A Bust of Madison

by Edward_

via Sullivan

In as excellent an essay on the NSA spying issue as this fiasco is ever likely to produce, Jonathan Rauch positively nails why Congress is morally obligated to make a big to do about this. He actually goes much further in excusing the concept of domestic spying without warrants than I am comfortable with, and notes how in comparison with Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Truman, Bush has actually been quite a good guardian of our civil liberties, but he cites the crucial distinction that the current Administration either doesn't understand or is willing to exploit:

The Civil War, World War II, and, to a lesser extent, the Korean War were intense, acute conflicts. Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Truman believed they were taking emergency measures during a conflict that they expected to be short. When it became clear that the Civil War would drag on, Lincoln went to Congress for the 1863 Habeas Corpus Act, formally legalizing his detention policy. Lincoln understood that he could not run a long war on a fly-by-night basis.

Bush, in contrast, seems determined to treat the war on terror as a permanent emergency. The administration says the 2001 use-of-force resolution allowed the government to collect battlefield intelligence here at home, superseding FISA. Invoked immediately after an enemy attack, that argument makes legal and strategic sense. Warrantless domestic surveillance and legal improvisation seem fine for four days, four weeks, or even four months.

But four years -- with no end in sight? Bush seems to have had no intention of regularizing his surveillance program by building a legal framework for it. Instead, his plan apparently was to run a secret domestic spying program outside the boundaries of conventional law for, well, how long? Decades? Forever?

Rauch then explores what seems to be the pitfalls, as well as motivational distinctions, of Bush's approach versus that of his predecessors:

Like the Cold War, the war on terror is a long war of attrition. Tim Naftali, an intelligence historian and the director of the presidential recordings program at the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs, notes that people get tired of wars and that skullduggery provokes public backlash. In the Cold War, secret domestic spying went on for years, only to eventually blow up in the face of the intelligence community.

"The administration is just saying, 'Trust us,' and you can't go on doing that for 20 years," Naftali says. "At some point, you've got to regularize this, because you can't lose your soul fighting terrorism. And terrorism is a chronic problem."

In a war of nerves, an unsustainable strategy is a losing strategy. But Bush appears to view Congress and the courts not as potential partners in the war effort, but as obstacles and adversaries; not as a source of legitimacy and sustainability, but as busybodies and pests. "It's almost," Naftali says, "as if this is a war to win a conflict over executive power."

And so, with a fierce consistency, the administration has battled to keep Congress and the courts out of the war on terror. It has sought no new legal framework for the detention of suspected terrorists and unlawful enemy combatants, even though a new framework is sorely needed. It resisted legislation to draw clearer lines between legal and illegal interrogation practices

As Rauch points out. If the NSA spying idea is such a good one, now that everyone knows about it, why doesn't Bush go to Congress and ask them to make it the law of the land? To insist he's going to keep using it, as he has, without any oversight seems to confirm Naftali's assertion that his motivation is to "win a conflict over executive power."

Rauch ends his brilliant analysis with a comparison of how President Madison handled things during the War of 1812:

The notable exception among wartime presidents was James Madison. Though the War of 1812 was a dire crisis (New York was invaded, New Orleans was attacked, Detroit fell, the White House itself was burned), Madison undertook no extra-legal maneuvers. Toward the end of his long life, he reflected that the American Framers were distinguished not by their understanding of rights but by their appreciation of institutions. "The rights of man as the foundations of just government had been long understood," he said, "but the superstructures projected had been sadly defective." Structure, Madison understood, was the key to sustainability.

Bush keeps a bust of Winston Churchill in his office. But after four years, World War II was ending and Churchill was soon to be thrown out of office. The war on terrorism is still just beginning, and Bush has three years left. If only someone would give him a bust of Madison.

My primary objection to the NSA secret spying supporters has been exactly this last idea: the so-called war on terror is expected to last for a long, long time. If changes in the law are needed to fight that conflict, then rather than clearing brush so often, perhaps the President could burn a little more midnight oil meeting with lawmakers to find LEGAL solutions to meet those needs. The idea that he hasn't had time since 9/11 to seek out a better solution than secret domestic spying is ludicrous and supports the assertion that he's most motivated by the idea of securing more power for himself.

