Ted Nugent - Musician, Philanthropist, Oralist - uh, that's Orator.

The GOP's Misplaced Rage

Bruce Bartlett, a former Republican official who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, reiterates the case against George Bush's stewardship of the economy.

Smokin' in the Military

ZOMG! Obama's a socialist!

Proof yet again that the Right doesn't understand the meanings of words.

Some Good Questions...

Jack Balkin over at Balkinization raises some good questions about how we ought to respond to the domestic terrorism of Scott Roeder seen over the weekend:

(1) Should the United States be able to hold Roeder without trial in order to prevent him from returning to society to kill more abortion providers? If we believe that Roeder and other domestic terrorists will plan further attacks on abortion providers and abortion clinics if we let them free, can we subject them to indefinite detention?

(2) The Obama Administration is currently considering a national security court to make decisions about the detention of suspected terrorists, with the power to order continued preventive detention. Should this court be able to hear cases involving U.S. citizens, whether they are Muslim or Christian?

(3) The U.S. government has argued that at least some terrorists should not be tried through the criminal process with its various Bill of Rights protections but instead can and should be tried through military commissions, where the standards of proof and various procedural protections are lowered. If Roeder is a domestic terrorist, can the U.S. government subject him to trial by a military commission instead of a criminal prosecution? Although the current version of the 2006 Military Commission Act does not bestow jurisdiction to try citizens, could we or should we amend it to include citizens who we believe are likely to commit or have committed terrorist acts?

(4) One of the most important reasons for detaining terrorists (suspected or otherwise) is to obtain information about future terrorist attacks that may save lives and prevent future bombings. To procure this information, can the government dispense with the usual constitutional and legal safeguards against coercive interrogation? Should it be able to subject Roeder to enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding and other methods, to determine whether Roeder knows of any other persons who are likely to commit violence against abortion clinics or against abortion providers in the future? Would your answer change if you believed that an attack on an abortion provider or a bombing of an abortion clinic was imminent?

(5) Terrorists and terrorist organizations need money and resources to operate effectively. Often the only way to stop them is to dry up their sources of financial and logistical support. Can the U.S. government freeze the assets of pro-life organizations and make it illegal to contribute money to a pro-life charity that it believes might funnel money or provide material support to persons like Roeder or to organizations that practice violence against abortion providers? Can the government arrest, detain, and seize the property of anti-abortion activists who helped Roeder in any way in the months leading up to his crime, for example by giving him rides or allowing him to stay in their homes?

A Decent Article on Sotomayor

There has been a lot of hand-wringing on the right about Sonia Sotomayor, claiming that she is a judicial activist and a racist. Daniel Larison from the American Conservative handily refutes these charges.

Glenn shares his experience.

Also, some of the quotes gettingthe right so flustered express sentiments voiced by two of their SCOTUS darlings, Alito and Scalia.

Update: Tom Goldstein over at SCOTUSblog examines Sotomayor's record on racial discrimination cases:

Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous. (Many, by the way, were procedural victories rather than judgments that discrimination had occurred.) Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. In the one divided panel opinion, the dissent’s point dealt only with the technical question of whether the criminal defendant in that case had forfeited his challenge to the jury selection in his case. So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.

Jesse Ventura on that Hannity show

I am sad that Ventura seems to have washed his hands of politics. 

From the same link:

Yeah, it's from The View. Don't worry, you won't get cooties.

Obama's Bad Week:

From Glenn Greenwald:

Monday - Obama administration's letter to Britian threatening to cut off intelligence-sharing if British courts reveal the details of how we tortured British resident Binyam Mohamed;

Tuesday - Promoted to military commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChyrstal, who was deeply involved in some of the worst abuses of the Bush era;

Wednesday - Announced he was reversing himself and would try to conceal photographic evidence showing widespread detainee abuse -- despite the rulings from two separate courts (four federal judges unanimously) that the law compels their disclosure;

Friday - Unveiled his plan to preserve a modified system of military commissions for trying Guantanamo detainees, rather than using our extant-judicial processes for doing so.

