Shredding the Constitution Continues

I'm not kidding, this is a "news" story that ran in my "news"paper this morning.

Begin reproduction of entire Associated Press article:

Legal questions raised over CIA drone strikes
Professors say US could be charged
By Lolita C. Baldor
Associated Press April 29, 2010

WASHINGTON — Is the CIA’s secret program of drone strikes against terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen a case of illegal assassinations or legitimate self-defense?

That was a central question yesterday as the program was criticized by several legal scholars, who called for greater oversight by Congress, arguing the attacks could violate international law and put intelligence officers at risk of prosecution for murder in foreign countries.

Several law professors offered conflicting views, underscoring the murky legal nature of America’s nine-year-old war against extremists. The conflict has spread from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a complex campaign against Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other insurgents worldwide.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations have defended the use of attacks from unmanned aircraft. But they have also tiptoed around the issue because the CIA program — which has been escalated in Pakistan over the past year — is classified and has not yet been acknowledged publicly by the government.

The CIA strikes are “a clear violation of international law,’’ Mary Ellen O’Connell, law professor at University of Notre Dame Law School, told the House Oversight subcommittee, chaired by Representative John F. Tierney, Democrat of Salem.

O’Connell said the rest of the world does not recognize American authority to carry out attacks in Yemen and Pakistan.

CIA spokesman George Little would say yesterday only that the CIA’s counterterrorism operations are conducted in strict accord with the law.

Tierney acknowledged that he did not expect quick answers to all the legal questions. But he said Congress and the administration must begin to talk about the issue more openly. (End of entire Associated Press article as it appeared in the Boston Globe.)

Naturally I'm dismayed that Ms. Baldor, of the usually liberally-extreme Associated Press, made no mention at all of the thousands upon thousands of protesters who gathered outside the hearing room to voice their displeasure at President Obama's reassertion of yet another Bush policy.

A: Elena Kagan

Q: Who will be the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court?

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, as produced by President Obama, that he is the epicenter of the divisiveness in this country, I do not think Obama will nominate someone for the United States Supreme Court who is universally recognized as a liberal extremist (this will, no doubt, upset the thugs in the White House just itching to continue to use their Chicago-made baseball bats, tire-irons and shivs).

However, as we've seen with Obama's reassertions of nearly 100 Bush/Cheney policies and staffing decisions, Obama nominating someone more moderate than some of his radical friends will not terribly upset the liberal extremists of his Party who we now know to be raving hypocrites - their silence on Obama's "Constitution shredding" now laughable.

My thought process for this nomination goes no further than Afghanistan. As the President and Secretary of Defense Gates keeping telling us and as the liberal extremists who control the media keep ignoring, there is going to be a major US offensive in Afghanistan this summer to clear the Taliban from Kandahar. (Recall, President Obama escalated President Bush's counter-terrorism strategy to a counter-insurgency strategy with no protest by the liberal extremists.) Both the President and Gates have warned of significant US casualties with the execution of Obama's new strategy.

Supreme Court nominee hearings will run concurrent to headlines reporting on the war (the liberal extremists cannot ignore the war forever, you know).

So, the President can play the nomination two ways:

First, knowing the Republican caucus in almost unanimously behind him on Afghanistan (I can't remember a President in recent history with so much support from the opposition Party), Obama could nominate a liberal extremist to placate the liberal extremists who just might remember all their feigned outrage about US troop deaths in the run-up to the 2008 election. I simply do not think President Obama will do this. More than likely, those outraged either way (liberals about Obama's 'illegal' war in Afghanistan and Republicans by a liberal nominee) will not net the two events and temper their outrage.

Or, second, knowing the Republican caucus is almost unanimously behind him on Afghanistan, Obama can have a relatively peaceful Supreme Court process and project to the Country that he is a 'moderate' as we head into the November elections. A nominee who would ensure a relatively peaceful process is Obama's Solicitor General Elena Kagan who has tremendous support in the Republican caucus. She'd likely be confirmed with more Democrats voting against her than Republicans.

If someone thinks the liberal extremists who pushed Obama over the top in 2008 will abandon him in November 2010 (as represented in Senate and House elections, not his own) over a less-than-radical Supreme Court nominee, please let me know if I'm under-estimating just how radical that element is.

Whether the nominee is Kagan or not, I do predict the nominee will be someone who is not controversial and specifically because of the events in Afghanistan.

2:05:52

ZACKlyRight on calling the new record; not so ZACKlyRight in calling the new time.

2:06:58

This post serves more as a proof-of-life and placeholder as even with the announcement that Associate Justice of the Supreme Court John Paul Stevens was retiring, I've not found much in the news recently that has moved me to post.

I'll be just yards away from the starting line of today's 114th running of the Boston Marathon and the conditions this morning and projected for a little later in the morning suggest a Marathon record could be set today.

