Planet Utah

Utah Amicus: Questions for Obama (and Obama lovers)

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:39:00 +0000

Article from syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell:

...As Well As Several Other Issues

By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted Thursday, July 24, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Here are some questions that Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charles Gibson should be asking Barack Obama as they follow him on his trip:

Q: Before your trip to Iraq, you said that you intend to give the military a "new mission" — all of the combat troops withdrawn within 16 months. Why bother traveling to Iraq and consulting with commanders on the ground, if you've already decided on a new mission?

Q: In 2004, you called it unwise to announce a timetable. By 2008, however, you announce a 16-month timetable. Only a few days ago, your top campaign strategist stated that you were "not wedded" to that timetable. The next day, you reiterated your 16-month timetable, but added it's important not to "undo" our gains. Isn't this confusing?

Q: On Iran, you criticized President Bush for leaving all options on the table up to and including a "military option." And during the campaign season, you criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton for voting to call the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terror organization. But you later said that, as to Iran, all military options are on the table, and said that you consider the Revolutionary Guard a terror organization. Did the facts change or the politics change?

Q: You announced support for a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians, with Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. The next day, you reversed course, leaving the disposition of Jerusalem a matter to be negotiated between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Can you clarify?

Q: You said you would sit down, without preconditions, with leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Kim Jong Il of North Korea. You later agreed to hold such talks only under prearranged conditions. You further stated that such talks would occur only when and if you choose to hold them. Again, please clarify.

Q: You point to Kennedy's 1961 summit with Khrushchev, held without preconditions. But Kennedy's secretary of state, Dean Rusk, advised against the meeting, and Kennedy later declared the talks a disaster. Many historians say that Khrushchev sized up Kennedy as a novice, which em-boldened Khrushchev in building the Berlin Wall and in putting missiles in Cuba. Is it wise to hold up the Kennedy/Khrushchev summit as a model?

Q: The Canadians recently agreed to accept 550 tons of yellowcake from Iraq. The Associated Press called it the remaining portion of Saddam Hussein's "nuclear program." David Kay, the weapons hunter, found no stockpiles of WMD, but maintained that Saddam Hussein possessed the intent and capacity to restart his chemical and biological program following the lifting of sanctions. Was President Bush, therefore, correct in saying that Saddam posed a "grave and gathering threat"?

Q: Before you joined the Senate, you said that you opposed this war. But you later said that you understood how and why your Senate colleagues voted for the war, that they were "privy" to national security information you did not have. You also said the vote must have been "difficult." Your nomination opponents Christopher Dodd, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Clinton — all in the Senate at the time — voted for the war. How can you be so certain that had you been in the Senate, you would have voted against the war?

Q: Some argue that if the United States does not attack Iran before they get a nuclear weapon, Israel will. Do you believe this is true? If so, what will the U.S. do, especially since many will blame the U.S. anyway?

Q: In stating your intention to end the Iraq War, you say it costs $10 billion per month. But you, as does John McCain, intend to leave a "residual force." Can you give us the size of that force, and provide a cost estimate?

Q: Since the surge, 15 of the 18 benchmarks have been met. The Sunnis, who boycotted Parliament, have now rejoined it. Polls show Iraqis more optimistic about their country's future than Americans are about ours. At the provincial level, oil revenues are being shared, and Iraq's oil production is at a postwar high. But for the surge, wouldn't things in Iraq now be substantially worse?

Q: You opposed the Iraq War and the surge. If you had gotten your way, wouldn't Nouri al-Maliki and other members of the Iraqi government, with whom you have met, be in exile, in jail or dead?

Q: New York Times reporter John Burns estimates that under Saddam Hussein — through war and terror — up to a million Iraqis may have died. Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein?

Q: We have not been hit on American soil in the seven years since 9/11. In the last five years, no major American facility in the entire world has sustained a terror attack. Does President Bush deserve any credit for this?

Q: Estimates for the monetary cost of 9/11 range from $600 billion to $1 trillion. Is it not possible, just possible, that Bush's actions — including beefing up Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, increased surveillance, and especially the war in Iraq — have prevented another 9/11?

Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc

Utah Amicus: Teachers and pay for performance

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:47:00 +0000

Click on title for link

Utah Amicus: Amicus Afternoon Edition

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:20:00 +0000

Poll: 63% of Americans aren't buying the McCain/Bush (Hatch, Bennet, Bishop) Drilling Hype.

Crandall Canyon Report Complete: Poor Design, Inadequate Oversight.

150 Candidates Have Signed on to Recapture the Flag. Have you?
Testing the "Anti-Dust" Solution.

Campaign 2008: The Reverse Nader Effect.

Read the Administration's Proposal for Relaxing Workplace Toxin Rules.

Glenn Beck is Still an Idiot.

Logan City Extends Solar Power Program.

The 11 1/2 Biggest Ideas of the Year.