Obama Seeks to Block Release of Detainee Photos

The President today said that he would attempt to block the release of photographs of detainee abuse by American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. His rationale was that these photos could endanger the troops, while adding nothing to our knowledge of what occurred. While he may be correct that the publication of such pictures would inflame anti-American sentiment (though whether the open acknowledgement of such wrong doing by our government would have the same effect as the knowledge of the wrong doing itself is questionable), practical expediency does not seem to be a legitimate reason for this sort of action.

The ACLU had won a motion at the Federal District Court level related to the release of these photographs, and the Obama administration, along with the DOD, had agreed to release the photos, reasoning that they could not succeed in convincing the Supreme Court to weigh in on the matter. Obama's decision today is a reversal of his own position from last month, and is in opposition to the lower court ruling (I am guessing that the administration intends to make an appeal to the high court in this matter).

The long and short of this is that Obama is engaging in a cover-up of Bush-era policies that, by now, are hardly disputable as crimes. He is reneging on his campaign promise of transparency, and is doing so not by appealing to firm legal grounds, but by appealing to national security (the sort of rationale that lay behind much of the Bush administration's attempts at secrecy). By now, the country, and the world, knows that the US engaged in abuse - torture and worse. The release of these photos isn't necessary to prove that. But it would be helpful in establishing the extent to which these things occurred, and could help justify in the minds of Americans the need for investigations. Their release would also signal to the world that the US has changed course, and is attempting to regain its place among the decent, lawful nations of the world. Preventing their release, on the other hand, would be inimical to investigations (and perhaps this is one of the motives) and would signal to the world that the US will, above all else, protect its own, justice be damned.

Commentary by Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald (as per usual). Chris Cillizza weighs in with whatever it is he does. 

Jesse Ventura has some opinions on stuff...

From Ventura's appearance on Larry King's show.

A highlight:

"I'll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders."

Wanda Sykes Causes the Right to Have a Hissy Fit

More Rush jokes here. My favorite: "Q: What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg? A: One's a flaming Nazi gasbag, the other's a dirigible."

Damned hippies

The Party of Fiscal Discipline

In honor of the April 15th "Teabagging," I present to you colorful representations of the national debt under Republican presidents:

Source: zFacts - US National Debt Graph

Source: zFacts - Presidents and the Federal Debt

More of the same...

On the heels of the Obama administration's decision to embrace some of the more egregious elements of the Bush administration's policy on secrecy (see here and here), the Justice Department has appealed a district court ruling that granted Habeas Corpus rights to prisoners held at Afghanistan's Bagram Airforce Base.

In essence, the Obama administration is arguing that prisoners of the United States can be flown from anywhere in the world to Bagram and imprisoned without due process, indeed, without rights of any kind.

Keep in mind that the Obama administration isn't merely continuing a Bush-era lawsuit on this matter - it is actually appealing the ruling of a conservative Bush appointee who claimed that this procedure was as unconstitutional as what was happening at Guantanamo. In fact, the judge claimed that detainees at Bagram received fewer rights than detainees at Guantanamo.

More from Glenn Greenwald.

Obama's domino theory

Juan Cole, Professor of Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan, discusses Obama's rhetoric on Afghanistan.

"Obama's dark vision of the overthrow of the Afghanistan government by al-Qaida-linked Taliban or the "killing" of Pakistan by small tribal groups differs little from the equally apocalyptic and implausible warnings issued by John McCain and Dick Cheney about an "al-Qaida" victory in Iraq. Ominously, the president's views are contradicted by those of his own secretary of defense. Pashtun tribes in northwestern Pakistan and southern Afghanistan have a long history of dissidence, feuding and rebellion, which is now being branded Talibanism and configured as a dire menace to the Western way of life. Obama has added yet another domino theory to the history of Washington's justifications for massive military interventions in Asia. When a policymaker gets the rationale for action wrong, he is at particular risk of falling into mission creep and stubborn commitment to a doomed and unnecessary enterprise."

Update: Added link to wikipedia's entry on the domino theory.