What the heck, let's make the call, a new Men's record of 2:06:58, lowering the previous mark by 16 seconds.

Kyrgyzstan II

This editorial appeared in my (news)paper this morning. I reproduce it here simply to provide one opinion by someone who knows a little bit about Kyrgyzstan. In addition to the bio blurb that accompanied this piece, I'll add that Mr. Kinzer is a former New York Times correspondent and his assignments over the years have literally covered the globe. That I'm impressed with Mr. Kinzer's credentials should not be misinterpreted as an endorsement of his opinion.

Off base
The US use of Kyrgyzstan as a military staging ground has caused it to turn a blind eye to conflict

Stephen Kinzer, April 13, 2010

DESPITE ITS rugged Alpine splendor, or perhaps because of it, Kyrgyzstan is one of the world’s least-known countries. So there has been much puzzlement over the recent explosion of violent pro-democracy protest there, which forced President Kurmanbek Bakiyev to flee the capital and has apparently ended his rule.

Yet this outburst was eminently predictable. Kyrgyzstan has a better chance of moving toward democracy than any other country in Central Asia, but it is caught up in big-power rivalries and remains in the grip of authoritarian traditions of the Soviet era. Not coincidentally, it is also a reluctant host to an air base that the United States uses to supply its troops in Afghanistan.

How did Kyrgyzstan fall into the abyss of instability? Part of the answer lies in the American policy of arming, training, and financing Islamic radicals in Afghanistan during the anti-Soviet insurgency of the 1980s. Veterans of that insurgency fanned out into nearby countries, including Kyrgyzstan, determined to impose fundamentalist rule like the kind the Taliban brought to Afghanistan. Kyrgyz authorities responded with brutal tactics that stigmatized all practicing Muslims as potential enemies. This repression, combined with the collapse of social services that people enjoyed during the Soviet era, pushed some Kygyz toward radicalism.

Kyrgyzstan, though, almost escaped the cycle of autocracy that has crippled Central Asia. After unexpectedly becoming independent following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, it cast about for a national leader who could give this new nation an identity. The sentimental favorite was the novelist Chingiz Aitmatov, Central Asia’s pre-eminent intellectual and one of the few people who seemed to have a coherent idea of what Kyrgyzstan was or could be. He declined the honor, and recommended a little-known scientist and mathematician, Askar Akayev, who was duly elected and served two terms as president.

I met President Akayev in 1999 as his second term, the last allowed to him by law, was ending. My main question was whether he would step down voluntarily — something that would make him unique in Central Asian history — or adjust laws to keep himself in power. He didn’t answer directly, but told me that the 2000 elections would be “fair and transparent.’’ Soon afterward, he decided to rewrite the constitution and run for another term. His control of the electoral machinery assured his victory, and his government became more corrupt and repressive. It was overthrown in the “Tulip Revolution’’ of 2005, which brought Bakiyev to power. Bakiyev, however, proved no more responsive to public will than his predecessor. Now he has apparently paid for his misrule.

Because the United States was focused on its need for an airbase in Kyrgyzstan, it turned a blind eye to Bakiyev’s sins. Americans claimed to need the base in order to fight for democracy in Afghanistan, but to secure it, they had to support an undemocratic regime in Kyrgyzstan. This contradiction, which is inherent in any imperial project, naturally alienated Kyrgyz citizens who believe they too are entitled to live in freedom. The United States wound up looking like the enemy of groups supporting “American ideals,’’ while propping up a regime based on principles it professes to detest. Bakiyev’s son, widely seen as one of his most loathsome henchmen, was in Washington last week for what were supposed to be friendly talks; anger over America’s willingness to receive him helped set off last week’s explosion.

The United States has seen Kyrgyzstan as a military staging ground, but it is something more: a nation struggling toward freedom. Democracy has a better chance in Kyrgyzstan than anywhere else in Central Asia. If the new regime manages to consolidate itself in the coming days, the United States should approach it with humility rather than more demands. If it does, Kyrgyzstan — not Afghanistan or Pakistan — might emerge as the region’s democratic leader. That would be the kind of victory for freedom that American leaders say they want to win in this deeply troubled region.

Stephen Kinzer is the author of “Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq.’’ (End of editorial as it ran in the Boston Globe, April 13, 2010)

My quick take is I certainly could have done without the criticism of the United States, it cannot always be our fault. And I don't subscribe to the argument that because something distasteful happened subsequent to an act by the United States that the conclusion is the United States caused the distasteful event. If Mr. Kinzer is correct in his assessment for a true Kyrgyz democracy, I am puzzled by the cautious approach he suggests for the United States in supporting any new government. Given how the Obama Administration immediately condemned the constitutional process by which the President of Honduras was removed from power just a short time ago, that it has not immediately condemned a bona fide coup suggests it sees some legs on the rebel democrats. Naturally, with what's at stake for the United States in Afghanistan, the Obama Administration needs to make sure it does not misplay the events in Kyrgyzstan.