One Utah: “Show respect while she’s speaking”

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:18:39 +0000

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is an absurd, counter productive policy. At Pam’s House Blend, she’s got some fun video of Elaine Donnelly doing her whackadoodle best to argue in favor of the policy. Donnelly raises the “unit cohesion” argument again and again and Rep. Patrick Murphy smacks it down -asking in essence, “Are you saying American soldiers are less professional than their peers in 24 countries that allow openly gay and lesbian people to serve in the military?” Donnelly dodges and weaves to avoid it and starts talking about a woman allegedly assaulted by a group of lesbians and what should she do and she yammers something about “forced cohabitation.” Which of course, doesn’t address Murphy’s question.

Dana Milbank at the WaPo has a fun story Sorry We Asked, Sorry You Told describing the hearing and the responses to Donnelly’s testimony:

lawmakers invited a quartet of veterans to testify on the subject and also extended an invitation to Donnelly, who has been working for years to protect our fighting forces from the malign influence of women.

Donnelly treated the panel to an extraordinary exhibition of rage. She warned of “transgenders in the military.” She warned that lesbians would take pictures of people in the shower. She spoke ominously of gays spreading “HIV positivity” through the ranks.

“We’re talking about real consequences for real people,” Donnelly proclaimed. Her written statement added warnings about “inappropriate passive/aggressive actions common in the homosexual community,” the prospects of “forcible sodomy” and “exotic forms of sexual expression,” and the case of “a group of black lesbians who decided to gang-assault” a fellow soldier.

At the witness table with Donnelly, retired Navy Capt. Joan Darrah, a lesbian, rolled her eyes in disbelief. Retired Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, a gay man who was wounded in Iraq, looked as if he would explode.

Inadvertently, Donnelly achieved the opposite of her intended effect. Though there’s no expectation that Congress will repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allow gays to serve openly in the military, the display had the effect of increasing bipartisan sympathy for the cause.

Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) labeled her statement “just bonkers” and “dumb,” and he called her claims about an HIV menace “inappropriate.” Said Snyder: “By this analysis . . . we ought to recruit only lesbians for the military, because they have the lowest incidence of HIV in the country.”

Perhaps my favorite anecdote from the day, however, comes from the HRC’s liveblog of the event:

Vic Snyder calls Donnelly on her support of restrictions of female service indirectly by asking Jones to help him thwart those efforts.

Snyder scolds Donnelly for bringing up HIV. If that’s such a concern, why not recruit only lesbians? Uproarious laughter in the overflow room! Touche Vic Snyder.

2:35: CJ - Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness is speaking. There is an audible burst of laughter from the overflow room when Donnelly throws in a “San Francisco left” phrase just for dramatic effect. Another guffaw from the crowd when Donnelly expresses her concern over gay men sharing a “cramped submarine” with other soldiers.

OMG: There is an older lady in the room who just turned around to the room brimming with youngsters and yelled issued the warning, “Show respect while she speaks!” She looks right at me when she finishes. (…Was it the tie?) WELL OKAY!

The room keeps laughing at Donnelly’s outrageous statements. The older woman is obviously losing this fight. “They’re just disrespectful people!” she hisses.

“Equal opportunity is important, but the needs of our military must come first,” are Donnelly’s closing words. I guess the words from generals and veterans who have actually served in the military don’t mean anything to her, huh?

Donnelly is laughable. Her concerns are laughable. Donnelly is head of organization that has spent years fighting to keep gays out of the military; she’s not sure women should be allowed to serve either.

The conservative movement’s obsession with the military - especially religious conservatives - borders on the disturbing at times. Members are the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs report religious harrassment including coercive proselytizing - by conservative Christian classmates and chaplains. Accounts of conservative Christians creating a hostile environment for mainline, Jewish, Muslim and atheist classmates are becoming more common in the US military schools and the military itself (Ed Brayton has been tracking these stories as he finds them). I’ve long wondered about the connection between the conservative movement and the military; I don’t mean the literal connection, but the emotional, psychological connection. What is it about the military - an institution in which members largely surrender personal autonomy and freedom - that is so emotionally powerful for conservatives? Being in the military is an experience of indoctrination, structure, obedience respect and social isolation. Military life is divorced from civilian life, isolated on bases and ships and overseas. Even when military bases are in the midst of large cities, there is a separation between the military and residential community. In two years of living in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia, home to Norfolk Naval base, it was rare to see members of the military. Life in the military is almost the polar opposite of life in American society.

So I think about the woman hissing “Show respect” and it occurs to me that the issue is respect for authority and the military represents the ultimate expression of authority. Authority in the military is extremely clearly defined, deliniated by rank, by age, by experience. Conservatives are, largely, deeply respectful of authority, especially authority they identify as valid. I remember reading articles lauding George W. Bush for his “respect for the Oval Office” because he would not take off his suit jacket while in it. Attacks on Barack Obama about a flag lapel pin are all about “respect” for the flag. Attempts to outlaw flag burning are all about a construct of “respect” for the flag that suggests that “disrespecting” the flag is the same as disrespecting what it stands for.

The woman hissing “show respect” was speaking a conservative truth that sees in the values of the military - structure, obedience, respect - an exemplar of the conservative view of a healthy society - one in which one knows the rules, follows them, and respects those who make the rules.

