Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Bad Times for the Republic

Posted on May 20, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

YATA, Afghanistan edition: In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths.

They didn't even think the guy was guilty, and they tortured him to death.

How many 'bad apples' in how many places does it take to make a pattern and practice? How many deaths by torture in how many different places does it take to get top military and civilian commanders to admit responsibility for negligence if not commission? Surely there is some number of deaths (not to mention other barbarisms) at which point we hold, say, Rumsfeld responsible? One? Ten? A hundred? Can we agree a number now, so that when we get there, we can impeach the guy? And then, I think, prosecute him.

This is not a good moment for the Republic. Ordinarily, the public is to blame if it doesn't get outraged over atrocities committed in its name. Can we justly blame the public if it is getting its news from Fox? A steady diet of lies makes it hard to see the truth.

Meanwhile, on the floor of the Senate, Senator Santorum compares Democrats to Nazis … because they filibuster judges. Don't expect to see the people who bayed at the moon about Howard Dean screaming get the least bit anxious about this one. You certainly won't see it repeated on the news several hundred times in one week, even though it is much more serious.

In this context of what people can be expected to know, it's quite significant that the GOP now wishes to fully neuter the already partly neutered staff at PBS and NPR, thus making the only non-conglomerate major broadcast media sound like the ones bought and paid for.

And, oh yes, the people who want to pack the courts with anti-consumer and (by and large) anti-civil-liberties judges…also want to unleash the FBI from judicial oversight. The draft update of the 'Patriot' Act would let the FBI subpoena records without permission from a judge or grand jury.

Yes, that's the same FBI that, it appears, has been investigating protesters on the grounds that protest is a suspicious activity.

Meanwhile, while the Senate fights about procedure, the economy is approaching a precipice.

All it would take to be fully Roman is well organized corruption (more), and orgies.

Oh. Wait.

Posted in Politics: US | 8 Comments

Gorillaz in the Mist

Posted on May 19, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

Gorillaz: Feel Good Inc. — it's very pretty, it sounds good, but does it mean something? Not that there's anything wrong if it doesn't…

Posted in Kultcha | Comments Off on Gorillaz in the Mist

Hypocrites Ball

Posted on May 18, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

Just combine these two links please:

1) TPM explains the procedural (and moral) aspects of the so-called 'nuclear option' — in which a parliamentary device would be used to end-run a Senate rule that entrenches [requires a super-majority to change] the filibuster. Using the spurious claim that the filibuster is unconstitutional, Sen. Frist would try to overturn the rule by majority vote.

2) Senator Frist gets caught out by Sen. Schumer on the floor of the Senate:

SEN. SCHUMER: Isn't it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [Sen. Frist] voted to uphold the filibuster of Judge Richard Paez?

Senator Frist's eloquent reply must be read in its entirety.

As for the underlying issues, as I've said before, I don't in principle much like the filibuster. It's anti-majoritarian, albeit in a way that might sometimes counterbalance the built-in tilt of the Senate towards large open spaces. Yes, there can be a value to mechanisms that respect the intensity of feelings of a minority; even so, the filibuster has an ugly pedigree.

I also don't have warm fuzzy feelings for entrenchment of rules regarding unequal democratic representation or apportionment (I'm ok with entrenching individual rights) — like for example the rule that entrenches two senators per state regardless of population disparity. Nevertheless — while I claim no expertise on this question — my gut reaction is that I don't think that entrenching a Senate rule is unconstitutional either.

One thing I am sure about: neither the advise and consent clause nor any other part of the constitution 'requires that a nominee be given an up or down vote'. Whether or not the filibuster is morally valid, or even beneficial in the long run, for my money it is undoubtedly constitutionally valid.

Posted in Politics: The Party of Sleaze | 3 Comments

FBI Harassment Is Not ‘Tinfoil’

Posted on May 18, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

Remember this, the next time you are tempted to dismiss accusations of political harassment as somehow implausible.

Protesters Subjected To 'Pretext Interviews': New FBI documents to be released today show that anti-terrorism agents who questioned antiwar protesters last summer in Denver were conducting “pretext interviews” that did not lead to any information about criminal activity.

