From The American Left History Blog Archives (2006) - On American Political Discourse

 

Markin comment:

 

In the period 2006-2008 I, in vain, attempted to put some energy into analyzing the blossoming American presidential campaign since it was to be, as advertised at least, a watershed election, for women, blacks, old white anglos, latinos, youth, etc. In the event I had to abandon the efforts in about May of 2008 when it became obvious, in my face obvious, that the election would be a watershed only for those who really believed that it would be a watershed election. The four years of the Obama presidency, the 2012 American presidential election campaign, and world politics have only confirmed in my eyes that that abandonment was essentially the right decision at the right time. In short, let the well- paid bourgeois commentators go on and on with their twitter. I, we, had (have) better things to do like fighting against the permanent wars, the permanent war economies, the struggle for more and better jobs, and for a workers party that fights for a workers government . More than enough to do, right? Still a look back at some of the stuff I wrote then does not a bad feel to it. Read on.

************

ON CARD AND CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS

COMMENTARY

RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE CURRENT POLITICAL LANDSCAPE.

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY

WHAT KIND OF MONSTER IS RUMSFELD ANYWAY?

On a couple of occasions over the past several months I have commented on the question of calls for Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation. The first time was when some retired generals were clamoring for his resignation in the spring. The second time was this summer when New York Senator Hillary Clinton, hands trembling, put in her bid for this year’s Profiles in Courage Award after hearings of the Senate Armed Forces Committee. At that time I noted, tongue in cheek I thought, that my mother a life-long Republican had called for that resignation a couple of years ago. Now comes news that other very influential Republicans had the same thought. According to Bob Woodward’s new book former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and apparently the President’s wife, First Lady Laura Bush also sought to get rid of the bastard. Card has since confirmed that information. That begs the questions of both how much real political courage it took for Congressional Democrats to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation and just how vile a character the man is if elements in the inner circle wanted his head on a platter. Yes, we are definitely dealing with some kind of monster here. I am republishing my blog from the time of the generals’ revolt in the spring to give a real solution to the Rumsfeld problem.

 

IN THE CASE OF ONE DONALD RUMSFELD- RESIGNATION IS NOT ENOUGH!

 

In the normal course of events leftists, including this writer, have no particular need to comment on much less advocate or support a call for the resignation of one of the ministers of a capitalist government. In this case, we are talking about the controversy over the possible resignation of one Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, Minister of War in the Bush Cabinet. Let the capitalist politicians sort it out among themselves is this writer’s usual stance on such matters. Let the beady-eyed “talking head” liberal and conservative media pundits spout forth on behalf of the best interests of “their” system. After all this is not exactly like the summer of 1917 in Russia where the Bolsheviks were Agitating for –“Down with the Ten Capitalist Ministers”- as a stopgap slogan against the Popular Front Provisional Government on the way to overthrowing that government. This controversy, however, has my interest.

 

 

The case of Mr. Rumsfeld is special. Every once in a while a politician comes along in American public life who leftists can use to personalize everything that is wrong with the capitalist system. And epitomize what the rest of the world has come to fear and loathe as the dark side of the American spirit. One Richard M. Nixon, once President of the United and now residing in one of Dante’s circles of hell, comes to mind from an earlier generation.  In that sense we need our Donalds. Hell, I have enjoyed politically kicking Mr. Rumsfeld around when he was riding high. And, excuse my manners; I enjoy kicking him around when he is down. (To give credit where credit is due, the late two lines were inspired by the late Dr. Hunter Thompson.) Nevertheless this specimen must go as, unfortunately, there are many candidates to replace him.

 

Many liberals , and some not so liberal, in Congress looking to rehabilitate their sorry records on Iraq, including the key question of voting for the war budget, are having a cheap field day on this one. However, in any moderately effective European parliamentary system these guys would have been long gone. Although I should qualify that statement since the august members of the British Labor Party could not muster enough votes to vote no confidence in Mr. Rumsfeld’s fellow hawkish crony, Mr. Anthony Blair.

 

I must admit that I am a little uncomfortable when all manner of retired general are coming out of the woodwork aiming at Mr. Rumsfeld’s head. We are respectable people and THESE are certainly not our kind of people. Except under normal circumstances these types, despite an occasional candidate for the role of American Napoleon Bonaparte like General Douglas Macarthur, keep quiet and take their consultant fees. Things must be far, far worst than we suspect in Iraq if the chiefs are abandoning ship already. Moreover, the thrust of the former generals’ criticism is that Mr. Rumsfeld did not adequately provision them with enough troops to get the job done. This is a veiled, and maybe not so veiled, call for escalation. There are differences between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War which we need to appreciate but escalation would dramatically close the gap between those differences.  We could go from the Big Muddy of Vietnam to the Big Sandy of Iraq. Watch out.

 

Finally, and to get back on the left on this issue, if there is any justice in this world Mr. Rumsfeld, despite his probable cabinet immunity defense, clearly should be tried as a war criminal. He exceeds by orders of magnitude the standards necessary for such an indictment. However, my vision is not to have him tried before some bogus Court of International Criminal Justice. My suggestion is that he be sent, alone (or with a few of his neo-con conspirators), to Baghdad, without armor. There he should be tried by a tribunal of the victims of his war crimes. Resignation is not enough- Indeed!!