I think about my experiences over many years speaking with Utah State legislators and I realize how many times I’ve been told, in essence, “We’re the authority figures and we know what’s right for Utah.” It’s not intended in a malignant or negative way, but it is embedded in a worldview in which obedience to authority is a core value. If one works one’s way up in the system, by following the rules, by doing what is expected, one is rewarded by being granted greater authority. Knowing the rules is all about knowing where one fits in the system. The military, with its clearly defined rank and hierarchy and host of rules and regulations about conduct, represents the perfect system of authority.

It’s a minor incident but one that to my mind perfectly expresses ideas of authority. A few years ago, in my job, I had to locate a person who had authorized payments to the company because we had received checks for which we had no corresponding invoices or information. After a series of phone calls, I finally reached the person. Our conversation was short but simple. I said something like, “Could I speak to Sam Jones.” He replied, “This is he,” and I said, “Hi Sam this Glen from . . .” He interrupted me to say, “I’m Mr. Jones.” In his mind, by not calling him “Mister” I was failing to show him necessary respect. He was in a positio of authority and saw his title of “Mister” a sign of that authority. (FWIW, the rest of call was a comedy of errors as he was so flustered by me not calling him Mr. Jones and he couldn’t concentrate on the topic at hand.)

Such a worldview of course distrusts the messy and often noisy processes of participatory democracy. It’s not uncommon to hear expressed variations of the sentiment “I was voted into office, so the voters approve of what I’m doing. If they disapprove they can vote against me.” The idea, however, that a voter might both vote for you and not approve of everything you do does not enter into this worldview. Heck, I’ve voted for Jim Matheson and I don’t approve of almost anything he does; I find him a uniquely spineless politician. But he’s a damn sight better than the alternatives. Which is why, I write him letters and why I’ve met with him and why I went to his office in DC to talk about federal policy. Such actions smack of disrespecting his authority because I disagree with him. But they are the expression of a healthy democracy.

Because ultimately, democracy isn’t just about voting on election day. And it’s not about respecting our elders or granting automatic respect to those in positions of authority. I’ve read commentators who argue that democracy in Europe today is healthier than democracy in America. Certainly, the last 7 years have seen damage done to our democracy and our civil liberties; whatever the excuse for such actions, they have hurt us. It’s time to not show respect to those who do not deserve and to not confuse the symbols of American greatness with our actual greatness.

Utah Senate: NCSL: New Life for Online Government

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:39:15 +0000

Ignore this post. We're sharing a little information at the Friday, 8:00 a.m. session of NCSL's Annual Meeting* and I need an easily accessible place to stash the links. We may live stream part of it, depending on what connections are available, so feel free to drop in and post your comments.

Links and Notes:

--> A sampling of actual text messages sent from the Utah Senate - 2008 legislative session (collected for an NCSL/State Department/Algeria project in Algiers).

--> More info on Utah Senate texting here.

--> Vox Partners.

--> Government 2.0: the short list of current New Media experiments.

--> YouTube: Utah Senate Channel

--> Live streaming video: NowLive.com

--> A random picture of the whiteboard in my office, circa 3/3/08. The checklist for senate media events is on the right-hand side. Ignore the other junk. Please.

--> On LinkedIn, consider joining the Government 2.0 Group, a network of citizens and professionals exploring the use of New Media tools in government communication.

--> A moment of quiet thought about the soul of New Media. And the hope it offers to a democratic republic like ours.

Call anytime. I'm happy to answer questions, give feedback, share lessons learned, etc.

Ric Cantrell @ 801-647-8944

* 8:00 am - 9:30 am

A New Life for Online Government

Convention Center 220-221--Second Level

Web 2.0--a second generation of the Internet--offers new ways to provide services and collaborate with citizens on health, education, public safety and civic life. Explore Second Life and other social networking tools being used by Congress, NASA, the CDC and others.

* Moderator: Mark Stencel, Governing Magazine, Virignia

* Panelists: Ric Cantrell, Senate, Utah

* Norven Goddard, Alabama Department of Homeland Security

* Leigh Rowan, The SLAgency, California

* James Walker, Alabama Department of Homeland Security

Death Knell: Being wrong and denying it

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:17:09 +0000

Do you remember in 2004 during a town-hall style debate, President Bush was asked something to the effect of, what are the top five mistakes you've made while in office? President Bush failed to give the appropriate answer (at least by a liberal's perspective) that the Iraq war was a mistake. Bush was lambasted by most op-ed pages as being too ignorant, stubborn, or arrogant to admit when he was wrong.

Fast forward to 2008. "The Surge" has worked in Iraq and Obama now states that he knew it would all along. This, of course, would be followed up by a review of Obama's critical statements regarding the Surge by a media outlet that was not in love with Obama. So far, I've only seen a piece on Obama's flipflop from The Patriot Post:

Barack on Iraq:

January 2007—“And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don’t know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.”

July 2007—“Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, ‘Well, even in September, we’re going to need more time.’ So we’re going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president’s plan... My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.”

September 2007—“After putting an additional 30,000 troops in... we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we’re back where we were 15 months ago... It is a course that will not succeed.”

January 2008—“I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.”

