Bush's war against the Rule of Law

One of the core concepts that has made America a great nation is that it is a democracy based on the Rule of Law. That is, Americans are governed by laws rather than by the arbitrary whims and decisions of some leader. Inherent in that idea is the fact that there is no individual in America who has the Constitutional Right to ignore law and act contrary to Law without punishment.

The Bush administration, led by Dick Cheney and David Addington and supported whole-heartedly by George W. Bush, has moved sharply in the last eight years to create a Presidency which is above the law and which is not restrained by the law in any way. The Bush administration is worked diligently to institutionalize government based on the arbitrary rule of the Office of the President rather than Rule of Law.

Glenn Greenwald explains this in an in-depth interview with Bill Moyers. This link leads to both the video of the Bill Moyers interview with Glenn Greenwald and to the transcript.

Of all the very destructive and clearly Unamerican legacies that Bush will leave behind him, including the worst Recession since the Great Depression, the concerted effort to destroy the Rule of Law in America will be the longest and most destructive action Bush has supervised.

Greenwald describes the first time he was aware that the government had totally stepped over the line and departed from a government under the Constitution.

BILL MOYERS: Was there a moment when what you lay what you have called "creeping extremism" became apparent to you in a minute particular?

GLENN GREENWALD: Actually, there was. And I'll describe to you exactly what it was. It was in 2002 when Jose Padilla, an American citizen born in the United States on U.S. soil, was essentially abducted by the government - by the U.S. government. And it was - he was accused in a press conference held by John Ashcroft of being the dirty bomber.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah.

GLENN GREENWALD: Of seeking to detonate a radiological weapon within an American city. Obviously something that is a crime and it should be prosecuted as a crime. But rather than announce that they intended to indict him and bring charges against him, as the Constitution requires, the Bush administration instead announced that it has the power to arrest and detain American citizens on U.S. soil indefinitely based solely on the say so of the president without having to charge that person with a crime and without even having them have access to a lawyer.

And that's exactly what was done the Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen in this country, for years. And the lynchpin of American liberties since the founding, as the founders said, has been that the government does not have the power, not even the British king had the power since the Magna Carta, to order citizens imprisoned without charges based solely on the unchecked say so of the president. That is the power that this government assorted and seized and exercised. And that's when I realized that things had gone radically awry.
[Underlining mine - WTF-o]

Go watch (or read) the Interview between Bill Moyers and Glenn Greenwald.

Or go to a copy of the full transcript of the interview.

How passionately should people object to our elite opinion-forming classes when they support and encourage this?

Here is Glenn Greenwald's description of what the Bush administration done to America.

As the Bush administration comes to a close, one overarching question is this: how were the transgressions and abuses of the last eight years allowed to be unleashed with so little backlash and resistance? Just consider -- with no hyperbole -- what our Government, our country, has done. We systematically tortured people in our custody using techniques approved at the highest levels, many of whom died as a result. We created secret prisons -- "black site" gulags -- beyond the reach of international monitoring groups. We abducted and imprisoned even U.S. citizens and legal residents without any trial, holding them incommunicado and without even the right to access lawyers for years, while we tortured them to the point of insanity. We disappeared innocent people off the streets, sent them to countries where we knew they'd be tortured, and then closed off our courts to them once it was clear they had done nothing wrong. We adopted the very policies and techniques long considered to be the very definition of "war crimes".

Our Government turned the NSA apparatus inward -- something that was never supposed to happen -- spying on our conversations in secret and without warrants or oversight, all in violation of the law, and then, once revealed, acted to immunize the private-sector lawbreakers. And that's to say nothing about the hundreds of thousands of people we killed and the millions more we displaced with a war launched on false pretense. And on and on and on.

Prime responsibility for those actions may lie with the administration which implemented them and with the Congress that thereafter acquiesced to and even endorsed much of it, but it also lies with much of our opinion-making elite and expert class. Even when they politely disagreed, they treated most of this -- and still do -- as though it were reasonable and customary, eschewing strong language and emphatic condemnation and moral outrage, while perversely and self-servingly construing their constraint as some sort of a virtue -- a hallmark of dignified Seriousness. That created the impression that these were just garden-variety political conflicts to be batted about in pretty conference rooms by mutually regarding elites on both sides of these "debates." Meanwhile, those who objected too strongly and in disrespectful tones, who described the extremism and lawlessness taking place, were dismissed by these same elites as overheated, fringe hysterics.

