Civil Liberties, the AP, and Government Accountability - Why are we looking for all the wrong people to blame?

As I wrote a couple of days ago, the media are now up in arms over the curtailing of civil liberties that is inherent in the AP Phone Records Scandal that broken in Washington DC last week.  The Washington Post published no less then five columns (here, here, here, here, and here) that featured the story in some form – and  all variations on the same theme:  this is an egregious assault on the press and civil liberties, and goes past anything the Bush Administration did, and must be stopped.

As I noted then (additional emphasis added):

History is repleat with examples of surveillance states, all probably set up due to the PERCEPTION of an existential threat , that grow and morph and begin to consume the very societies that they are meant to protect.  It happened in the Soviet Union, it happened in Nazi Germany – it happened here during WWII resulting in internment camps for Japanese citizens (among other horrible domestic abuses).  It happened under Nixon, and it happened under Johnson as Vietnam raged.

So why in the world did anyone think that the vast (and often contractor led) surveillance state cobbled together in the 9/11 ashes of the Cold War would be any different?  Because when it started was pitched to focus on “terrorists”, which is really code for Muslims?  Because it was run by the federal government?  On what basis did all these media types, and telcom bosses, and ordinary citizens believe they would be immune from NSA’s purported billion emails a day capturing and filtering capability?

Glenn Greenwald expand the point in his blog today, writing this:

You don't say! The Washington Post's breaking news here is only about four years late. Back in mid-2010, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero, speaking about Obama's civil liberties record at a progressive conference, put it this way: "I'm disgusted with this president." In the spirit of optimism, one can adopt a "better-late-than-never" outlook regarding this newfound media awakening.

What’s actually at work here, is that the denial of civil liberties (which is really a denial of human rights) has finally left the “them” community and come to “us.”  No longer can white, middle class, corporate America turn the other way while Muslims are subjected to invasive, terrible treatment, because that same segment of white, middle class America is now  firmly in the sights of the surveillance state.  It is the culmination of something predicted, ironically, by the CIA (H/T Glenn Greenwald at the link above)[emphasis mine]:

This is such an under-appreciated but crucial aspect of the Obama legacy. Recall back in 2008 that the CIA prepared a secret report (subsequently leaked to WikiLeaks) that presciently noted that the election of Barack Obama would be the most effective way to stem the tide of antiwar sentiment in western Europe, because it would put a pleasant, happy, progressive face on those wars and thus convert large numbers of Obama supporters from war opponents into war supporters. That, of course, is exactly what happened: not just in the realm of militarism but civil liberties and a whole variety of other issues. That has had the effect of transforming what were, just a few years ago, symbols of highly contentious right-wing radicalism into harmonious bipartisan consensus. That the most vocal defenders of this unprecedented government acquisition of journalists' phone records comes from government-loyal progressives - reciting the standard slogans of National Security and Keeping Us Safe and The Terrorists - is a potent symbol indeed of this transformation.

While I’m glad the media is finally waking up to how bad this really is, I think they are going off in the wrong direction for a solution.  Both David Ignatious and Joe Davidson of the WaPo (cited above) seem to think that part of the solution is “management” of federal agencies that isn’t afraid to manage and lead, so that federal employees at Justice and the IRS (in it’s Tea Party aggregation filter scandal) would have been stopped before they started.  They all but whine that senior feds aren’t doing their jobs (insert bloated, ineffective government anyone argument of the day here) and if they were, this would never have happened.

Really?  Let’s start with whom, exactly, you think are these managers who are so derelict?  The Senior Executive Service career folks who are running many parts of the federal government because they have no politically appointed bosses (thanks to Senate Republican’s sudden aversion to Advice and Consent on Presidential appointees).  Are they those same appointees, who all serve “at the pleasure of the President” and thus whose very job depends on toting the Party Line?

Or, could it be that the abuses of civil liberties – which started with state sanctioned torture and indefinite detention under President Bush – are well grounded in the Orwellian legal system Congress has constructed at the behest of two Presidents of opposing parties.  From the Patriot Act, to the FISA reauthorization and beyond, Congress has abdicated its checks and balances role on the Executive Branch, preferring to give ever broader powers to the White House, and it’s principle occupant, all in the name of keeping us “Safe.”  One wonders when we will see Congress grill itself over its own contributions to this horrible alternate reality with the vigor it applies to the Administration.

