"I'm Here" Roundup

Long story.

* * *

Great post by Ta-Nehisi Coates regarding his experience when his partner got pregnant.

Leon Wieseltier on the pro-Israel community's conflicted feelings regarding the fall of Egyptian autocracy and the rise of a new democratic order: "Jews should not rely on Pharaohs."

Conservative depressed to find out "judicial activism" is a two-way street. "Striking down democratically-enacted legislation" has the key advantage of being measurable. "Decisions that are wrong" is simply a way of muscling your way past the fact that "what the constitution commands" is precisely what's being disputed. (Via).

Cool story about a benefit dinner hosted by New York's Chinese immigrant community for Jews victimized by a Russian pogrom at the turn of the 20th century.

The What is it like being a woman in philosophy blog is harrowing, but worth reading.

Phoebe's got two good posts up on how "anti-Semitism" is and isn't part of our collective discourse -- I feel compelled to note that I really do think they're quite good, as I quarreled with a side-point she made in the comments I left over there.

Distaste for his presidency as a whole notwithstanding, one of the few areas George W. Bush was on the right path was in his views on immigration. He's recently expressed his concern that America is suffering a relapse into "nativism".

Reverse Nuremberg

This one's been flying around the internet, but I want to link too:

We’ve got what amounts to a reverse Nuremberg defense, where Bush administration officials are let off the hook because they were only giving orders. I’m not sure that’s such a great idea.

Canada's Siberia

Not to be cruel, but it seems quite meaningful that George W. Bush's first post-presidential appearance comes a) 8 weeks after left office, b) out of the country, and c) in Calgary, of all places. Was Yellowknife booked?

I Didn't See These in the MPC

Warning: Reading USA Today may be hazardous to your Crim Law grade.

Bye-Bye

A toddler says goodbye to President Bush:

[The embedding was screwing with my layout -- just click the link to see the video]

I have to say, on behalf of rhythm-impaired White people everywhere, I thought it was endearing watching President Bush try to dance.

Bush Commutes Sentence of Ex-Border Patrol Agents

This was one of the cases on the radar screen, and Bush elected to commute but not pardon two border patrol agents convicted of shooting and killing wounding a fleeing drug smuggler, then trying to cover it up:

Bush's decision to commute the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who tried to cover up the shooting, was welcomed by both Republican and Democratic members of Congress. They had long argued that the agents were merely doing their jobs, defending the American border against criminals. They also maintained that the more than 10-year prison sentences the pair was given were too harsh.

Rancor over their convictions, sentencing and firings has simmered ever since the shooting occurred in 2005.

Ramos and Compean became a rallying point among conservatives and on talk shows where their supporters called them heroes. Nearly the entire bipartisan congressional delegation from Texas and other lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle pleaded with Bush to grant them clemency.

Bush didn't pardon the men for their crimes, but decided instead to commute their prison sentences because he believed they were excessive and that they had already suffered the loss of their jobs, freedom and reputations, a senior administration official said.

The action by the president, who believes the border agents received fair trials and that the verdicts were just, does not diminish the seriousness of their crimes, the official said.

Compean and Ramos, who have served about two years of their sentences, are expected to be released from prison within the next two months.

They were convicted of shooting admitted drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete Davila in the buttocks as he fled across the Rio Grande, away from an abandoned van load of marijuana. The border agents argued during their trials that they believed the smuggler was armed and that they shot him in self defense. The prosecutor in the case said there was no evidence linking the smuggler to the van of marijuana. The prosecutor also said the border agents didn't report the shooting and tampered with evidence by picking up several spent shell casings.

The agents were fired after their convictions on several charges, including assault with a dangerous weapon and with serious bodily injury, violation of civil rights and obstruction of justice. All their convictions, except obstruction of justice, were upheld on appeal.

A pardon would have been worse -- the men will still have served over two years in prison.