Can the supporters of these Bush administration actions rationally argue that those who learn about what was done should not respond to such non-American aberrations from the Constitution in a passionate manner?

Frankly I think anyone aware of these Bush administration actions who is aware of them and does not passionately oppose them is simply unAmerican.

The Washington D.C. Establishment

Glenn Greenwald has another very interesting article posted today. His focus is the surprise that the Washington D.C. establishment has had as it tried to pass the FISA extension that contains retroactive immunity for the criminal actions of the telecoms who aided the incoming Bush administration in its effort to spy on American citizens without any warrant or legal justification.

Don't forget - the Bush administration started those spy actions in February 2001 at a time they were denying that there was any terrorist problem other than state-supported terrorists. Those illegal spying operations were obviously for internal American political use, not for American security, and both the telecoms and the Bush administration knew such actions were illegal. They just never expected to be exposed. First I'll summarize Glenn's discussion, then I want to focus on who belongs to the Washington establishment and how they operate.

The "establishment" has standards that describe "How things in Washington are done." The members of the establishment become upset when those standards aren't followed. The process of passing the FISA extension has violated those standards. As Glenn points out, the FISA extension with retroactive telecom immunity is an issue that is a highly technical one that the Washington establishment normally would get quietly passed through Congress. The public would probably never know it had happened. Even in the unlikely case the public did learn of it, it wouldn't matter. It would have been a done deal. Essentially the Congressional leadership of both parties, as members of the establishment, would quietly include the telecom immunity in the FISA extension as requested by Dick Cheney and pass it. The Press, also a part of the D.C. establishment, would never bother to write about the issue.

As Glenn says that's just the way "The Establishment" has always handled things in Washington. It hasn't mattered if the leadership in Washington was Republican or Democrat. These issues are handled quietly so that they go away. The public is not to know of them.

The establishment media has virtually ignored these matters from the beginning. Most establishment-serving pundits who have paid any attention — the David Ignatiuses and Joe Kleins and Fred Hiatts — have done so by advocating, as usual, the Establishment position: retroactive immunity and warrantless eavesdropping powers are the right thing to do. Although there is no citizen-constituency whatsoever crying out for telecom immunity or new warrantless eavesdropping powers, the forces behind those provisions are the ones which typically dictate what Congress does: namely, the largest corporations and their lobbyists, who have been working, as always, in the dark to ensure that the law they want is enacted.

That’s typically the way Washington works — the most significant laws are seamlessly enacted with little real debate or attention, driven by corporations and lobbyists working in secret with Senators, cheered on by the Serious media pundits, with bipartisan pools of lawmakers silently and obediently on board. And once those forces line up behind any measure, it is normally almost impossible to stop it — not just stop it, but even disrupt it at all. That’s the insulated Beltway parlor, virtually impervious to outside influences, least of all the opinions of the citizen-rabble.

Only this time it hasn't worked. Harry Reid has been prepared to do his job as expected by the Establishment, only to find that some Senators (particularly Chris Dodd) have been blocking him, and they are supported by a movement of concerned citizens outside of Washington.

Dodd himself has never been one to break with the establishment, and he's been a Senator for 24 years. Suddenly he is now going up against the wishes of the establishmentWhat happened? Dodd explained in a Senate floor speech:

I’ve promised to fight those scare tactics with all the power any one senator can muster. And I’m here today to keep that promise. For several months now, I’ve listened to the building frustration over this immunity and this administration’s campaign of lawlessness. I’ve seen it in person, in mail, online — the passion and eloquence of citizens who are just fed up. They’ve inspired me more than they know.

This is what's new, and it has clearly been a shock to Harry Reid. There is a counter establishment movement growing. It is aware of some of these secret establishment deals that are bad for the country, and that movement has begun to show some effectiveness in exposing them, and now even blocking the passage of telecom immunity (so far.)

Go read Glenn's article for the details. I want to focus on who belongs to the Washington Establishment. Who are they and how did they get there?