But then again, we’d all have to recognize that all these abuses – regardless of the targeted group – are heinous abominations against our Nation and its ideals.  Sadly, I fear most Americans are not yet ready to do that.

REBLOG: When the IRS targeted liberals

Other recent reporting on the Obama Administration has documented that the IRS uncovered and then corrected actions by some career federal staff to develop tools to assess whether Tea Party groups filing as social welfare organizations under Ch. 504 of the tax code were, in fact, political actors barred from using that tax provision.   While it was initially reported as the IRS targeting Tea Partiers, the MSM as usual rushed to judgement without most of the facts, and talking heads on both sides ran up the flag of capture as they attempted to board the pirate ship of the IRS.

leaving aside the subsequent reporting on the fact that this practice is actually routine in the IRS, and leaving aside the fact that in the run up to the 2012 election there was a significant boost in 504 application by Tea Party groups that was not matched by a significant boost in applications by liberal groups, Alex Seitz-Wald reminds us that the IRS was accused of doing this to liberal groups under the Bush Administration.  When the IRS targeted liberals

The Surveillence State nabs the Associated Press, a known terrorist organization (not)

According to published reports (U.S. News Here; Salon here and here)  the Associated Press has now been swept by the vast surveillance state set up by the Bush Administration, and then expanded broadly by the Obama Administration (see Here, and Here, and Here, and Here, and Here for some of my thoughts on this issue).  Glenn Greenwald has made a career of dealing with this issue.  And I have to say – AP why are you surprised?

History is repleat with examples of surveillance states, all probably set up due to the PERCEPTION of an existential threat , that grow and morph and begin to consume the very societies that they are meant to protect.  It happened in the Soviet Union, it happened in Nazi Germany – it happened here during WWII resulting in internment camps for Japanese citizens (among other horrible domestic abuses).  It happened under Nixon, and it happened under Johnson as Vietnam raged.

So why in the world did anyone think that the vast (and often contractor led) surveillance state cobbled together in the 9/11 ashes of the Cold War would be any different?  Because it started was pitched to focus on “terrorists”, which is really code for Muslims?  Because it was run by the federal government?  On what basis di all these media types, and telcom bosses, and ordinary citizens believe they would be immune from NSA’s purported billion emails a day capturing and filtering capability?

Look, we as American citizens have to make a choice, and then we have to start acting on it and keep acting on it.  We can either have a free state, where the government really and truly works for us, or we can have a safe state, where the government really and truly listens to us behind our backs, arrests and detains us for no reason and without due process, and murders us using determinations for the President that never see the light of day.  But we can’t have both, and expect them to be mutually co-existent.

REBLOG: The Heart of the Matter: Don't Worry, US Imperialism is Cost-Free

Even though I'm trying to get back to more original content here, I still think there are things running around the blog-o-sphere that my readers should see.

Such is the case with Barry Eisler's most recent offering on Muslim Blowback, framed as the Cost of current U.S. Imperialism.  The simple, and historical truth is that imperialism anywhere in the world is met with resistance of one sort or another.  We asw this in Afghanistan in the 1980's, when the Mujahadin effectively destroyed the Soviet Union by bankrupting them in a decade long war (where have we aseen that play out recently?).  We see it ongoing in Israel, where European guilt at the horros of the holocaust have enabled 7 decades fo repression of Palestinians.  We saw it in the collapes of the Spanish and British Empires.  We even see it in the narrative portions of Christianity, where Jesus teachings and ministry are too often (and too unfortunately IMHO) cast as a rebellious response to the Roman Empire.

Now Eisler joins the long running commentary of Glenn Greenwald and others (including me) on the notion that occupying the Middle East has enormous and unintended consequences and costs.

You can read more at The Heart of the Matter: Don't Worry, US Imperialism is Cost-Free

What Mark Sanford's South Carolina victory says about Democrats

So I was wrong.  I admit it, and humbly beseech your forgiveness.  Mark Sanford won the South Carolina First Congressional District last night, by what seems a really commanding percentage, 54% to 45%.  The County by County breakdown of voting is Here.

