims that Sotomayor was simply an unqualified "affirmative action candidate" for this job and that since her education relied on affirmative action, there are more qualified candidates that Obama could have picked. The debate spilled over to discuss affirmative action in a broader sense which Buchanan states is an "evil" program of which the primary goal is to discriminate against white males.

Last night Rachel Maddow did a follow-up segment during which she examined some of the statements that Pat Buchanan made and just how truthful they are. The clip is below:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Pat Buchanan Sees the Republicans as a Big-Tent Party (Full of Whites Who are Being Discriminated Against)

After President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to become the next Supreme Court justice, the issue of race has been discussed on Conservative talk-radio and by some Republican members of Congress. As Sotomayor was questioned this past week during her confirmation hearings, some pundits even referred to her as a "reverse racist" and undeserving of the nomination because she was an "affirmative action" nominee. One of these individuals was Pat Buchanan. Last night Rachel Maddow had him on to discuss his position on Sotomayor and ended up exposing Buchanan as a bigot...again:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Maddow is right when she says that Buchanan is dating himself and stuck in the 1950's. Republicans should be running far, far away from Buchanan and other bigots who are advancing arguments like this.

Panetta's Reaction to Finding Out About Cheney's Secret Program

Rachel Maddow had a good point last night regarding the revelation that former Vice President Dick Cheney apparently ordered that his "secret assassination program" be kept from Congress.

If this was a program that was designed to secretly use the CIA to go around the world in an attempt to target, capture, or kill terrorists - then explains the reaction of CIA Director Leon Panetta? After all, the United States has a long history of targeting "terrorists" around the world with the goal of "capturing" or "killing" them, so it seems a little odd that Panetta acted the way that he did once he found out about this program. Panetta ordered that the program be stopped on the very day that he found out about it and he also went to Congress to disclose that this program had been hidden from them. Something tells me that we haven't learned all that there is to know about the nature of Cheney's secret program. Rachel Maddow explains:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

TIME magazine floats another possible idea:

CIA officials tell TIME there's another, somewhat less dramatic, possibility: a plan to conduct domestic surveillance. Spying on Americans is outside the CIA's purview and would be highly controversial — good enough reason for Cheney to want it kept under wraps.

but then the article quotes officials who claim that Panetta wasn't informed because the program wasn't "operational" and so it was "no big deal". If this program was "no big deal" and was a program designed to do what is essentially done every day in the so-called "War on Terror", then it makes no sense that Panetta would have such a severe reaction when finding out about this program. More details are almost certainly yet to be revealed.

Cheney's Secret Assassination Program

A lot has been revealed recently about, what appears to be, a secret assassination program that was headed by former Vice President Cheney. Last week, details began to quickly emerge about this program and that Cheney allegedly ordered that it be hidden from members of Congress. Rachel Maddow gives a good summary of how events have unfolded:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

So it looks like Dick Cheney was running a secret assassination ring. This sounds oddly familiar, almost like someone said something about this earlier this year:

At a “Great Conversations” event (MP3) at the University of Minnesota last night, legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh may have made a little more news than he intended by talking about new alleged instances of domestic spying by the CIA, and about an ongoing covert military operation that he called an “executive assassination ring.”

[...]

At the end of one answer by Hersh about how these things tend to happen, Jacobs asked: “And do they continue to happen to this day?”

Replied Hersh:

“Yuh. After 9/11, I haven’t written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven’t been called on it yet. That does happen.

"Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command -- JSOC it’s called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...

"Congress has no oversight of it. It’s an executive assassination ring essentially, and it’s been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths.

"Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That’s been going on, in the name of all of us.

"It’s complicated because the guys doing it are not murderers, and yet they are committing what we would normally call murder. It’s a very complicated issue. Because they are young men that went into the Special Forces. The Delta Forces you’ve heard about. Navy Seal teams. Highly specialized.

"In many cases, they were the best and the brightest. Really, no exaggerations. Really fine guys that went in to do the kind of necessary jobs that they think you need to do to protect America. And then they find themselves torturing people.

"I’ve had people say to me -- five years ago, I had one say: ‘What do you call it when you interrogate somebody and you leave them bleeding and they don’t get any medical committee and two days later he dies. Is that murder? What happens if I get before a committee?’

"But they’re not gonna get before a committee.”

For one, it looks like Seymour Hersh has been proven correct. As we continue to hear stories of wiretapping, torture, and assassination squads one must ask what it is going to take to launch some kind of investigation into criminal activity on at least one of these topics.

Obama Administration Continues to Argue for Preventive Detention to Guard Against Future Crimes

From today's Wall Street Journal (emphasis mine):

The Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission.

Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department's chief lawyer, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that releasing a detainee who has been tried and found not guilty was a policy decision that officials would make based on their estimate of whether the prisoner posed a future threat.

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration argues that the legal basis for indefinite detention of aliens it considers dangerous is separate from war-crimes prosecutions. Officials say that the laws of war allow indefinite detention to prevent aliens from committing warlike acts in future, while prosecution by military commission aims to punish them for war crimes committed in the past.