So who does that Establishment consist of? Let's recap. Clearly it includes all of the Congressional leadership of both parties. Then it includes the White House personnel and the top administrators in the various Cabinet offices. It also includes the main pundits, both Print and TV, who cover Washington. David Broder's unofficial title as "Dean of the Washington Press Corps" is recognition that he is a key member of the establishment. Arch Neo conservative William Krystol is also part of the establishment, which is why he recently got a sweetheart deal on the editorial page of the New York Times. So are the hosts of all the Sunday morning Talking Heads TV shows. After that the establisment includes many of the powerful lobbyists from K-Street as well as other former high bureaucrats and legislators. The most effective and highly paid lobbyists are establishment members who sell their ability to work their Washington establishment contacts. Corporations and other moneyed organizations that want something done in Washington are willing to pay a lot for such insider expertise. Additionally, certain individuals (like Sally Quinn) who give insider Washington parties are also part of the Establishment. If you want a list of who is part of the Washington Establishment, a good one could be compiled by seeing who was on the guest lists of the various Washington insider parties. A few establishment members wouldn't be on that list, but most would. Those parties are where a lot of their contacts are made.

What do all the establishment members have in common? They have all been in Washington D.C. and closely associated with politics at a high level for a long time. They all know each other, and they all have reputations as being "Serious People."

They also all want to work hard to remain members of the Establishment. Having been there a long time, they have been socialized and vetted by other in the Establishment, and they each know that as long as they remain as part of the Establishment they protected against personal error - as long as they act as expected.

This is the Washington D.C. establishment, and its members are proud that, as a group, they run American government. These are the people that Harry Reid and Sen. Jay Rockefeller have been trying to please as they worked to pass the FISA extension with telecom immunity included.

These are also the people who are afraid of political populists like both John Edwards and Mike Huckabee. The establishment members have no interest in real democracy since they do not control it. The members of the establishment consider the political netroots to be extremists because they are non-establishment people who make demands that are not establishment approved, and they are beginning to have an effect on Washington politics that "serious people" don't like. Outsiders are automatically rejected by the insiders of the establishment.

It is this establishment, both members and wannabee members, who have neutered media coverage of the federal government even before the Bush administration cut off intrusive reporters from normal handouts and leaks. Establishment reporters and editors don't rat out the handshake deals of other establishment members, not if they want to remain in the establishment. They do want to remain in the establishment because that's where their sources are. Their careers depend on being inside and in good graces of the establishment.

The reason why the Press is harder on Hillary, Obama and Edwards is that none of them are part of the establishment. Hillary rejected the party circuit back in 1993, and has never joined, while neither Obama nor Edwards have become sufficiently powerful in Congress to become "establishment-accepted."

It is this current establishment that is going to have to be converted, because they currently have accepted the ideas behind the Reagan Revolution as the way things are to be done. Conservative "free market, small government, low taxes and strong military" rhetoric is the core of current establishment rhetoric. Such conversion of establishment members will largely occur by turnover once the new administration gets in, but such turnover and conversion will be strongly resisted, just as it was when Bill Clinton took office in 1993. The Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 saved the old Reagan/Bush 41 establishment. That establishment was still in place in 2001 and was passed off to the Bush 43 period. So the current Washington establishment has been in place nearly thirty years. They cannot imagine any other way things in Washington could operate.

This is going to be interesting. Watch for complaints from the "serious people" when the new Democratic administration comes in. It's going to happen, as sure as God make little green apples. The changeover is going to be a rough time for them members. The old establishment will find itself being pushed out of the limelight, and they will hate it.

But that's the Washington establishment. Even if its membership changes, the establishment itself will remain. That's where the handshake deals of government are done.

CNN's John King is a subservient bootlicker, and doesn't want it recognized

Glenn Greenwald reported earlier [*] on the extreme adulation demonstrated by CNN's John King in an interview was broadcast on "Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer. The transcript of the interview was presented in its entirety with out any part of it being left out.

King is pissed at how Glenn interpreted his fawning report on St. McCain, and sent Glenn an email, which Glenn has published, also in its entirety.