Comments

[cleek]

Bush's history as president is full of him carving out more power for the executive: arbitrary detentions, torture, domestic wiremonitoring, energy task force records, etc..

Congress obviously doesn't care since they have the power to investigate and to change things if they want to. And even though Democrats and a few random Republican outliers make angry noises each time one of these things comes up, they forget about it quickly enough and then it's back to positioning themselves for re-election. The GOP faithful are clearly in full support and call anyone who disagrees "traitors"; but in the long run, the general public is apathetic: once Bush is gone, some other guy will be there, doing the same things, and it can't be that bad because nothing much ever changes for the Average Joe, no matter how loudly civil libertarians or partisans in the minority moan about it.

Frankly, the Constitution is no match for human greed and lust for power. Where there's a will, there's a way.

[dr ngo]

Just the tiniest of historical footnotes, before anyone else notices. (And I acknowledge that the error is not yours, but your source's.)

World War II was over within 4 years only if you are an American (1941-1945). For Brits, like Churchill, it lasted nearly 6 years (1939-1945). For Chinese, arguably, it lasted at least 8 (1937-1945; 1931-1945 if you count the Manchurian incursion).

For all, of course, it was finite, with visible, and therefore potentially defeatable, enemies, so the central point remains untouched.

[Jesurgislac]

why Congress is morally obligated to make a big to do about this.

But, so what? Even if Congress did make a big to do about this, Bush has already made clear he doesn't consider himself obligated to obey Congress.

There's really fundamentally nothing anyone can do about Bush, is there? Even impeachment would only be effective against a President who considered himself to be subject to Congress and to the law.

[Jonas Cord]

Edward, I can only hope that your take on this issue will gain more currency, as I consider it a quite honest and principled take, and one I fully agree with as well!

Fantastic post, thanks!

[Nell]

The central issue isn't the spying, or the short-term vs. permanent claim of power that Bush and Cheney are making -- it's the claim of sweeping, total executive power. Glenn Greenwald's post 'An Ideology of Lawlessness' at Digby's blog nails this crisis.

Congress and the Supreme Court are indeed obliged to resist this attempted coup. Will they? Happy endings not likely, much less guaranteed.

[Gary Farber]

"World War II was over within 4 years only if you are an American (1941-1945)."

A [deleted set of characterizations] American, indeed.

[LizardBreath]

There's really fundamentally nothing anyone can do about Bush, is there? Even impeachment would only be effective against a President who considered himself to be subject to Congress and to the law.

Well, to be obvious, no. At some point, if impeachment and conviction were to take place, and Bush refused to recognize it, the new President would first ask him to remove himself from the Oval Office, and if he wouldn't leave, would call someone to haul him out. (Yes, yes, the new President would be Cheney. Hypothetically either Cheney would be on board with the impeachment, or would be impeached in turn for failure to cooperate.)

Bush's only means of resisting an impeachment would be the personal loyalty of the Armed Forces, and while I'm not confident of much in this world, I'm pretty sure we're not that badly off yet. (Now, I don't think there's any chance that he will be impeached short of making a guest appearance on the Martha Stewart show in which he fricassees a baby and eats it, but if Congress did, I'm pretty sure it would stick.)

[Jesurgislac]

LizardBreath: Well, to be obvious, no. At some point, if impeachment and conviction were to take place, and Bush refused to recognize it, the new President would first ask him to remove himself from the Oval Office, and if he wouldn't leave, would call someone to haul him out.

Yes, hypothetically. But, in the real world, this is Cheney. Cheney has shown no more inclination to obey Congress and submit to the law than Bush has.

If the President declines to accept the authority of Congress in impeaching and convicting him, and the Vice President declines likewise, and the Pentagon (never mind the "personal loyalty of the armed forces", which I can't see would affect the issue) declines to send troops in to remove the President physically from the Oval Office...?