Now: “What I said was even at the time of the debate of the surge, was if you put 30,000 troops in, of course it’s going to have an impact. There’s no doubt about that.”

This isn't mere flipflopping (the change in positions that arguably doomed Kerry and Romney's presidential bids), this is rewriting reality. Obama was against the surge, said it wouldn't work, fought against it as a Senator. Now that it worked, he was for it all along. It's easy to be on the winning side of a debate every time if you can just reach back in time and change what you had previously said against the winning side.

Most telling, of course, is that the media has failed to focus on these gaffes. Undoubtedly, given their extremely lenient coverage of the Jeremiah Wright affair coupled with the fact that no "mainstream media" outlet has dug deeper on the Rezko relationship, even if the mainstream media did cover these discrepencies between reality and Obama's revisions, it would be all excuses and understanding.

One Utah: Witness List for Tomorrow’s Impeachment Hearing

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:29:50 +0000

Thanks, Raw Story. The House Judiciary Committee has released a witness list for its hearing on the impeachment of President George W. Bush. Late Thursday afternoon, the committee released the full witness list, broken down into two panels. Panel One The Honorable Dennis Kucinich, ...

One Utah: Witness List for Tomorrow’s Impeachment Hearing

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:20:33 +0000

Thanks, Raw Story. The House Judiciary Committee has released a witness list for its hearing on the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

Late Thursday afternoon, the committee released the full witness list, broken down into two panels.

Panel One

The Honorable Dennis Kucinich, Representative from Ohio

The Honorable Maurice Hinchey, Representative from New York

The Honorable Walter Jones, Representative from North Carolina

The Honorable Brad Miller, Representative from North Carolina

Panel Two

The Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman, Former Representative from New York

The Honorable Bob Barr, Former Representative from Georgia, 2008 Libertarian Nominee for President

The Honorable Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson, Founder and President, High Roads for Human Rights

Stephen Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law

Bruce Fein, Associate Deputy Attorney General, 1981-82, Chairman, American Freedom Agenda

Vincent Bugliosi, Author and former Los Angeles County Prosecutor

Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law

Elliott Adams, President of the Board, Veterans for Peace

Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

See below for hearing updates…

Conyers (D-MI) previously laid out six areas the hearing would explore:

(1) improper politicization of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys offices, including potential misuse of authority with regard to election and voting controversies;

(2) misuse of executive branch authority and the adoption and implementation of the so-called unitary executive theory, including in the areas of presidential signing statements and regulatory authority;

(3) misuse of investigatory and detention authority with regard to U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, including questions regarding the legality of the administration’s surveillance, detention, interrogation, and rendition programs;

(4) manipulation of intelligence and misuse of war powers, including possible misrepresentations to Congress related thereto;

(5) improper retaliation against administration critics, including disclosing information concerning CIA operative Valerie Plame, and obstruction of justice related thereto; and

(6) misuse of authority in denying Congress and the American people the ability to oversee and scrutinize conduct within the administration, including through the use of various asserted privileges and immunities.

The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. Friday on Capitol Hill.

It looks to me that none of the witnesses are likely to provide inside information about how the Bush administration lied to Congress to obtain authorization for the invasion of Iraq.

UPDATE:

Glenn Greenwald opines:

[T]he Kucinich impeachment hearing is like a parade of those whom the Beltway class mocks as Shrill, Unserious losers and Leftist radicals — people who actually use overly excitable words like “crimes” and “prosecutions” when talking about our leaders or who, like the ACLU, actually object that most of what our Government does occurs in total secrecy. Serious, responsible Beltway establishment leaders know that courtrooms and prosecutions are only for the common people and — for our own good — our leaders cannot, must not and should not be exposed to any of that, and must continue to be able to shield what they do from public scrutiny.

What we need is the equivalent of the 1973-74 Senate Watergate Committee, a bipartisan fact-finding entity prepared to uncover every Bush administration crime by grilling the insiders who know what happened. Instead, we have this “parade” of well-meaning but political witnesses.

UPDATE: Raw Story reports that few members of the Judiciary Committee or witnesses dare to utter the dreaded word “impeachment” because members were cautioned to abide by the Rules of the House, which prohibit lawmakers from “impugning” the president’s character during official debate. Apparently, under the rules the Republicans can call an immediate halt to the proceedings if anyone says the “secret word.”

UPDATE: I suppose this hearing is officially a non-event, because none of the related DailyKos posts made the rec list. If the DailyKos community isn’t very interested in impeachment, then it truly is a dead issue.

Political Insights by Paul Rolly: The Caste System

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:59:36 +0000

Once again the Days of '47 Parade wended through downtown Salt Lake City to celebrate the arrival in the valley of the Mormon pioneers in 1847. And once again, in the parade committee's earnest quest to be non-political, the parade, in a sense, became political by favoring some candidates over others. The long-standing policy has been to deny participation in the parade by political

One Utah: ACLU Obtains CIA Torture Memos

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:29:32 +0000

We don't actually need any more evidence of Bush administration crimes, but today the American Civil Liberties Union released more anyway. Previously top secret memos obtained by the ACLU reveal more of the bizarre, perverse and disingenuous legal theories that Justice Department lawyers tried to use to justify torture ...

