Enough with Political Allegiance

As evidenced by the spectacular failures regarding intelligence, the war in Iraq, Katrina, and energy policy, the Bush administration has pursued a policy of rewarding slavish political allegiance ahead of merit and open, constructive debate. In the latest example, the Justice Department’s own inspector general has found that political affiliation has been used, illegally, as a screening criterion for recruiting programs aimed at attracting highly qualified candidates to the Justice Department. The facts are crystal clear—the report found that applicants with Democratic affiliation were turned away “at a significantly higher rate” than candidates with Republican ties.

The relevance of these facts is that Fairfield County’s representative in Congress, Christopher Shays, has steadfastly stood by Bush throughout his tenure in office. While Shays may have expressed muted disagreement here and there, he has not evidenced the independent, principled thinking that we need to solve the many crises that threaten our country. He has strongly supported Bush on disproportionate tax breaks for the wealthy, violating constitutional protections in the name of national security, and waging a war in Iraq that has done anything but made the U.S. more secure. Like so many other Bush loyalists, Shays is unable or unwilling to break free from President Bush and his ill-conceived policies.

Fortunately, it’s within our power to break free from Christopher Shays. With Jim Himes, running for Congress in the Connecticut 4th District, we have an intelligent, independent and socially conscious candidate who can help set America back on course. I urge voters in the 4th District to learn more about Jim Himes in what Time Magazine is calling one of the top 15 Congressional races to watch.

McCain's Economic Illiteracy

By his own admission (to the Wall Street Journal in 2005 and The Boston Globe in 2007, see John McCain on Meet the Press) John McCain is not an expert on economic policy. If anybody doubts this, he proved it with his remarks about the recent employment report. In response to the loss of 80,000 jobs in March, McCain, in a  press release, called for lower taxes and less regulation as a solution to creating job growth.

Under the current administration, overall federal income tax rates are at historically low levels. Yet the overall growth rate of private sector employment during George W. Bush’s administration is the second worst performance since World War II (his dad gets honors for the worst performance). Contrast this with the Clinton record, where despite tax increases, job growth outpaced Bush’s record by a factor of four. This certainly dispels the Republican mantra that the only way to grow the economy is by cutting taxes.

As for less regulation, the cause of the current financial market distress appears to be completely lost on the Republican nominee for president. More, not less, regulatory oversight of the subprime mortgage market could have reigned in the excesses of the imprudent lending and financing practices that are the very cause of the economic downturn that McCain believes less regulation would alleviate.

Regulation serves the purpose of policing markets where the actions of individual players can harm more than just themselves. Surely the current situation, where the reckless actions of companies like Bear Stearns are driving the economy into recession and seriously threatening the stability of financial markets, is proof positive of the need for regulation.

So when John McCain says “The American people cannot afford the Democrats and their economic leadership”, you might want to think twice. It’s time to put somebody in the White House who will put aside dogma in favor of an informed economic policy. Clearly that person is not John McCain.

A Quick Note to Joe Lieberman

While the Senate is still in the midst of debating how much unchecked power to grant the Bush administration as it continues to trample on our civil liberties, I shot off this note to CT Senator and ex-Democrat Joe Lieberman. I don't have much hope that he'll listen, but that's never stopped me from speaking out...

Dear Senator Lieberman:

As the Senate debates the reauthorization of President Bush's warantless eavesdropping program, I urge you to do everything you can to protect the civil liberties of U.S. citizens. The actions of the Bush administration have been anathema to those of us who believe the President does not have the right to trample on the Constitution in the name of national security. Frankly, I am extremely disappointed in your frequent support of Bush policies. In this case I hope you put the Constitution ahead of Bush's ill-conceived policies to protect the U.S. against the threat of Islamic extremism. And that should include voting against any immunity for telecommunications companies that forked over private records without warrants.

Mukasey: Another Attorney General Like Gonzales?

There is now well-documented evidence that the Bush administration is running roughshod over the rule of law, demonstrated by actions such as its warrantless wiretapping and repeated court rebuffs on military tribunals. It is also clear that President Bush has seriously damaged the United States’ moral authority through use of torture, withholding the right to challenge detention and extraordinary rendition.

I would have therefore expected that the Democratic-led Congress would demand that Attorney General-designate Michael Mukasey unambiguously declare his opposition to these policies. But the apparent green light from the Senate Judiciary Committee to move forward on the nomination is not reassuring.

As it is clear from Mukasey’s testimony that he cannot be trusted to return integrity to the Department of Justice, he should not be confirmed.

Mukasey has been unable to decide if the practice of waterboarding is torture. Despite the fact that the State Department has criticized other countries for using it. Despite the fact that after World War II, the United States prosecuted Japanese soldiers for engaging in the practice against U.S. soldiers. Despite that fact that U.S. military officials have called it torture. Even administration apologist Senator John McCain has called it “very exquisite torture.” If Mukasey’s powers of inquiry are so feeble that he can’t collect the facts he needs to come to a decision, then surely he isn’t fit to lead the nation’s law enforcement activities.

Mukasey’s view of executive privilege has more far-reaching consequences for the principles which are the cornerstone of our country’s moral clarity—namely the rule of law. In his testimony, Mukasey stated that it is acceptable for the President to violate laws written by Congress, as long as his actions are within the Constitution. That is dangerous thinking for a country founded upon the separation of powers. It is precisely this arrogance on the part of the Bush administration—that believes it can ignore, rather than challenge, the legislative branch—that is seriously eroding the protection of our constitutional and civil rights.

Hopefully the Democratic controlled Congress will stand up to Bush’s attacks on our country’s principles—as the electorate signaled they wanted last November—by refusing to support the nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General.

Whose privacy is more important: gun dealers' or American citizens'?