There is currently a President in the Oval Office who declares himself to be above the law: a Vice President who would appear to support that view: and the upper echelons Pentagon would appear to be loyal to that view (certainly as far as torture is concerned - not that Bush is ever likely to be impeached by an American Congress for declaring that in his view the armed forces are legally allowed to torture non-Americans). So, even assuming that Congress were to impeach him, and that impeachment ended in conviction, what good would that do?

[lily]

I agree--we need to revoke this insidious misconception that we are at war with terrorism. Using this so-called war to justify illegal, unconstitutional, or merely unwise extensions of executive power is as silly as using the War on Poverty or the war on drugs for that purpose.

[Gary Farber]

"Even impeachment would only be effective against a President who considered himself to be subject to Congress and to the law."

Your faith that the people and armed forces of the United States of America would refuse to take action after the conviction after impeachment of the President of the United States is interesting, and, to be sure, the event has never been tested, but I suggest that you are completely wrong.

It didn't take that much to rid us of Nixon, and this guy is just a repeat. Although, to be sure, we did have a Democratic Congress back in the day, and it was another time. Nonetheless. If you're right, expect me, and many like us, to be slumming around Britain, looking for refuge, come the day. I'm sure you'll welcome us with open, unprejudiced, arms. I'll be with Bob, perhaps. Doubtless, though, I will be rejected as insufficiently leftist. I suppose there's room left in the Ukraine.

[Frank Wilhoit]

The indefinite duration of the "War on Terror" is far from the only, or the foremost, objection, either to it or to the Huston Plan (to give it its proper name, now that is being put into practice over thirty years after its original formulation.)

The proper objection to the domestic surveillance is that it is not targeted against terrorists but against purely domestic persons and organizations who [are imagined to] oppose the Republican Party.

The proper objection to the "War on Terror" is that it is merely an allegory. The only war that is in progress or in prospect is an undeclared Civil War being waged by the Republican Party against the rest of America.

[Gary Farber]

"So, even assuming that Congress were to impeach him, and that impeachment ended in conviction, what good would that do?"

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, we Americans carry on with our immoral American lives, cursing our Americanness every moment we remember how wicked we are to exist. It's the least we can do, given the moral purity that exists in the tiny segments of Britain in which Jesurgislac rules, and shames us all.

I'm looking into emigration pssibilities to Grand Fenwick, as I write, I assure you.

[Jesurgislac]

lily: I agree--we need to revoke this insidious misconception that we are at war with terrorism.

Isn't it actually, officially, the War On Terror? Because I always thought that sounded even sillier: go to war against intense, overpowering fear? How do you aim WOMD at fear?

[LizardBreath]

Pentagon (never mind the "personal loyalty of the armed forces", which I can't see would affect the issue)

Of course it does. Hell, Congress has control over the D.C. Police Force (I think -- certainly the aid of the Mayor of DC would be available in this context), which is perfectly capable of removing a recalcitrant impeached President and Vice President from the Oval Office. To keep that from happening, individual soldiers (not the 'upper eschelons of the Pentagon', but guys like my cousin Timmy who aren't all that politically different from the rest of the American public) would have to accept orders to protect the President and obey him in his defiance of Congress. It wouldn't work, and the orders wouldn't be issued.

[LizardBreath]

I may be wrong, but I'm sure.

[cleek]

i'm sure all of you lawyerly types know about this already, but the interviews with Jose Padilla's lawyer(s) over at The Talking Dog are pretty interesting.

[Anderson]

The Congressional Research Service has issued a 44-page report, which I have not yet read, taking what the NYT says is a skeptical view of Bush's power to ignore FISA. For those of you with more free time than I've enjoyed today.

[dutchmarbel]

I suppose there's room left in the Ukraine.

Lot's of room, but no gas :)

the Netherlands have lots of gas but no room and a bit of an unhealthy political climate at the moment, so if I were you I'd do the traditional thing and go to Canada :)

[togolosh]

There is a strain of populist conservatism (perhaps nationalism would be a better word, but it's not quite right either) that almost requires an enemy to structure and order its worldview. I started thinking about this after the end of the Cold War, with the rise of the militia movement. I think there's a common emotional strain running through parts of hardcore anticommunism, the black helicopter crowd, the Clinton witchhunt, and now the War on Terror (what a stupid name).