One Utah: ACLU Obtains CIA Torture Memos

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:20:43 +0000

We don’t actually need any more evidence of Bush administration crimes, but today the American Civil Liberties Union released more anyway. Previously top secret memos obtained by the ACLU reveal more of the bizarre, perverse and disingenuous legal theories that Justice Department lawyers tried to use to justify torture of detainees. From Raw Story:

As long as CIA agents could convince themselves they were not deliberately inflicting severe pain or suffering on detainees, they were free to do virtually anything in their questioning of suspected terrorists, including waterboarding. Furthermore, the agents’ belief they weren’t in fact torturing their captives didn’t even need to be “reasonable.”

These are the implications of a controversial August 2002 memo (PDF) from the Justice Department to the CIA that was released Thursday. The American Civil Liberties Union obtained several internal Bush administration documents it says authorizes the CIA to torture detainees.

Our closest ally, the British government, issued a report the other day that basically says President Bush has zero credibility when he makes the claim that “we do not torture,” as he has on numerous occasions. Nobody believes it.

Previous One Utah posts:

Waterboarding is Torture, Period (October 31, 2007)

CIA Director: We Used Waterboarding, But Not A Lot (February 5, 2008)

Utah Senate: Happy 24th

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:29:21 +0000

Out of Context (Salt Lake Tribune): Orrin falls flat

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:12:25 +0000

Was Sen. Orrin Hatch playing hopscotch last week, when he tripped on his shoestrings and arose with that wound on his head? Is the bright red blotch evidence of a stumped senator suffering from writers block while thinking-up a new tune? Perhaps he was dancing and prancing before he plummeted to the ground? Apparently, he was just walking. Whatever he tripped on, Sen. Hatch was reported to be

One Utah: Are There Non-Egregious Bush Crimes?

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:29:32 +0000

Everyone except a few bloggers has probably forgotten, if they ever knew, that last April Barack Obama made a half-hearted pledge to prosecute at least some of the crimes committed by the Bush administration. In response to a question from a DailyKos blogger, he answered carefully: ...

One Utah: Are There Non-Egregious Bush Crimes?

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:15:30 +0000

Everyone except a few bloggers has probably forgotten, if they ever knew, that last April Barack Obama made a half-hearted pledge to prosecute at least some of the crimes committed by the Bush administration. In response to a question from a DailyKos blogger, he answered carefully:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can’t prejudge that because we don’t have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment — I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General — having pursued, having looked at what’s out there right now — are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it’s important– one of the things we’ve got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it.

Never mind. At the recent Netroots Nation convention, close Obama adviser (and University of Chicago Law Professor) Cass Sunstein backed away from the notion of going after any Bush officials, or Bush himself, for crimes such as torture and unlawful surveillance. The exchange with Sunstein was detailed by The Nation’s Ari Melber. Melber wrote that Sunstein rejected any such prosecution:

Politicians, legal experts and progressive activists grappled with Republican abuses of power at the third annual netroots convention on Friday, debating how an Obama administration might restore the rule of law. Cass Sunstein, an adviser to Barack Obama from the University of Chicago Law School, cautioned against prosecuting criminal conduct from the current Administration. Prosecuting government officials risks a “cycle” of criminalizing public service, he argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton–or even the “slight appearance” of it. Update: Sunstein emailed to emphasize that he also said and believes that “egregious crimes should not be ignored.”

Are violations of the Constitution, torture and illegal surveillance therefore non-egregious crimes? What would be an egregious crime, then? Sunstein didn’t say. How about “planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.” That was the principal charge at the Nuremberg Tribunal.

See below for video and an update…

Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law professor and constitutional expert, comments:

With many Democrats still fuming over the refusal of Democratic leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow even impeachment hearings into detailed allegations of crimes by President Bush in office… The combination of Obama’s vote to retroactively grant immunity for the telecoms and Sunstein’s comments are an obvious cause for alarm. We have had almost eight years of legal relativism by both parties…. A little moral clarity would be a welcomed change.

As time runs out on the Bush administration, we have to address the issue of pre-emptive pardons. President Bush (except in case of impeachment) has the power to pardon himself and every other criminal. On Tuesday night, Keith Olbermann talked about this possibility and interviewed Professor Turley :

UPDATE: Slate offers a neat interactive guide: Who in the Bush administration broke the law, and who could be prosecuted? Unfortunately, the guide only covers five of the Bush scandals (and not Iraq). In a related piece, Dahlia Lithwick explores what (if anything) might be done in response to the Bush administration’s widespread illegality.