The fact that some people consider these men heroes for shooting an unarmed, fleeing man (even if that man was himself a criminal) is a sign of just far out of control our discourse has gotten on border security and/or the war on drugs. My understanding is that police officers cannot shoot at a fleeing suspect unless it is a case where deadly force would be warranted, and this wasn't it.

You Know What That Makes Us?

Karl Rove is set to reveal a new class of big damn heroes:

Enemies of President Bush take heed: Karl Rove is set to name names.

The man widely credited with Bush's two presidential victories says his new book will include an accounting of those in Washington who never accepted the president as a legitimate commander-in-chief.

"I've got behind-the-scenes episodes that are going to show how unreceiving they were of this man as president of the United States," Rove told Cox News in an interview published Sunday. "I'm going to name names and show examples."

Given the reputation President Bush is leaving office with, I'm sure these guys are just quaking in their boots that they might be revealed as "enemies" of the administration.

W to M

The SEIU has a clever new ad up:



Via Too Sense. The irony is that, to the extent that it's misleading, it's because it's being too nice to President Bush. Tough for Republicans to go out and remind everybody that President Bush spent most of his tenure as an avowed opponent of increasing the minimum wage.

Why Indeed?

Michael Dorf asks "If the Government Plans to Hold Salim Hamdan Indefinitely, What Was the Point of Putting Him on Trial?"

It's a good question. Unfortunately, Dorf isn't cynical enough to give us what I suspect is the real answer.

It's quite simple. If Hamdan was found guilty, and given a long sentence, then the Bush administration could a) do what it had always wanted to do, but now with a greater veneer of legitimacy and b) retroactively claim that the results justified their original due process-free determinations under which Hamdan was held in the first place.

But Hamdan was not given a long sentence, and was acquitted of the most serious charges. So where does that leave the Bush administration? In the same position it was before we started: defending extra-legal indefinite detention. It's not really any loss, except now they have the advantage of being able to call Hamdan a convicted war criminal and the disadvantage of having a determinate metric (a timeline!) that can be waved in their face.

Pardons for Bush, Take Two

Last year, I came up with what I (in a severely sleep-deprived state) thought would make for beautifully passive-aggressive politics: I urged that the Democratic President pardon George W. Bush.

So why a pardon? Simple: you don't pardon people who haven't done anything wrong. The very act of pardoning Bush establishes him as someone who needed a pardon. Pardons damage the reputation of their recipients -- it's not like Nixon's pardon convinced Americans that he really just got a bad rap (even just-defeated Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher's spate of pardons, which he cast as protecting the targets from illegitimate prosecution, made both him and them look much worse than they were before). Meanwhile, President Obama the Democratic President looks magnanimous, moving the country forward rather than focusing on rehashing the malfeasance of the past. And of course, removing the specter of criminal prosecution from President Bush, under a variety of precedents, makes it easier to compel him to testify about the events in question, if that ever becomes necessary.

But that might have been a bit too clever. Under Burdick v. U.S., 236 U.S. 79 (1915) it is possible to refuse a pardon, precisely because pardons carry with them that taint of guilt. And the American people might see it as partisan and theatrical.

But Steve Benen suggests that ol' W might do the work for us, by pardoning, if not himself, then key members of his administration responsible for some of his "controversial" counterterrorism programs.

To which I say, "bring 'em on." Not because I don't think that many of these men and women deserve criminal inquiry. But realistically, they won't. And once the threat of criminal sanction is officially removed via pardon, it becomes possible to compel testimony on the issues in question (following from Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)).

If we can't hold people legally accountable for torture, at the very least we can demand the truth about what they did. A truth commission about just what this administration did in the name of "protecting America" would be a dramatic departure from the precedent set by George W. Bush and his cronies of lies, obfuscation, and obstruction. And I believe that when the truth, in all its ugly glory, comes out, it will be as much of a deterrent to future abuses as a criminal trial would have been.

Goodbye To You Too

Wow, this was incredibly ass-holish even for Bush:

"President George Bush signed off with a defiant farewell over his refusal to accept global climate change targets at his last G8 summit.

As he prepared to fly out from Japan, he told his fellow leaders: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."