To a certain extent having an enemy helps structure the worldview for all of us, but in the case of nationalist conservatism the need seems particularly deep. From this perspective the WoT is a godsend - a shadowy enemy, poorly defined victory conditions, no clear end criterion. It is also convenient for those who need something to distract the 'little people' while they game the system to enrich themselves.

The far left plays this game, too, but in a different way. The clearest example is Nader, who seems to go after just about anything (Teresa Nielsen Hayden just posted something about this - well worth a read).

I'll stop before I begin to ramble. The link to TNH's post is http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/007140.html#007140>here

[Jesurgislac]

LizardBreath: I may be wrong, but I'm sure.

Fair enough! It's just that (as far as I can tell, since I do not think that bloggers are particularly representative) most Americans just don't care that Bush has declared himself to be above the law: and a significant proportion still think he's a good President.

[Anarch]

It didn't take that much to rid us of Nixon, and this guy is just a repeat.

"That much" relatively or absolutely?

[Gary Farber]

"Lot's of room, but no gas :)"

I heard, but who would distrust Pooty-Poot? After all, he's not American.

"...so if I were you I'd do the traditional thing and go to Canada...."

I was just explaining to someone on P. Z. Meyers' site the other day how much I liked Canada, and all the provinces and cities and towns I'd been to, but truth be told, between settling in Canada and Britain, I'd choose Britain, had I a choice. Less room, but more history, and I'm rather an Anglophile, as anyone who looks at my stuff might easily tell.

Canada has much goodness, to be sure, even if they threaten to invade the U.S. Even despite the hideous threat of Celine Dion.

After all, without William Shatner, our country would be lost. Lost, I tell you, lost!

Put the gun to my head, and I'm off for Vancouver, though. Excellent Asian food, at the least, and good mountains.

[Gary Farber]

"...and a significant proportion still think he's a good President."

Doubtless true, although we'll see how the 2006 Congressional elections go. (Although the fundamental problem facing our country that is rarely talked about is gerrymandering, and there's no solution in sight.)

Meanwhile, the country that repeatedly elected Margaret Thatcher isn't quite precisely on the moral high ground for lectures, as it happens. While we're doing silly things like speaking of and for whole countries.

[Bruce Baugh]

Last I heard, people recuperating from surgery weren't prohibited from commenting on others' bad habits. Indeed, someone who's gone through a trauma may be an excellent source of insight into dealing with ones like it, and even ones that are somewhat different.

[dutchmarbel]

Canada has much goodness, to be sure, even if they threaten to invade the U.S. Even despite the hideous threat of Celine Dion.

After all, without William Shatner, our country would be lost. Lost, I tell you, lost!

At least Nathan and Jewel don't sing :). Though one should not underestimate Joss Whedon of course...

And the US have named laws to invade other countries after us and we're still mostly friendly to you...

I've never been to Canada. I could live in the UK, but I might prefer Spain or Australia. If I could not live in the Netherlands anymore, that is.

[Edward_]

Meanwhile, the country that repeatedly elected Margaret Thatcher isn't quite precisely on the moral high ground for lectures, as it happens.

Nor necessarily Blair, if we're really gonna get into it... ;-)

[CharleyCarp]

Isn't it actually, officially, the War On Terror?

The current thinking seems to be that if it's actually, officially anything, it's actually officially what's authorized in the AUMF:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

That's a lot more of a finite thing than one would guess from the many pronouncements.

[Gary Farber]

Holland is, as it happens, one of the European countries I'd most like to visit. Not just for the banal reason, which my last impression suggests is less attactive than it used to be, in any case. Because of the beauty and history. The usual reason. My usual reason, that is.

"Though one should not underestimate Joss Whedon of course..."

There is a hero of Canton, after all. (Work the right combo, and you can hear Joss sing it. Really.)