SLC Spin: The Camera

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:32:19 +0000

Out of Context (Salt Lake Tribune): That Explains It

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:28:17 +0000

When Sen. John McCain came to Utah in March, we reported that the presumptive presidential nominee had a private meeting with executives from EnergySolutions, the nuclear wastse and Utah Jazz arena folks. What did they talk about? Was it about importing Italian waste? Was it about the future of the nuclear industry? What could it be? Now it all makes sense. They were buying some advertising on

One Utah: The Beehive State Balancing Act

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:44:43 +0000

Utah Amicus: Barack Obama in Utah Photo Op

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:44:00 +0000

That's right folks, future President Barack Obama is now available to you at Utah Democratic Headquarters for your own personal photo opportunity at 455 South 300 East, Suite 301 in Salt Lake City. Lawn signs for Barack Obama are also available as are signs for many of our local candidates like attorney general candidate Jean Welch Hill.

Come on by and have a wonderful 24th of July!

One Utah: The Beehive State Balancing Act

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:40:37 +0000

When Cliff Lyon learned that I was the new editor of BlogNetNews/Utah he asked if I would not list OneUtah as a liberal blog since the goal here is to present a full range of Utah perspectives. He also invited me to be an author on One Utah to help balance out the currently liberal leaning of the site. I was interested in the offer, but at first I did not know what I would write that would match the quality and tone of the content here.

I’m surprised at how soon I thought of a post that would (I hope) fit the tenor of OneUtah. Interestingly the topic was suggested in the original invitation to become an author. One of the things that has fascinated me here in the reddest of red states is that the liberal bloggers dominate the discussion here despite the decidedly conservative bent of our population as a whole. I don’t consider myself qualified to speculate on why this would be but it gnaws at me because I think that the blogosphere should ideally reflect reality, or else reality should shift to more closely match the blogosphere. In other words, in a conservative area the overall tenor of the blogs should be conservative. If the blogs are liberal in an area identified as conservative then either the liberal blogs should begin to be balanced with conservative blogs, or else the dominant liberal blogs should begin to have an effect on the conservatism of the community around them.

Here at OneUtah we are supposed to have an open forum with commentary from Liberals and Conservatives. Cliff recognizes that it is not very well balanced even though he has invited very conservative authors, such as Paul Mero, to participate. I have noticed at BNN/Utah that the most influential blogs each week are almost always liberal voices such as the Utah Amicus and JM Bell. Both are excellent blogs that I have followed for quite some time, but in a conservative state like ours I would expect some conservative voices to rise to the top of the influence rankings as often as the liberal blogs do.

I know that we have some good blogs in Utah with conservative perspectives. I would invite our conservative authors to find ways to make your voices heard within the online representations of the state. That might require some kind of organization, or else it might simply require an awareness that this medium is only growing in influence and should be cultivated if the conservative voices are to have the influence that would be expected in our bright red state.

One Utah: Ze NRA, Our Men on ze Point, ze Minute Men

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:14:33 +0000

Author's Note: I'm about to go on a much-needed July 24th holiday (no cheering from the fascist fan club, please). But I didn't want to disappear without an appropriate parting gift. So here it is. Lass't 's schmecken The Right has a double-barreled shotgun up its ass. In chamber one is ...

One Utah: Impeachment Hearing This Friday

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:14:33 +0000

The House of Representatives usually takes Fridays off, but the leadership considers the impeachment of President George W. Bush to be such a high priority that the Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing is scheduled for Friday, July 25. /snark Except that Chairman John Conyers isn't calling it an impeachment hearing, ...

One Utah: Ze NRA, Our Men on ze Point, ze Minute Men

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:12:46 +0000

Author’s Note: I’m about to go on a much-needed July 24th holiday (no cheering from the fascist fan club, please). But I didn’t want to disappear without an appropriate parting gift. So here it is. Lass’t ’s schmecken

The Right has a double-barreled shotgun up its ass. In chamber one is anger over out-of-control immigration. Chris Cannon can now fart in stereo thanks to this one. In chamber two is gun rights, for it appears that right-wing ejaculation over the recent Supreme Court ruling was premature. Whether the NRA’s capacity to blow wind will also now be doubled remains to be seen. Or heard, as the case may be.

It will scandalize my lefty friends to learn that I actually agree with the fascists about the right to carry heat (”if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,” Ed Abbey’s syllogism whose subtler meaning is not lost on Dick Cheney). I personally don’t carry any, and have no plans to until such time as we run out of oil. ’til that happy day, I will continue to hope that the ball point is mightier than the bullet.

But, in the spirit of friendship, I have two suggestions for my comrades on the right flank. Sieg Heil! (Please to excuse zis unkontrolled jerk of ze arm. It is eine alte war vound).

My first suggestion is actually borrowed from Abbey, whose solution to the immigration problem from down below was “to stop them at the border, give them a 30-30, and send them home to solve problems in the traditional manner.”

My second is that the NRA provide the guns. Let the political arm of our great citizens’ militia solve the immigration problem as only fascists can. Author’s aside: Has anyone else noticed that NRA and IRA not only rhyme but differ by only one letter?

For no extra charge, I make a third suggestion. Why limit the NRA’s involvement to providing just the iron? Let’s give them a chance to get in on the blood as well. NRA-Sturmtruppen could be deputized to watch the border in lieu of the obviously incompetent Border Patrol. Let’s let our fabled suburban marksmen, whose exploits we read about each year in the Darwin Awards and in the local papers during the great deer hunt, be our minutemen on the border. In exchange for letting them zip around at taxpayer expense on state of the art ATVs, shooting legally and freely at anything that moves (how much more entertaining for all if this also meant other Sturmtruppen), we ask them only to sign a waiver of ATV access on all other BLM and National Forest land. Vat happens on ze border stays on ze border, und zen ze men kommen home to zer vives und children und live happily und peacefully ever after.