To recognize just how much sway the National Rifle Association has over the U.S. Congress, consider this: Congress has taken more action to protect the “privacy” of law-breaking gun dealers than it has to protect the privacy of Americans from President Bush’s likely unconstitutional program of secret domestic wiretapping without search warrants.

Led by Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas), pro-gun legislators in the House continue to block efforts by local law enforcement officials and over two hundred mayors—from red and blue states—to access federal gun sales data collected by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Until four years ago when Tiahrt and his many gun-loving allies (Democrats and Republicans) restricted access to the data, it was used effectively to track down the 1 percent of gun dealers who are responsible for supplying a substantial majority of guns used in crimes.

Just this week, the House Appropriations Committee blocked attempts by responsible legislators to reduce the Tiahrt restrictions on the use of federal gun sales data to staunch the flow of illegal firearms. Apparently our gun-loving Congress believes the mission of the ATF is to protect the privacy of illegal gun suppliers rather than to reduce the 30,000 yearly gun deaths. So much so that they actually want to criminalize the unauthorized use of gun sales information by law enforcement officials (that is, sharing gun crime data to detect trends that could identify the source of illegal gun sales).

Yet contrast this with the feeble efforts by the House and Senate to get to the bottom of the Bush administration’s secret domestic wiretapping program. That constitutionally suspect program jeopardizes the privacy rights of untold numbers of American citizens by blatantly circumventing legal means to conduct secret wiretapping (as authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).

While the Republican-led Congress (abetted by a not inconsequential number of Democrats) was vigorous in protecting the privacy rights of gun dealers since the passage of the Tiarht amendment in 2003, they were far less vigorous in protecting the privacy rights of the broader citizenry. While still in control of Congress last year, Republicans were more interested in finding ways to legalize Bush’s illegal program than they were in investigating the full breadth of his attack on our constitutional protections. The argument that shutting down the secret eavesdropping program would aid terrorists is a red herring—as the means for conducting secret wiretapping within the law is already in place, using FISA.

Could our elected representatives have their priorities any more confused?

Liberty and justice for all; well, maybe not all.

I was in my daughters’ school the other day, and overheard the pledge of allegiance: “…with liberty and justice for all.” Unless, of course, you happen to be caught in the Bush administration’s war on terror dragnet. Then, in the name of protecting American values and liberty, you’re pretty much out of luck – it may even cost you your life.

You may be whisked away in secret to a foreign country like Syria to be tortured to give up information you don’t possess, as happened to Maher Arar, an innocent Canadian citizen who fell victim to the CIA practice of extraordinary rendition.

You may be locked up for a month without access to legal counsel through abuses of the material witness statue, as happened to Abdallah Higazy. He is an Egyptian citizen who was staying in a New York city hotel room on 9/11, in whose room the previous occupant left an aviation radio that was deemed suspicious.

Or you may be the taxi-driver Mr. Dilawar, who died in an Afghan prison after being assaulted and tortured – even though investigators had concluded that he was almost certainly innocent of involvement in the attack for which he was being held. Or perhaps you were, until recently, in a secret CIA prison, where the Bush administration wanted to engage in interrogation practices that would not be deemed acceptable by civilized countries around the world.

More likely, you’re one of those still languishing in Guantánamo in legal limbo, not charged with any crime, with no recourse to challenge their detention. Why? Because the right to file for a writ of habeas corpus no longer exists for those deemed to be illegal enemy combatants, thanks to the “new and improved” military tribunals conceived of by the Bush administration (after its first attempt was found to be unconstitutional). Has Bush so terrorized Americans that we don’t think twice about locking somebody up indefinitely, before their guilt has been established?

I don’t consider myself to be soft on terrorists, and I want the U.S. to be aggressive in hunting down and prosecuting them. But I also want our country to be able to look itself in the mirror, and be able to say we are doing so in a manner consistent with our principals. We are not infallible; we do make mistakes, we have already made some egregious ones. Not everybody that we think is a terrorist – even under reasonable assumptions – is. That is why our judicial system is built on a foundation of due process.

Beyond the liberties and lives of innocents that have been lost, the Bush administration policies have cost America’s reputation in the world dearly. As Colin Powell remarked recently, “the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.” This, and Bush’s failed strategy in Iraq, have increased the threat from terrorism, as the recent National Intelligence Estimate made clear.

Throughout these past five troubling years, the Republican congress has done virtually nothing to hold Bush accountable for his misguided and incompetent strategies in the war on terror. That is why I’m voting for Ned Lamont for senator and Diane Farrell for representative in next week’s midterm election. It’s time to send legislators to Washington who will alter the disastrous course along which Bush is leading us.

Threatening American values: flag burning and torture

Which do you think is the greater threat to American values: the protester who burns an American flag, or a President who, by all indications, has consistently and flagrantly violated U.S. laws and international treaties? From the righteous speeches by Republican Senators in support of a constitutional amendment to prohibit desecration of the flag, you would think it was the former.

Would that these same “defenders” of our constitution were equally vigorous in protecting us from the excesses of the Bush administration’s grab for unchecked executive power. Whether it involves warrantless domestic spying, secret investigation of Americans’ phone and banking records, claiming (and exercising) the right to imprison anybody, indefinitely, with no right to due process, or condoning torture, the Republican Congress has acquiesced, even defended, President Bush’s desire to do virtually anything he wants in the war on terror, unchecked by Congressional oversight or judicial review.

To me, that is far more sinister than the individual who chooses to burn the American flag, as unseemly as that is. But the Republican Congress is more intent on finding ways to call its opponents unpatriotic – for anybody who dares to disagree with it – than it is on taking President Bush to task for the enormous damage he has done to our country’s values and reputation.