"I want to go to the sucky town where I'm a hero" (paraphrase from memory) immediately became one of the mottos of my life.

"...if we're really gonna get into it...."

Not my plan. I felt the need to say in passing, and now I'm past it, myself.

I'd also love to visit Australia. But there's pretty much nowhere I wouldn't like to visit, assuming I could avoid disease and huge bugs and such, actually. It's an almost infinite list.

I read a lot, instead. And mope. Mope, mope, mope. Though not always, nor all the time. Not so much this past week, actually, which is good.

I even remember the week-long Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. Good times. Who needed the WOT when we had the so-briefly-lived GSAVE?

[bob mcmanus]

"But there's pretty much nowhere I wouldn't like to visit"

Ain't nowhere I want to go, even to visit. Except maybe for places to walk my dogs, within ten miles. I am currently deep into Cesarism, 1st California Church of Zennist Dog Whispering, attempting to become a calm assertive pack leader. By being a clear pool, a mossy rock, a still point the monsters may stop marking everything and running in circles. Aum. It will change my life.

Also started Atkins on the 2nd. Exercising like a Marine, I am down seven pounds in four days. I am content, save for an insatiable desire for anything alfredo. And key-lime pie.

Really, the only thing I desire that I don't have, other than financial security instead of approaching debt-peonage, is Democratic control of government, and a reversal of the last thirty years of policy. And a pony.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"My primary objection to the NSA secret spying supporters has been exactly this last idea: the so-called war on terror is expected to last for a long, long time. If changes in the law are needed to fight that conflict, then rather than clearing brush so often, perhaps the President could burn a little more midnight oil meeting with lawmakers to find LEGAL solutions to meet those needs. The idea that he hasn't had time since 9/11 to seek out a better solution than secret domestic spying is ludicrous and supports the assertion that he's most motivated by the idea of securing more power for himself."

Yes.

[Jesurgislac]

Edward: Nor necessarily Blair, if we're really gonna get into it... ;-)

Tony Blair... *mutter* *mutter* *mutter*

Though I haven't voted for him or for his party in the last three elections, he's still a better choice than the losers the Conservatives keep electing to lead: not that that's saying much. Lying scum, but competent lying scum. All the Conservatives could say in response to any of the actions Tony Blair's responsible for is that they would have done exactly the same, only more of it and faster. And the problem with the UK Parliamentary system is that, unless we can get cross-party support for reform of the first-past-the-post system, the choice for now and probably for the next General Election has been between Labour and Conservative: and the Conservatives haven't been acting like a competent party to govern the UK for at least ten years.

[Jesurgislac]

Though I haven't voted for him

Well, in fact, I've never voted for him: I don't live in his constituency and I'm not a Labour Party member. :-) But in 1997, if I had been in his constituency, I probably would have done.

[CharleyCarp]

I had a deposition in Amsterdam several years ago, scheduled on Queen Day for the convenience of the witness. I stayed in Leiden, for sentimental reasons, and as I was walking from the train station to the Ramada Inn where the deposition was to take place, a couple of young men with orange hair decided that I wasn't paying sufficient homage to their royal family. I guess the fact that I was wearing a suit and appeared to be walking to work was part of it. Anyway, they determined that life would be better for all concerned if I had orange hair too.

They offered, I declined, offered again more seriously, I declined again with mounting alarm, and they seemed to think I was just being shy, and probably really did want orange hair after all, and so took steps to make it so. I moved away. They followed. So it went for a long block, until I came to a street vendor, who was selling electric orange hats. I purchased one, overpaid (not looking for change), and put it on. The zealous young men pronounced themselves satisfied.

As it turned out, they were probably right all along. The videographer at the deposition didn't aim the camera at me anyway, and the witness gave her testimony as a hopeless drone. (It bored the jury terribly several months later). Maybe orange hair would have helped.

Wasn't Madison from Orange County?