President Bush made the private joke in the summit's closing session, senior sources said yesterday. His remarks were taken as a two-fingered salute from the President from Texas who is wedded to the oil industry. He had given some ground at the summit by saying he would "seriously consider" a 50 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2050."

Via Obsidian Wings

Sins of Omission

Steve Benen and Ed Brayton are crowing over a "modified" quote from Thomas Jefferson that appeared in President George W. Bush's 4th of July speech in Charlottesville. Here's Bush:

“The principles that Thomas Jefferson enshrined in the Declaration became the guiding principles of the new nation. And at every generation, Americans have rededicated themselves to the belief that all men are created equal, with the God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

“Thomas Jefferson understood that these rights do not belong to Americans alone. They belong to all mankind. And he looked to the day when all people could secure them. On the 50th anniversary of America’s independence, Thomas Jefferson passed away. But before leaving this world, he explained that the principles of the Declaration of Independence were universal. In one of the final letters of his life, he wrote, ‘May it be to the world, what I believe it will be — to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all — the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.’”

And here's the original of the quote he draws from:

“May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.” [emphasis added]

The bolded part was omitted.

Color me unimpressed. I understand the point Benen and Brayton are trying to make -- Jefferson was skeptical of organized religion and that's a fact that has been purged from "civilized" discourse -- but I don't think the omission was all that significant. Famous quotes are truncated all the time. So long as Bush didn't change the meaning of Jefferson's words (and I don't think he did), I have no problem.

Indeed, reading the quote in original form might have been a bigger blunder. The context Bush read it in was his standard refrain about hoping the whole world will become democratic. It's a vision that has never really stepped beyond the rhetorical for Bush, but the rhetoric does matter at least somewhat. And I have to say, given the primary arena in which we are seeking to promote democracy at the moment, I think it would be rather unwise to tie its rejection to "monkish ignorance and superstition."

Leaving a Mess

Bill Kristol thinks that, if Obama is elected, President Bush will might leave a "mess" for him in Iran. If McCain is the President-elect, Bush may be willing to leave the situation to the incoming President to address, but he might want to force Obama's hand in a more belligerent direction.

The most generous way to interpret this is that Bush is so certain that Obama's strategy on Iran will be inadvisable that he won't even give him a chance to play it out. Whether or not that sentiment is justified (I, obviously, think it is misguided), I think it is at least intermingled with the political gamesmanship and (let's call a spade a spade) spite that has characterized how President Bush has combined partisan politics and national security throughout his administration.

Never Give Up, Never Surrender

The Corner is worried that President Bush is about to submit to an "unconditional surrender" on Global Warming (I swear I'm not making that rhetoric up). I haven't heard that appellation used since history books about the Japanese and WWII. But I guess since the consequences of planet-wide climate devastation would make Hiroshima look like a brush-fire, maybe it's about time we get over our "honor" and admit the reality that's staring us in the eye?

Via Balloon Juice

Political Prognostication

Maybe I'm not the best at it (Louisiana is Hillary Country!), but you know whose thoughts I really don't care about? George W. Bush's!:

The president weighed in on the Democratic race, saying it "seems far from over to me." And he rejected criticism of former President Clinton's work on the campaign trail for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

"I can understand why President Clinton wants to campaign hard for his wife. And those accusations that Bill Clinton's a racist, I think is just wrong. I just don't agree with it."

As for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Bush said, "I certainly don't know what he believes in."

It ranges from inane (the race is far from over!) to meaningless (I didn't realize anybody said Bill Clinton's a racist. I do recall them saying he made a cheap-shot attack, which is not the same thing.) to smear (maybe Obama's thoughts are just on a higher plane than yours, chimpanzee boy).

Also, on McCain's travails with conservatives:

Asked about some leading conservative pundits who oppose McCain's nomination, Bush said, "I think that if John's the nominee, he's got some convincing to do to convince people that he is a solid conservative. And I'd be glad to help him if he's the nominee."