This news is obviously disappointing and works to undercut the Obama Administration's continued statements promoting their adherence to the rule of law. Let's set aside, for a moment, the point that the Military Commissions system is flawed and pretend that it was a model process for bringing detainees to trial. What the Obama Administration is arguing is that even if detainees are acquitted by a Military Commission, they could still be legally detained until it can be determined that said detainee would not pose a danger to the United States. Why do they feel that this is an acceptable policy - because Military Commissions are only set up to punish people for "war crimes committed in the past" and therefore cannot determine who would commit war crimes in the future.

According to this rationale, it would make sense for the Obama Administration to set up an additional Commission whose job it would be to put detainees on trial in order to examine if they should be convicted on "evidence" that they would commit future crimes. This Orwellian argument certainly ranks up there with some of most disturbing arguments put forth by the Bush Administration over the last eight years.

Continuing on in the WSJ article:

Mr. Johnson said such prisoners held without trial would receive "some form of periodic review" that could lead to their release.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a leading Republican on detainee policy, approved. "Some of them will be able to get out of jail because they've rehabilitated themselves and some of them may in fact die in jail," Mr. Graham said. But "I don't want to put people in a dark hole forever" simply "because somebody like Dick Cheney, or you fill in the blank with a politician, said so."

I am glad that Graham approves of vague promises of "some form of periodic review" that may or may not lead to the release of those held without charge. What kind of laws and system of justice is the Obama Administration championing with their vague terminology and in endorsing a detention system that would make the previous administration proud? As Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-NY) said in that same WSJ article:

"What bothers me is that they seem to be saying, 'Some people we have good enough evidence against, so we'll give them a fair trial. Some people the evidence is not so good, so we'll give them a less fair trial. We'll give them just enough due process to ensure a conviction because we know they're guilty. That's not a fair trial, that's a show trial,"

Also interjected into this discussion is the issue of admitting "evidence" that was obtained using coercive techniques. The reliability of this evidence is at the center of the debate surrounding the issue of Military Commissions since statements obtained under coercion are currently admissible. It appears to be the thought of the Obama Administration that if they determine that so-called "evidence" obtained using coercive methods are not reliable and should not be admissible, then a number of convictions would be overturned due to their reliance on unreliable evidence. If these convictions are overturned, then it can be said that these individuals would continue to be detained if the Obama Administration is successful in arguing that they can continue to legally detain prisoners based on the threat of so-called "future crimes". The cancerous effects of torture continue to be felt.

About a month and a half ago, I posted a clip from the Rachel Maddow Show in which she discussed the speech during which President Obama first floated the idea of detaining people for so-called "future crimes". I am posting it again below because I feel that it continues to be relevant to this discussion.




This article is crossposted here.

More Details Emerge on the Murder of Dr. Tiller

Scott Roeder, the man who is charged with gunning down Dr. George Tiller as he attended a church service on Sunday, has had a pattern of vandalizing abortion clinics and even had FBI complaints filed against him.

In a piece written yesterday, Amy Goodman explains:

George Tiller did not have to die. He was assassinated while in church in Wichita, Kan., on Sunday, targeted for legally performing abortions. His death might have been prevented simply through enforcement of existing laws. His alleged killer was seen vandalizing a Kansas City clinic, Aid for Women, both the week before and the day before the murder, putting glue into its door locks. The manager of that clinic, who calls himself “Jeff Pederson” to protect his identity, told me he called the FBI and local police both times, but the vandal, the alleged killer Scott Roeder, was not arrested. Pederson had Roeder’s first name and his license-plate number. He had images of him on the security video. He recognized him from previous protests.

[...]

Roeder was picked up shortly after the shooting Sunday in his Ford Taurus. On Tuesday, he was charged with first-degree murder.

I asked Pederson if he thought Tiller’s murder could have been prevented if the authorities had simply arrested Roeder after he vandalized the Kansas City clinic. Pederson paused. “I don’t know,” he said.

But Dr. Susan Robinson was adamant. She flies to Wichita every month to perform abortions in Tiller’s clinic. She said, “It is generally regarded amongst those who do clinic security, if local authorities are not responsive, if they don’t show up or they don’t vigilantly enforce the law, that it encourages the anti-abortion people to push it further and further.”

She said: “In Wichita, Dr. Tiller was constantly dealing with the same lack of enforcement. Wichita prohibits placing signs on city property. But they allow the anti-abortion protesters to set up dozens of crosses and leave them all day. Dr. Tiller went to the city attorney over the crosses, and complained that people block the clinic driveway. He told me that the city attorney said, ‘I would rather be sued by George Tiller than the anti-abortion folks.’ ”

Interesting since damaging the property of facilities that provided reproductive health services is a federal crime. Rachel Maddow expands on this and also exposes an interesting connection between Roeder and the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue last night on her program:

Rachel Maddow on Those Who Continue to Justify the Murder of Dr. Tiller

On her show last night, Rachel Maddow turned her focus on those who continue to justify and praise the killing of Dr. George Tiller. Here is the clip:



As I was driving around Cincinnati today, I saw a truck that was driving down the street completely decked out with signs and posters while flying a big American flag on the roof. On these signs were pictures of the late doctor in addition to images of aborted fetuses with proclamations that justice was served and that had Tiller "sold his soul". These statements of support for the murder of a licensed doctor in his place of worship by a domestic terrorist are not only disturbing, but should be an indication why so many doctors are hesitant to perform these procedures in this country. They know that they will be harassed, threatened, and targeted by people like Roeder and organizations that support him who feel that murder is a justifiable action.