[matttbastard]

Jes:

Though I haven't voted for him or for his party in the last three elections, he's still a better choice than the losers the Conservatives keep electing to lead: not that that's saying much. Lying scum, but competent lying scum. All the Conservatives could say in response to any of the actions Tony Blair's responsible for is that they would have done exactly the same, only more of it and faster. And the problem with the UK Parliamentary system is that, unless we can get cross-party support for reform of the first-past-the-post system, the choice for now and probably for the next General Election has been between Labour and Conservative: and the Conservatives haven't been acting like a competent party to govern the UK for at least ten years.

Replace 'Tony Blair' with 'Paul Martin' and 'Labour' with 'Liberal' and you've pretty much laid out how I feel about the current Canadian electoral landscape.

[dutchmarbel]

Maybe orange hair would have helped.

Lol. You would be better of with at least something orange, Queensday in Amsterdam. But you ought to have bought something from an enterprising original person, not from a commercial outlet. And of course you should have kept the change to donate it to some hard working child. I soooooo love Queensday :)

It does make political usage of Orange (like last year in Israel and in the Ukraine) weird to watch though, because once's associations are so different.

Gary: I am tied down by three little boys, but there are soooo many countries I'd like to visit. But not many I'd like to live in...

Jes: LibDems will be facing a hard time too, with Kennedy stepping down and they were the only other party big enough to have some impact. I am a Dutch LibDem and always liked Paddy Ashdown better I must admit :)

BoB: I am a weightwatchers fan. Lost 65 pounds with them the past year...

Edward_: I have always hated the name "the War on Terror". It is a distracting simplification. And if the fight against islamo-terrorism needs other tools, those should be made as laws and some form of control and accountability should be build in. Especially when you think they are necessary parts for a long time coming.

Abuse is so easy. There allready is a nice story going round about how they might have targetted journalists, Christine A. from CNN in particular, who's partner happends to be politically involved with leading Democratic politicians...

It is frustrating, but necessary. We have a would-be Al-Quaida terrorist who has been arrested and set free twice allready (I recently heard a stand-up comedian refer to him as our 'practise terrorist') and the best our intelligence service can come up with is 'being a pain in the neck through obvious following'.

[rilkefan]

Your phone records, available online for $110. Insane.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I can already get my phone records online for free.

Oh you mean other people's phone records.
Yikes.

[will]

Charleycarp:

Yes. Madison was from Montpelier in Orange County, Virginia.

Everyone should read a little Madison.

Call me a freak, but my 13 year old is named Madison.

[Gary Farber]

"Gary: I am tied down by three little boys, but there are soooo many countries I'd like to visit. But not many I'd like to live in..."

The Netherlands has always struck me as one of the best, once the Germans weren't imposing briefly. I can't speak to what I'd think after I tried to live there for a while, but it's an experiment I would be thrilled to engage in.

Meanwhile, even a visit would be immensely thrilling. I'm fantasizing as I write. I take what fun I can, however imaginary. Man, it would be fun.

Although owning a notebook computer with wireless access would help that immensely. I'm just greedy.

[Katherine]

It's funny, I've always thought of the name "Madison" as being connected to Daryl Hannah in Splash, not to James. I love James Madison's writing. It always drove me crazy that the Federalist Society had appropriated him to be their logo. This was back when I thought they just wanted to declare the New Deal unconstitutional & effectively repeal the post civil war amendments & a few of their least favorite items in the bill of rights, not royalists who weren't so sure about that Magna Carta business.

[Katherine]

(to be fair, the Federalist Society is pretty much okay with the 13th and 15th amendments as far as I know--the 14th less so.

And that was a bit tongue in cheek, but only a bit. I went to law school with a bunch of these guys; we, um, didn't get along very well.)

[KCinDC]

CharleyCarp, the key words in the AUMF from the bit you quoted seem to be "he determines" -- so it may not be as finite as we hope.

Bob, isn't a big bowl of alfredo sauce okay on Atkins, as long as you avoid the pasta?

[Gary Farber]

"I went to law school with a bunch of these guys...."

I was a pseudo-Yalie, living with my Yalie sweetie in off-campus assigned duplex housing, circa 1979, while she was still an active member of the Party of The Right, and hanging out with Rich Brookhiser and pals. I knew he'd go where he went.