Greens and brown shirts working together, we thus fix not only immigration but also our wilderness problem.

If this unique solution finds a receptive audience, I’m willing to examine the GOP’s other proctological problems.

One Utah: Impeachment Hearing This Friday

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:00:14 +0000

Except that Chairman John Conyers isn’t calling it an impeachment hearing, despite the fact that this hearing is the result of Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s H.R. 1345 being referred to the Judiciary Committee in a House vote last week, and H.R. 1345 is actually an article of impeachment. Instead, it was first billed as “Hearing on the Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush” and is now on the calendar as “Hearing on Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations.”

This hearing is supposed to be about this article of impeachment: “Deceiving Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq WMDs to fraudulently obtain support for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force against Iraq.” No witness list has been published yet, however the Salt Lake Tribune tells us that former Mayor Rocky Anderson has been invited to testify. I don’t want to complain about Rocky, he’s a good attorney and knows how to lay out a case for the jury, but what does he know first-hand?

Secretary of State Colin Powell telling the UN Security Council about alleged Iraqi WMDs

There are better witnesses available, with first-hand information to offer the committee. I have a few suggestions, you can add your ideas in the comments…

1. George Tenet was the Director of Central Intelligence and headed the CIA in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. On Sept. 18, 2002, Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction.

2. Colin Powell was the Secretary of State, and presented the Bush administration’s argument about Iraq’s alleged WMDs to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003. Powell now calls the UN presentation the worst moment of his career. All of the so-called evidence in the presentation later proved to be misleading or entirely fabricated.

3. Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA covert operations in Europe. According to Drumheller, the CIA, with the help of a friendly intelligence service, recruited Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri in Europe during the late summer of 2002. Sabri told the CIA in September that Saddam had no major active weapons of mass destruction programs.

4. Some members of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), the committee responsible for putting out the Bush administration’s arguments for invading Iraq. It was Michael Gerson, working with WHIG, who coined the phrase, “the smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” WHIG included:

Andrew Card, White House Chief of Staff and head of the WHIG

Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff to President Bush

Karen Hughes, counselor to President Bush

Mary Matalin, political strategist on the staff of Vice President Cheney

James R. Wilkinson, Deputy National Security Advisor for Communications

Nicholas E. Calio, Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs

Condoleezza Rice, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (National Security Advisor)

Stephen Hadley, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor (Hadley took the blame for President Bush’s false claim about Iraqi uranium in the January 28, 2003 State of the Union Address)

I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs

Michael Gerson, President Bush’s chief speechwriter

Rendon Group, a public relations firm headed by John Rendon

Scott McClellan, White House Deputy Press Secretary

5. Scott Ritter, United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Ritter publicly argued that Iraq possessed no significant weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

UPDATE: Ralph Nader sent a letter to Rep. Conyers to complain about not being invited to testify. The letter mentions that Friday’s witness list includes Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Presidential candidate Bob Barr, Bruce Fein and John Dean in addition to Rocky Anderson. Kucinich has hinted that an “unidentified government official of a U.S. ally” may be testifying.

Utah Amicus: Morgan Bowen Responds to Rob Bishop's Energy Solutions Ties

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:25:00 +0000

Morgan Bowen responds to Rob Bishop's acceptance of over $28,000 in campaign contributions from Energy Solutions this election season, via YouTube.

Help Morgan keep foreign nuclear waste out of Utah.

Political Insights by Paul Rolly: Expatriates Joining Forces?

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:40:12 +0000

Robbie Russo and Beau Babka have something in common. Both were one-time highly respected members of Salt Lake County Sheriff Jim Winder's administration who somehow lost favor with the Democrat who ousted long-time Sheriff Aaron Kennard in the 2006 election by promising a better way. Now, they could be teaming up in a fledgling police department that is in the final stages of its

One Utah: The Never-ending Saga of the Boob of Janet Jackson

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:44:26 +0000

I didn't see the exposed the "wardrobe malfunction." When I heard about it, I didn't care. Her boob was partly visible on TV for less than a second. Frankly, to me it's a complete non-issue. Apparently, however, Janet's boob is the boob the religious right just can't let ...

One Utah: The Never-ending Saga of the Boob of Janet Jackson

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:29:45 +0000

I didn’t see the exposed the “wardrobe malfunction.” When I heard about it, I didn’t care. Her boob was partly visible on TV for less than a second. Frankly, to me it’s a complete non-issue.

Apparently, however, Janet’s boob is the boob the religious right just can’t let go. They’ve got it in a tight grip and they’re not setting it free until they get satisfaction. And they’re twisting and turning every which way to get their satisfaction with Janet’s boob.

I don’t consider a quick flash of tit (even during primte time, even during the Super Bowl) a big deal. The notion that anyone is harmed by the sight of a bared breast seems less like a reasoned position on nudity than an extreme and unhealthy prudishness.