As of this post, I do not know the United Nations official position on the coup. Ousted President Kurmanbek Bakiyev, who by all accounts I've read is a pretty unsavory character, made an appeal yesterday that his government still be recognized.

Kyrgyzstan

Last week, the President of Kyrgyzstan was ousted from power by proclaimed "democrats". The Obama Admionistration has yet to acknowledge the new government.

The reason why this is news to me is because there is an airport in Manas, Kyrgyzstan that operates as the primary supply point for our operations in Afghanistan. The new government wants to renegotiate the terms of the United States' lease on this airport prior to the expiration of the lease in July.

Recall, on March 27, 2009, President Obama announced a change in American strategy in Afghanistan, escalating the war from an anti-terrorism war to a counter-insurgency war. To fight his new war, Obama ordered 53,000 more troops to Afghanistan, all of which have not yet arrived.

Concurrent to all of this, Obama is engaged in a war of wars with President Karzai of Afghanistan.

The under-reported story of last week was the Kyrgyz government change, the response of the Obama Administration, and the impact all of this has on the counter-insurgency war in Afghanistan.

My post a few days ago looks even more prescient given the subsequent events in Kyrgyzstan.

Afghanistan? Unemployment? No. Credit Cards.

So, obviously, I know politics much better than I know college basketball. Maybe my picks were more from the heart than the head and I think that's okay for colleg sports.

I'm not sure of my global reach but can folks look at their local (news)paper and then let me know the name of the paper, the coverage of Afghanistan, the coverage of 10% unemployment in the United States, and the coverage of a RNC bar tab of $1,900?

My (news)paper, the Boston Globe, of course, is outraged at the RNC for respecting a woman's right to choose to dance for a living and it can't seem to find any ink for a war we very well could lose in the next six months or for the despair 1 out of ten people looking for work are encountering.

Democratic Party Hate Machine Hates On

The liberal extremists who control the media have spent a lot of disingenuous time lately trying to link Congressional Republicans to hateful acts that never occurred yet they seem to be very quiet about the hate sponsored by the Democratic leaderhship in the House.

This is the text of a fund-raising letter found at DCCC.com. DCCC is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and on their home page it claims to be 'the official campaign arm of the Democrats in the House. The DCCC is the only political committee in the country whose principal mission is to support Democratic House candidates every step of the way.' Speaker Nancy Pelosi's image is everywhere on the site.

Anyway, the hate sponsored by Congressional Democrats:

(Begin hateful fund-raising letter.)

Friend,

This is nuts.

At a time when most of America is celebrating historic health care legislation that's been a century in the making, a few narrow-minded tea party nut jobs are trying to tarnish this great achievement.

But if you think these vile two-bit wing-nuts are just gonna slink back into whatever century they crawled out from now that health care reform is the law, think again.

The same uncorked tea party rage that we saw before the health care vote is now being used against the courageous House Democrats who stood strong and made it happen.

In fact, the slimy thugs at the Republican National Committee already raised $1,494,084 in their "Fire Nancy Pelosi" campaign. That's why I'm asking you to help my Democratic friends in the House by contributing to their Million Dollar Match campaign.

Contribute to support Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats before the critical March 31st FEC fundraising deadline and your contribution will be matched dollar-for-dollar by a group of committed Democrats.

This is the first FEC fundraising deadline since the House passed health care reform. And, Republicans and the media are watching closely to see whether we reach our million dollar goal.

We gotta take this fight right to those Republican special interests and right-wing extremists determined to bring back the failed policies of the past.

Contribute to support House Democrats before the critical March 31st FEC fundraising deadline and your contribution will be matched dollar-for-dollar by a group of committed Democrats.

We will not be intimidated by the lies, distortions and hate spewing venom from the mouths of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, John Boehner and the other Republican gas bags. And, we're not about to back down in the face of the tidal wave of special interest cash pouring into the campaigns of our Republican opponents thanks to the radical decision by the Supreme Court.

The March 31st FEC deadline is a golden opportunity to demonstrate that Democrats are on the march. We already dealt those tea party crazies a big blow by putting health care reform into the history books. Now let's make it a double-punch by beating them on this big fundraising deadline.

Thanks,

James Carville

P.S. Republicans failed to block health care reform. Now, they are unleashing millions of dollars of attack ads on House Democrats who voted for it. Stand with Speaker Pelosi and those courageous pro-health care Democrats. Contribute to support House Democrats before the critical March 31st FEC fundraising deadline and your contribution will be matched dollar-for-dollar by a group of committed Democrats." (End of hateful letter sponsored by Congressional Democrats.)