I'm sure McCain can't wait for 26% to start stumping for him.

Wow, Did I Call That

When Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee accused the Bush administration of having an "arrogant, bunker mentality" on foreign affairs, I predicted that

if past experience is any guide, Huckabee's somewhat surprising break from orthodox, institutional conservative talking points will rapidly be followed by a sprinting back-track, as he cowers from the furious reaction of the base.

And sure enough, after taking flack from Mitt Romney, here's the new Huckabee line:

“I didn’t say the President was arrogant…. I’ve said that the policies have been arrogant…. I’m the one who actually supported the President’s surge. I supported the Bush tax cuts, when Mr. Romney didn’t. I was with President Bush on gun control, when Mitt Romney wasn’t. I was with the President on the President’s pro-life position, when Mitt Romney wasn’t.”

So predictable.

In The Bunker

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, writing in Foreign Affairs, critiques the Bush administration for having an "arrogant, bunker mentality." Now, if past experience is any guide, Huckabee's somewhat surprising break from orthodox, institutional conservative talking points will rapidly be followed by a sprinting back-track, as he cowers from the furious reaction of the base.

See, e.g., immigration, taxes.

Intelligence is for Suckers

Driving to the DMV, Michelle Cottle passed a church with the following sign:

Experts built the Titanic.

Amateurs Built the Ark.

She uses it to lament the "anti-expertise" mentality in American culture.

From what I've read (and I've seen that sign before), this is hardly a new occurrence: America has always apparently had a strong anti-elitist streak that manifested itself against the intelligentsia. It hit home for me observing the 2000 presidential election (the first in which I was really politically aware), in which Gore's intellectualism versus Bush's frat boy persona was scored as a point in W's favor. And from there on out, I realized every step forward I took in my education would be a step back in my political potential. I had hoped that eight years of experiencing a half-wit for a President would awaken an American desire for intelligence, but so far I'm not seeing it.

So in the mean time, I echo Cottle's wish that all the pro-amateur persons out there remember their commitment to the cause the next time they need surgery.

Pardons for Bush

Getting ready for bed last night, I was hit with a wonderful idea for the next Democratic President. At least, I think it's a wonderful idea. Tell me what you think.

On his first day in office, the new Democratic President should pardon George W. Bush.

I know, it galls me too. The number of crimes this administration is implicated in boggles the mind, and it is infuriating that they will likely go unpunished. But let's be serious here -- there is a precisely 0% chance that President Bush, or any top member of the Bush administration, will ever be prosecuted for anything. It would look partisan, it would look retaliatory, and it would end up being awful politics.

So why a pardon? Simple: you don't pardon people who haven't done anything wrong. The very act of pardoning Bush establishes him as someone who needed a pardon. Pardons damage the reputation of their recipients -- it's not like Nixon's pardon convinced Americans that he really just got a bad rap (even just-defeated Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher's spate of pardons, which he cast as protecting the targets from illegitimate prosecution, made both him and them look much worse than they were before). Meanwhile, President Obama the Democratic President looks magnanimous, moving the country forward rather than focusing on rehashing the malfeasance of the past. And of course, removing the specter of criminal prosecution from President Bush, under a variety of precedents, makes it easier to compel him to testify about the events in question, if that ever becomes necessary.

It is important to establish Bush's historical legacy as someone who ran one of the most corrupt, extra-legal administrations in the history of the nation. Prosecution would be the most direct route, but that's not going to happen. Counter-intuitive as it is, issuing a pardon would permanently enshrine Bush in that rarefied class of Presidents who needed a pardon -- and that would likely secure his legacy almost as well as (politically contested) indictment.

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

His Hero

Looks like W likes more about Putin than just his soul:

Q: Mr. President, following up on Vladimir Putin for a moment, he said, recently, that next year, when he has to step down according to the constitution, as the president, he may become prime minister; in effect keeping power and dashing any hopes for a genuine democratic transition there.

BUSH: I've been planning that myself.

Time to break out my favorite bumpersticker!


Via