Judith Levine’s Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex explores the idea that our much hyped efforts to keep children “innocent” actually results in greater harm (for instance, young persons who complete abstinence only programs are as likely as their peers who had no sexuality education to engage in unprotected intercourse with all the risks associated with it). Levine argues such efforts leave young people unprepared to deal with matters of sexuality - including their own feelings and well being. Efforts to protect children often go beyond the normal silence about sexuality into sending messages that sexuality, the body, and even thoughts of sex are inherently wrong, damaging, and dangerous.

A recent court decision held the FCC’s fine against CBS for the flash of boob was arbitrary and capricious; for decades, the FCC has not levied fines for fleeting nudity. (The 102 page decision makes for truly engaging reading. Not.) Today’s D-News has an unintentionally funny and overblown editorial about the ruling, writing:

. . . a federal appeals court in Philadelphia this week made the FCC’s job a lot more difficult . . . By overturning the FCC’s $550,000 fine against CBS Corp. for Jackson’s obviously premeditated indecency during halftime of the Super Bowl in 2004, the court opened the door to a flood of “spontaneous” abuses on live shows.

The three-judge panel said the FCC changed its previous practice of assessing fines only against behavior that was “pervasive” and that amounted to “shock treatment” for the viewing public. Jackson’s breast-baring incident lasted only nine-sixteenths of a second, the court said, and it was not part of the script.

Set aside for a moment that the incident happened in front of a television audience of 90 million during a game that has evolved into something akin to an annual national holiday. Jackson and fellow singer Justin Timberlake were performing a song called “Rock Your Body,” which included the lyrics “Gonna have you naked by the end of this song.” Jackson was set to debut a new album and MTV.com had recently predicted “some shocking moments” during the Super Bowl halftime.

What part of any of that sounds appropriate for the type of family audience that watches a football game?

Does the D-News editorial board really believe that the Super Bowl is some sort of family event where mom, dad and the assorted offspring gather in front of the TV, mom in her pearls and dad in his cardigan and watch the game in some retro vision of family harmony? Try getting into a bar on Super Bowl night. It seems almost every neighborhood has at least one house that throws a big blowout. If you arrive at any grocery store, convenience store or liquor store on Super Bowl sunday, they’ll be sold out or nearly sold out of their chips, beverages and nuts. I get invited to at least three a year - usually with promises of all the beer I can drink and taxis arranged for rides home as needed. The D-News editors are kidding themselves if they think that the Super Bowl is some sort of family home evening event full of family bonding and special moments. Sure, Super Bowl sunday is an unofficial national holiday, but it’s not a “family” holiday (at least as the term is being used by the D-News).

I question the use of the term “family” as indicative of something that is scrubbed entirely free of suggestive words, dance moves, or images. Some years ago, I read that in the UK, the BBC aired Buffy the Vampire Slayer at 9 o’clock at night - arguing that the shows violent content was offensive to younger viewers. In the US, we never noticed the violence but in the shows later seasons, when it included more overt and honest discussions of sexuality, it garnered warning labels. In the US, it’s not uncommon for any show which even mentions homosexuality to carry a TV MA rating, even if the content itself is nothing other than a gay couple holding hands. However, BBC children’s TV staple Doctor Who frequently includes simple, unsensational references to and images of same sex couples (in one episode, showing a party, a male couple is clearly visible dancing together in the background, then later, as the rooms blows up, fleeing together). Even in supposedly repressed Great Britain, matters of sexuality are treated much more matter of fact than in the US. Many European parents seem to give little, if any, thought of taking their children to topless beaches. Nudity is simply not taboo or shocking. The outcome of those differences in attitude are visible in American and European responses to nudity; Americans react with shock or by immediately projecting sexual intent into nudity, often expressed as the idea that the only reason a person is naked is to have sex or engage in inappropriate sexual behavior (like flashing).

The insistence on an entirely “family friendly” mass media suggests to me an inability to understand and set boundaries. Some things which are appropriate for adults are not appropriate for children, nor should they be. In instances like Janet’s breast, adult reactions teach children all kinds of lessons they don’t think they’re teaching. When adults are shocked, children learn that they should be shocked. By contrast, if adults react calmly or even ignore the incident, kids learn it is no big deal. Rather than being upset, they shrug it off and move on. The adult kerfuffle is probably more upsetting to kids than the actual bosom involved.

This is an instance of cultural conservatives having a public fit over something that is largely a non-issue, creatings lots distraction but not creating a space in which the topic can be productively discussed. It’s easily arguable that no one was harmed by the incident (certainly, Janet Jackson’s career remains vital). People who are upset about the incident argue that seeing her breast is harmful but haven’t actually made a case that it is harmful. But, with all the shouting, it’s been difficult to have anything like a rational discussion.

Political Insights by Paul Rolly: Expatriates Joining Forces?

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:21:22 +0000

Utah Amicus: Rob Bishop isn't alone

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:57:00 +0000

My apologizes for not posting for awhile but a friend sent me this photo and I just needed to share.