The memos were obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union as part of ongoing litigation and provide a glimpse of the FBI's controversial efforts to interview dozens of members of leftist protest groups before the party conventions last year in Boston and New York.

…

Instead, one heavily censored memo from the FBI's Denver field office, dated Aug. 2, 2004, characterized the effort as “pretext interviews to gain general information concerning possible criminal activity at the upcoming political conventions and presidential election.”

This is how freedom gets eroded, drip by drip.

If this story is true, then it seems that the federal police apparatus is now at least as corrupt (morally, not in the bribery sense) as it was in Nixon's day. Given everything else we are hearing, maybe even more so.

Democracy was in danger then, and it's in danger now.

Earlier “boiling frog” post.

Posted in Civil Liberties | 5 Comments

Fiddling While Rome Burns

Posted on May 18, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

Almost Unnoticed, Bipartisan Budget Anxiety: There were no cameras, not a single microphone, and no evidence of a lawmaker or Bush administration official in the room …

With startling unanimity, they agreed that without some combination of big tax increases and major cuts in Medicare, Social Security and most other spending, the country will fall victim to the huge debt and soaring interest rates that collapsed Argentina's economy and caused riots in its streets a few years ago.

“The only thing the United States is able to do a little after 2040 is pay interest on massive and growing federal debt,” Walker said. “The model blows up in the mid-2040s. What does that mean? Argentina.”

…

The unity of the bespectacled presenters was impressive — and it made their conclusion all the more depressing. As Ron Haskins, a former Bush White House official and current Brookings scholar, said when introducing the thinkers: “If Heritage and Brookings agree on something, there must be something to it.”

This time around the “fiddling” is the other sort.

Posted in Econ & Money | Comments Off on Fiddling While Rome Burns

Gorgeous George Galloway MP Dukes it Out With Senator Norm Coleman (Updated)

Posted on May 17, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

How dreadfully horrible and sad that it takes a raving loon like George Galloway, MP to read the riot act to the Senate. WATCH THIS VIDEO. I don't like the guy, and have a 'where there's smoke there's fire' feeling about him that may come from reading UK newspapers, but as regards the disaster of Iraq policy generally, I think Senator Norm Coleman had it coming in spades. “Pack of lies” sums it up.

Both the Washington Post story and especially the Reuters report (perishable link) are worth a look too.

Update: Great coverage at the Guardian. The straight news story, 'I am not, nor have I ever been, an oil trader', is fine and the color commentary, Galloway and the mother of all invective is super. The Telegraph's coverage is oddly subdued, perhaps because their ideological soulmates got roughed up a bit. [Probably not: see update 3 below]

Update2: A partial transcript. Includes goodies not in the video snippet linked above.

PS. Galloway claims the committee never sought to contact him before publishing its accusations. Wouldn't it be nice if some reporter could find out if there are actual letters from the Commitee addressed to him, say at his Parliamentary office? I'd think that ordinary decency, not to mention respect for a trusted ally's legislature, would require a Senate committee to at least seek his response before going nuclear.

I see there's also a separate controversy as to whether Galloway tried to contact the committee:

Mr Galloway also insisted the committee had never responded to his requests to give evidence in person.

Today a spokesman for the Senate's permanent subcommittee on investigations denied it had received correspondence from the MP, who was elected on an anti-war ticket last week to Bethnal Green and Bow in east London. The spokesman said the committee had offered to allow Mr Galloway to appear before them on Tuesday.

…

A spokesman for the US Senate committee earlier told the Press Assocation that “at no time” did Mr Galloway contact them by any means “including but not limited to telephone, fax, email, letter, Morse code or carrier pigeon”.

Republican senator Norm Coleman, the head of the committee, denied that Mr Galloway had made contact last year.

[Galloway spokesperson] Mr [Ron] McKay promised to produce evidence in letter or email form that Mr Galloway had attempted to contact the committee.

I hope some reporter will actually try to get to the bottom of who is lying here. I am not placing any bets.

Update3: Oops. I think the real reason the Telegraph's coverage might be a little weak here is that last December, Galloway won £150,000 in libel damages from the Daily Telegraph over stories claiming he received money from Saddam’s regime — the same charges being repeated by Senator Coleman's subcommittee.

Posted in Iraq | 15 Comments