So what does this election say about Democrats heading into the 2014 mid-terms?  Well, first, the Solid South is still Solid - and Solidly Republican.  Democrats need to really look at the long term economic, sociological and cultural trends in this region before picking candidates and crafting campaign messages, or the 17 seats they need to flip the House won't materialize.

Second, Democrats need to rethink their national money strategy.  Sanford's luck seems to have shifted when the RNC pulled its campaign funding, but state politicians like the Governor, Nikki Haley (R) endorsed Sanford in the final week of the campaign.  Once that happened, Sanford was able to turn to establishment Republicans in his District and say "hey, do you want to elect local old me, funded from the grass roots, or do you want to get that Democrat, funded by outsiders elected because you can't stand my past?"  Oddly its a card that worked for Newt Gingrich in the Family Values Party for a long time, and I really hope to dig into that hipocracy at some point.

On the money point - I know it gauls liberals, progressives, and historians everywhere, but generations of Southern politicians have built successful careers on lashing out at modern day carpetbaggers, still out remake the South after its humiliating loss in the War of Northern Aggression (the Civil War to you).  Like it or not, the South still feels aggrieved that preserving the union meant being forced to radically alter it's economy at gun point.  That sense of loss, that sense of needing to regain face and respect, has driven much of Southern politics and economics for a century, and once Sanford could legitimately point to DNC money (referred to as Nancy Pelosi campaign funds and the like), Colbert-Busch and her backers had a tougher fight on their hands.

So where do Democrats go from here?  I am not sure - my Party of Record seems too preoccupied with shooting itself in the foot these days to effectively navel gaze about this loss and what it says about their approach to an old, proud, and not inconsequential part of the electorate.  To be sure, white Southerners are dwindling in number as a part of the electorate, but as long as Republicans run a better ground game that appeals to those voters fears and insecurities, Republicans will have a strong hold of the Soild SOuth.

Democrats and South Carolina - a Lowcountry Match made in Tea Party activism

Over at the Fix this morning, Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan try to make the case that a Win by former Gov. Mark Sanford (R, Tea Party Branch) in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District tomorrow is NOT a loss for Democrats.  Their premise is that if Elizabeth Colbert-Busch wins the seat, the carrying costs for Democrats will simply be too high to sustain that victory in 2014, so why bother acquiring now what will be handed back later?

Much as I respect that opinion, I think they are wrong for three key reasons:

1. First, while Mark Sanford is damaged good politically, he had to run to the far, Tea Party delirious right to even make it out of the primary ( which counted no less the 16 Republicans in contention). He also lost the support of the RNCC when he confessed to violating the court order keeping him out of his ex-wife's house, to say nothing of the embarrassment he caused his sons by introducing them to their future step mom at his victory party last month.  This means that, if he has what it takes to be nominated in the this District on the Right, Democrats won't have that hard a fight on their hands in 2 years.
2. Second, a win is a win is a win.  Democrats are supposedly drowning themselves in lethargy and "malaise" these days over President Obama's "lack luster" first 100 days (of his second term).  Both Salon and the WaPo have carried numerous example stories of this.  So Democrats need a win at something to help start their rally - why not in a House race that puts a Democrat in office under Sen. Lindsey Graham's nose?
3. Third, and perhaps most importantly. Colbert- Busch isn't running as the extreme left of center Socialist that President is still being made out to be by many of those same pundits.  Her ads in South Carolina since the primary win have been focused on her business chops and her roots and connections in the Lowcountry, not on Obamacare, or immigration, or any other issue that can be marginally linked to Democrats.  In short, she's running as a pragmatic centrist (sort of like the President actually) without invoking anything Obama has said or done. Compared to the other Republican offerings, I think if she votes the way she's running, the purple First District will be very willing to see her returned to office.

So Cillizza and Sullivan may be right - we'll know tomorrow - but the evidence and the real long term strategy would be better served if they were wrong.

An Open Letter to Conservatives

Dear Pennsylvania Citizen,

Thanks for writing.  We Liberals are stereotyped to be a literate bunch, and we greatly appreciate the time you took to put your thoughts on paper (virtual though it may be). Like you and your friends, we share a concern about how our children will grow up; like you we have favorite sports teams (mine is the LSU Tigers); like you food consumes an inordinate amount of our discussion time with friends.

And we do not hate you.