  

ON THE WILES OF CONSERVATIVE POLITICANS

 

In a blog earlier this Summer I commented on the effect of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling on the question of the Executive branch’s authority to try detainees in military commissions under very much less than normal conditions of what passes for justice these days. At that time I noted that once the smoke cleared Congress would give the Bush Administration what it wanted. This week, the week of September 25^th, after much wrangling by fellow Republicans apparently solely for effect, the Senate gave the administration pretty much what it wanted, including the virtual suspension of habeas corpus in these cases. Two points. First, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus a hard fought for and important right going back centuries the denial here is definitely not a good sign for the rest of us. Some commentators have declared that the provisions will not pass constitutional muster. Grow up. I will take bets at 5 to 2 that the current court will defer to the Legislative intent and the Executive authority on this one. Believe me; I would rather lose this bet. Second, this legislation shreds the concepts that are embodied in the Geneva Conventions concerning the status of enemy combatants. Make no mistake, without having illusions in the effectiveness of these Conventions and noting the weaknesses of the protections in them, militant leftists fight to keep them in place as a legal avenue of redress. Otherwise someday we might be dependent on the goodwill of forces who wish us nothing but ill-will.   Below I have republished my comments at the time of the Supreme Court decision.   

 

 

SUPREME COURT OUTLAWS PRIVATE PRESIDENTIAL MILITARY COURTS-FOR NOW

 

PRESIDENT MUST BEG CONGRESS REAL HARD FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

 

 

Just as I started feeling good about beating up on the United States Supreme Court justices this week, calling them black-robed closet Nazis and Neanderthals (see above commentaries) the justices vote by 5-4 (oops, 5-3 Chief Justice Roberts recused himself on this one- but WE all know where he stands) to deny President Bush the right to use his own executive-derived and organized private Star Chamber proceedings against detained ‘enemy combatants’. 

 

This decision would seem to negate this writer’s usual uncanny grasp of which way the political winds are blowing. Not so. Without trying to weasel out of this squeamish situation by lawyerly argument I would point out that in The Angels of Death Ride Again (see above) that the Court was positioning itself just to the left of the medieval Star Chamber. And I am correct on this. The Court’s decision did not strike down the executive military commissions as the vehicles for show trials that such commissions had become but only that the President must ask Congress nicely  to set them up with all due regard for those shopworn concepts- the rule of law and the constitutional balance of powers. When the Court starts bringing these arguments in it’s definitely time to head for cover. How hard do you think the Bush administration is going to have to fight Congress (presumably in an election year) to get approval for legislation military commissions to try a bunch of Moslems fanatics. Damn, they live and breathe for these kinds of soft ball votes.

 

We live in desperate times as the above commentaries for only ONE WEEK make abundantly clear so we have to take even small victories, such as this decision when we can get them. Any limitation, no matter how small, on the Imperial Presidency can only help give us a little breather. Enough said.  

 

 

WHAT FOURTH AMENDMENT?

 

I had expected Congress to give the Administration its desired open-ended ability to wiretap domestic operations to its heart’s context without the niceties of Fourth Amendment protection. The Congress adjourned without taking up a final vote on this legislation. Presumably it will do so in an aptly named “lame duck” session after the November 7^th elections. Below is a republication of a blog commenting on Judge Diggs ruling that such previous practices were unconstitutional.

 

A VICTORY (IF ONLY TEMPORARY) FOR THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

 

SHOCKING REVELATION: A FEDERAL JUDGE ACTUALLY KNOWS THE 4^th AMENDMENT EXISTS. APPARENTLY NOT EVERY LAW SCHOOL TUITION WAS WASTED.

 

Every once in a while a judge does something right. While militant leftists have no illusions in the bourgeois judicial system, as such, we will grasp in both hands every little minor victory, even if temporary, that comes our way.  In this case a federal district court judge, Judge Diggs Taylor, has held that the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping of every piece of information not nailed down and that the agency can get its hands on is unconstitutional. Judge Diggs Taylor will not be getting invited to any Federalist Society seminars or other such cozy affairs any time soon.

 

Naturally, the Bush Administration, normally slow to act when democratic rights are to be enforced, has ordered the Justice Department to appeal this decision- immediately, with all deliberate speed.  When the 6^th Circuit Appeals Court or the Supremes get this one you know its fate. I will take bets, even up, on a 5-4 quashing of this decision even though I have it on good authority that Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy etc. al are all unaware that there IS a Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

Now for the politics. Yes, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are pretty faded as working documents for any kind of just society today. But, damn, something like the Fourth Amendment against general searches and seizures even though its parameters are getting narrower and narrower with virtually every new court decision is something militant leftist defend.  WE WOULD WANT THIS SAFEGUARD UNDER A WORKERS GOVERNMENT- WE DESPERATELY NEED IT NOW.

 

We are the best defenders of that right if for no other reason that it makes our work easier. Hell, what do you think the original American revolutionaries, particularly those at the base, were fighting against? That very same prohibition against general writs that the National Security Agency and the Bush Administration is more than happy to flaunt in our faces. Do we really want to have big brother having the right to look at everything we do. On the other hand we are not Pollyannas. We are not blinded by a mistaken believe in the “sweet” rule of law that gets bandied amount. And honored more in the breech than the observance. If this government wants to get information (even if no usable in court) it will find a way to get it warrant or no warrant. Nevertheless we will savory this decision a little for now.