Interesting times. It was an interesting viewing perch. I'd never have met Scott Griswold, son of Erwin, or Charlie Bork (Charles, now, I'm strictly instructed), son of Robert Bork, or had Charlie over to my 1984 we-watch-election-results gathering of about six of us, otherwise, for instance. I was surrounded by Reaganauts who refused to abide by my request that non of us be triumphalists, but that was 96% Victor Gonzalez being the typical asshole that he was, to be sure. Charlie was quite polite, as was par for the course of him seeming to be a good guy. He went off to be a photojournalist in Afghanistan after that.

If I should apologize for digressionary rambling, I do.

[will]

Katherine:

I am a Virginian whose mother, sister, now-ex-wife, ex-sister-in-law all went to James Madision U. But most importantly, I would prefer Virginia to be remembered more for Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments than for Pat Robertson.

[Jim Rockford]

The problem is that Bush requires Democrat partnership; and the Party of Howard Dean, Cynthia McKinney, Teddy Kennedy, and John Kerry is simply not going to agree to ANY measure recognizing the terrorist threat and a legal framework to deal with it.

Dean, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, etc. all say that terror is not real, not a threat, and nothing to be concerned about. "Don't be afraid" etc.

We will not get any action until a major 9/11 or worse style atrocity happens, Bush beats up Dems for allowing it by outing major espionage operations, methods, sources, etc. and tying his hands legally to stop attacks.

Only when Dems face well, political extinction, will they finally abandon their absolutist positions and agree to some semblance of a workable framework for use of technology to catch terrorists with oversight to prevent abuse. It might take the nuking of a city, 1.6 to 5 million dead, and the total dissolution of the Dem Party to accomplish this. Unfortunately the Kos death grip on the Party has simply destroyed it's ability to respond to events.

Bush has not tried to work a solution because none is politically possible. None. Name me one Democrat who could call for giving the President both freedom to act and accountability measures?

I mean Dems want to impeach Bush for listening in to people who are in contact with Al Qaeda terror masters. Lunacy and denial of the problem. Sadly the lamps of decency are going out all throughout the world, we will not see them lit again in our lifetimes. Dems think the magic fairy dust will prevent Iran from nuking us alongside Israel.

I laugh at the multi-culti libs tied down by PC. Netherlands? Where Van Gogh was stabbed and beheaded for offending Muslims? Where gays are routinely beaten by Muslims? Where Ayaan Hirsi Ali is under 24/7 guard for being an apostate and offense to Muslims? Where Pym Fortune was murdered by an animal rights activist for ... yes offending Muslims? Or most of Ali's party (she's an MP) is under 24/7 guard at Army barracks under threat of death? Whether it's France (gang rapes on the trains by Muslim youths going unpunished as the police are afraid); or Sweden and Norway (many cities are "no-go" areas ruled by Muslim immigrants) or the riots and "Danes out" in cities in Denmark over a cartoon in a Danish newspaper depicting Mohammed, Europe is awash in violence by Muslims intent on imposing Sharia rule by force (60% of Brit Muslims want Sharia rule there and an Islamic Republic). You can argue WHY that is so, but it certainly IS so. No neutral ground on this one. Choose the Caliphate or fight it. That's it. Pretty pathetic that Liberalism went from FDR's Four Freedoms to ... a sad denial of reality.

[rilkefan]

Yes, sadly we deny the bizarro reality in which Kerry says that "terror is not real".

[Anarch]

The ammoniac stench of fear is almost overpowering the smell of the burning Constitution. Almost.

[Anarch]

BTW, for those unfamiliar with his oeuvre, Jim Rockford -- assuming it's the same one -- was a rather notoriously unhinged RW commenter on Calpundit/Washington Monthly. And when I say "unhinged RW commenter", I'm referring to the rather... expansive notion relevant to WM comment threads...

[Edward_]

Choose the Caliphate or fight it. That's it. Pretty pathetic that Liberalism went from FDR's Four Freedoms to ... a sad denial of reality.