Let me say that again - we do not hate you, or your  family family, or your  business.  In fact, we'd like to hold companies like the one you describe as a model of what we wish other companies were.  The problem is that, in many cases, companies are NOT as responsible or as employee conscious as your are - and they often seem to have shareholders and corporate boards.  That you pay enough in wages (and I presume in benefits) to keep unions away is a good thing, but many American employers both keep unions away, and pay less then living wages with few or no benefits.  We liberals don't think this purpose-full impoverishment of the labor force is an economically sound approach, and so we ask government to intervene because markets writ large or small do not intervene themselves.

We do not hate you.

I too was raised Presbyterian - my paternal Grandfather and all three of my mother's younger brothers pastor in that Protestant tradition.  I too believe faith in God is a significant help to every one, and I lament the too often human derived and enforced schisms that exist between Christians, to say nothing of the wider schisms between peoples of all faiths.  It is my deep faith, and my strong adherence to God's calling, that propels me to seek societal intervention for all our less fortunate - including those without health insurance.

I am not happy with the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare's" actual name) because I think it leaves too much economic power over healthcare in the hands of for profit insurers, who are in the business of returning profits to shareholders, not delivering healthcare to every American.  Considering that healthcare bills owed are now one of the top factors in personal bankruptcy in the country, I cannot sit idly by while the market solution - which denied insurance to 35 Million fellow citizens - plods on.  In the end, if everyone has insurance, healthcare will be less costly, and less cost means more money for your company to invest in its own growth and security.  That said, let me reiterate that the market solution left 35+ Million Americans out of the system all together - and thus drove up costs significantly because they had to use emergency rooms for normal health services.  The markets wouldn't fix the problem, so the individual mandate (which as a Republican idea a decade ago)  was the solution our nation fashioned.

I do not hate you.

After the Newtown shooting in December 2012 I hoped and prayed - both for the victims, and for the Nation that we would perhaps finally be able to have a rational discussion about gun violence and gun ownership - and responsibility.  Sadly, we aren't doing that, and my side of the aisle is as easy to blame as yours is because we keep trying to ban weapons based on their looks.  As a gun owner and shooting sports enthusiast (and an urban dweller) I had hopes for universal background checks - a sensible solution that is neither liberal or conservative - but saw that too fail in a hail storm of lies about what the legislation actually did.  And yes, they were lies.  The federal legislation did not seize weapons; it didn't prevent or require background checks on family or friend sales or transfers, and it prohibited the development of a national registry or ownership database.  A specific group of people promulgated those lies, and I believe they should be held accountable.

I do not hate you.

I don't hate anyone.  I dislike, disagree with, and often am enraged by those whom you elect in your Party.  I am disgusted at their unwillingness to do any good thing with our current President (you may recall Sen. Mitch McConnell saying in 2011 that the Republican's #1 objective politically was unseating President Obama).  I am saddened that they refuse to listen to their own sensible leaders, like Sen. Marco Rubio, who is tackling undocumented immigration with approaches that can be built upon to bring dignity and consistency to all who come to our shores - but who is seeing his own Party begin to destroy his approach because it doesn't stick it to people and lIberals here first.  I'm angry that federal civil servants - all of whom are dedicated to helping and serving citizens like you and my are constantly derided to score political points.  and I am bewildered at the call for a "return to the Constitution" by a Party that has sough to hamstring it implementation when that implementation applies to people of color, women, and anyone not white, male, or upperclass. 

I do not hate you.

You are a dignified, proud human being.  No one who can claim those adjectives deserves hatred. And everyone ought to claim those adjectives.  But I will not stand for the solutions to today's problems that your purported Republican leaders support because they assault that dignity at every turn.  As a Liberal I do not believe government has every solution, but I do believe that history has shown us many times where government must craft a solution because markets will not.  And I will continue to call you, my fellow American, out for the words and conduct of your Party and your politicians (just as I do my own on this blog), since ultimately they have no power unless you elect them and send them to Washington.

I do not respect your choice to fictionalize your identity in order to create this conversation.  That was trolling of the worst kind, and while I am willing to debate your arguments on the merits, your choice to shield your real experience from me in that debate is a sure sign that you are not sure your argument could prevail.  It's also one of a series of common tactics I see daily from Republican political operatives.  Lying is lying - and it makes it impossible for us to trust or believe that we can have a substantive debate because we can't be sure who we're really debating with.