If you want to see what is wrong with TV political "journalism," go read Glenn's article.

There should be a psychiatric name for John King's behavior, but I don't know what that form of denial and insanity really is called by the professionals who work with psychiatric patients.

[*]Sit through the advertisement for the day-pass. The ad is short, 15 seconds or less, and it's worth it.

When will the government investigate YOUR speech?

Think that Hate Speech laws are a good idea? Go read Glenn Greenwald to see just how good that idea really is - for tyrants of all kinds.

From the U.S. Constitution:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is no less important today than it was two hundred years ago. Our freedom as individuals to speak out on any subject is immeasurably more important than your hurt feelings when we speak, and the government has no right to question what we think. Our thoughts are not to be subject to the government's control.

The D.C. Punditry has Stockholm Syndrome

Wikipedia defines Stockholm Syndrome as "a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed." Kidnap victims, for example have been known to become emotionally attached to their victimizers, and even defend their captors and their motives after they were freed.

The victim, in other words, becomes an emotional captive of their victimizer.

Glenn Greenwald describes the relationship between Karl Rove and the the D.C. Pundits thus:

Rove's function is to manipulate the media, conceal information from them, and induce them to say what is politically beneficial to the President. In a world where political journalism performs its most basic functions, media manipulators like Rove are the natural enemy of journalists. But for our pundit class, Karl Rove is the North Star of what they do -- he provides their instructions, their leaks, their scoops, their access. And as the purveyor of Beltway political power, he is their most admired leader.

If you view the D.C. Pundits as the victims and Karl Rove as their victimizer, then we can really only assume form their slavish attention to every word Rove says as though spoken by a God or a genius then the D.C. Pundit Corps must be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

This is what happened to our national Press Corps

Glenn Greenwald interview Helen Thomas to find out how she felt about the relationship between the Press and the President. Here is a very revealing part of an excellent interview:

GG: You have covered every President since John Kennedy. I wanted to ask if you could identify how the White House press corps has changed over time, if it has, and what differences are there in terms of how journalists cover presidents?

HT: Well, that's a big order. But I do think that in the good olden days, reporters were really straight reporters. I worked for a wire service, UPI, for 57 years, and I covered the White House for UPI from the 70s onto Bush, and then became a columnist. So I certainly know both sides.

As a wire service reporter, I played it straight, with the facts, which is absolutely required of a wire service reporter. But that doesn't mean I bowed out of the human race. I permitted myself to think, to care, to believe, but it didn't get in my copy.

I did think that tough questions were always very important. With Kennedy, we knew he enjoyed the banter with the press, and he had the first live televised news conferences. And it made a big difference in terms of really capturing the imagination of the public. It was the first time they really saw reporters in action, they saw a witty president that was able to dodge questions as deftly as anyone, and he had great eloquence. That was the first time the American people really became interested in presidential news conferences.

And then Johnson had a love-hate relationship with the press. He couldn't live without us, and yet at the same time, he thought we were hurting him every day. The words "credibility gap" were created in that era.

With Nixon, that is when news management and manipulation really began. Now, every president wants to put his best foot forward, and always be able to manage and manipulate news coverage.

All presidential candidates, especially, vow to run an open administration. But they step foot in the Oval Office and the Iron Curtain slams down. Suddenly, all information that I think belongs in the public domain becomes their private preserve.

The manipulation of the press has become greater and greater. This is the most secretive administration I have ever covered. And they're all secretive.

GG: Has the press corps that covers the White House played a role in why the White House is so manipulative and why they're able to get away with such secrecy?

HT: Very much so. Reporters, after Watergate, realized that we had let so much go by us. They got much tougher when President Ford took over. It wasn't animosity. It was anger that we hadn't asked the right questions. And the press became tougher.

But they really went soft after 9/11. Reporters, I'm assuming, did not want to be called unpatriotic and un-American when we were in a national crisis.

And I don't think the corporate heads exactly wanted anyone to rock the boat at that time.

But I kept asking questions about the validity of going to war against a country that had done nothing to us.

Intimidation works on the Press Corps, too. There are a few exceptions, though. Helen Thomas is one, and the McClatchy News Service is another.

Go look at the entire interview. It is very good.