OK, Mr. Rockford, let's see some cites.

Sweden and Norway (many cities are "no-go" areas ruled by Muslim immigrants). How many cities are "no-go" areas? Which ones? Are you talking entire cities (your prose does indeed suggest so) or do you mean subsection ghettos like the ones in France where the police stay away (much as we've seen here in the US, at times). Because the ghetto phenomenom and resulting violence that lead to the riots has across the board been attributed to racism and disenfranchisment, and most definitely NOT a religious struggle.

And 60% of Brit Muslims want Sharia rule there and an Islamic Republic

I haven't see that. Where are you getting that number?

You can argue WHY that is so, but it certainly IS so.

Then it should be very easy to point to a reliable cite backing it up.

If you're referring to this, then you're grossly misrepresenting what it means:

A special Guardian/ICM poll based on a survey of 500 British Muslims found that a clear majority want Islamic law introduced into this country in civil cases relating to their own community. Some 61% wanted Islamic courts - operating on sharia principles - "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law".

This is not even close to demanding an Islamic Republic, and if you're gonna argue they shouldn't want to have that, you should at least explain why that's so different from community-limited religious courts right here in the US, such as the Beth Din or the Amish Bishop's enforcement of the Ordnung. Surely you don't object to those.

Rather than cherry picking the odd number here and there to support your pre-existing predjudice, why don't you refrain from insulting people until you actually know what you're talking about?

[dutchmarbel]

Netherlands? Where Van Gogh was stabbed and beheaded for offending Muslims?

Stabbed, not beheaded. By an idiot who is now sentenced.

Where gays are routinely beaten by Muslims?

Routinely??? Which newspapers do you read? But I am glad to see that gay-rights are so imporant to you. There is a lot that needs to be done in the States and that is easier for you than trying to change things in the Netherlands.

Where Ayaan Hirsi Ali is under 24/7 guard for being an apostate and offense to Muslims?

More people who get death threats are under protection; unfortunately we have discoverd that we should take those more seriously these days. But isn't it nice that the fact that a politician needs bodyguards is still news?

Where Pym Fortune was murdered by an animal rights activist for ... yes offending Muslims?

Pim. And eh..... again: which newspapers do you read? The nut animal rights activist that killed him might just as well have done it because Pim wanted the bio-industry to stack the caged animals ('animal flats' he called the idea).

[Jesurgislac]

Anarch: BTW, for those unfamiliar with his oeuvre, Jim Rockford -- assuming it's the same one -- was a rather notoriously unhinged RW commenter on Calpundit/Washington Monthly.

I remember him. Is he even worth debunking? Someone who claims that entire cities in Denmark and Sweden are "no go areas" because of Muslim immigrants is plainly repeating a claim he read somewhere that he's never bothered to fact-check for himself.

[dutchmarbel]

BTW, for those unfamiliar with his oeuvre, Jim Rockford -- assuming it's the same one -- was a rather notoriously unhinged RW commenter on Calpundit/Washington Monthly.

Ah, tnxs Anarch. The unhinged I'd allready noticed :)

[Jesurgislac]

Edward_: why don't you refrain from insulting people until you actually know what you're talking about?

Because then Jim would never be able to insult anyone at all, and what else does he live for? :-)

[Jay C]

Unfortunately, since bloghandles don't have any sort of copyright protection, we can't really tell whether this "Jim Rockford" IS the same commenter who posts lame anti-liberal, anti-Democratic screeds at Washington Monthly and other blogs. It's especially applicable chez Drum, where swiping the trolls' handles is a common amusement: but it sure sounds like him.
It is too bad about his partisan attack-mode, though: since ole Jimbo does bury a quite valid point amid all the simpleton stereotyping: i.e., a need to:

"... agree to some semblance of a workable framework for use of technology to catch terrorists with oversight to prevent abuse."

Sadly, for J.R.'s argument, it seems that it has been the Bush Administration, not the Democrats, who have mostly circumvented or ignored the "oversight to prevent abuse" part.