At What Point Do We Stop Calling This An "Administration," And Start Referring To It As A "Criminal Enterprise"?

Via The New York Times, we learn this morning that Dr. Lester Crawford, the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration who resigned for cryptic reasons last fall after less than three months in office, is facing criminal investigation by a federal grand jury for improper financial transactions and false statements to Congress.

Between Congress and the White House, the GOP is fielding an impressive list of criminal suspects. Just off the top of my head:

1. Majority Leader Tom DeLay - indicted for breaking campaign finance laws
2. V.P.'s chief of staff Scooter Libby - indicted for perjury in the CIA leak investigation
3. Ex-chief of procurement at OMB, David Safavian - indicted for obstruction of justice and lying to authorities in connection with a federal investigation of the Abramoff corruption
scandal
4. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham - convicted of taking $2.5 million in bribes, and if we're to believe Harper's and the Wall Street Journal, participating in a prostitution ring run by
lobbyists at the Watergate Hotel; the FBI is apparently investigating several other
congressmen in connection with this too, it's unlikely that Cunningham was the only one
5. Former Rep. and current CIA Director Porter Goss - possibly being investigated by FBI for participating in said prostitution ring (all right, this one's speculative, but fun to think
about no?)
6. Deputy chief of staff Karl Rove - still facing possible indictment after his 5th visit to the
Fitzgerald grand jury this week.
7. Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist - under investigation by the SEC for securities fraud

And this doesn't even cover the Ohio "coingate" scandal, the indictment of Illinois' last GOP governor, and criminal trials under way in connection with the GOP/NJ phone jamming case, which may eventually lead to the White House itself.

So, I repeat: at what point do we stop referring to the GOP as an ordinary governing party, and start calling it what it is: a massive criminal enterprise whose nefariousness is only matched by its apparent sloppiness and incompetence?

UPDATE: forgot to mention that yesterday the Ohio Election Commission formally reprimanded Ohio GOP Rep. Jean Schmidt for violating campaign laws by falsely claiming that she had two college degrees, when in fact she has one. That reminds me of that other funny GOP appointee at NASA who I blogged about earlier, who falsely claimed he had one college degree when in fact he had none (and was in charge of "policing" the statements of NASA's Ph.D scientists).

More Policy Sophistication From the GOP

With gas prices topping $3 per gallon in many parts of the country, Congress takes action...and proposes giving us all a $100 check. See, doesn't that make it all better?

Apparently, Jacob Weisberg is right: high gas prices make politicians stupid.

You know what, I have a better idea. Congress can keep the $100. But instead of giving it to ExxonMobil in the form of a tax break, why don't we finally get serious about making a real energy policy? You know, a Manhattan Project for alternative fuels? As a technical challenge, I'd say this is not quite as difficult as the A-bomb or the manned mission to the moon...all we need are higher-yield varieties of switchgrass and other rapidly growing plants, and some more efficient enzymes to convert all that cellulose to ethanol. Require that all new vehicles on the road be ready to run 85% ethanol fuel blends. And until we get a solid cellulosic industry set up, reduce tariffs on Brazilian sugar-derived ethanol. I don't mean to trivialize these steps, but this is not the hardest obstacle this country has ever faced, either. After all, Brazil has already shown us the way. But it does require coordination, stimulus, imagination, and leadership from the top. Which means, we're probably going to be waiting a while for it ever to happen...

HBS Gets A Richly Deserved Arse-Kicking

Well the World Graduate Rowing Championships (yes that's an ironic title) were held this past weekend in Boston, MA and the Yale School of Management team, which allowed me to join as a law student interloper, made a strong showing. Especially the women, who are actually in shape - they came in first in their experienced division. But even our novice men's boat beat the Hahvahd Business School team by a mile, a victory made all the more sweet by the Harvard team's obnoxious t-shirts and oars (dollar signs printed on all of them). Here are some pics for y'all:

Sunday Morning Talk: Leaky Ships Sail Better

Fox News' Brit Hume has his panties in a bunch this morning over CIA analyst Mary McCarthy's alleged leaks to the press on the CIA's use of secret prisons (or 'black sites') throughout Eastern Europe and elsewhere to interrogate suspected terrorists. George Will, on Stephanopoulos this morning, inartfully slips in a factoid that he clearly feels is damning to McCarthy's motives and credibility - that she donated $7000 to the Kerry-Edwards campaign. He also sermonizes on the sanctity of contract, specifically McCarthy's employment agreement not to reveal classified information, and trots out what appears to be the new moderate conservative take on leaks: leakers should go public and resign their positions if they really disagree with administration policies.

The rationale seems to be that it's "sneaky," or maybe trying to have your cake and eat it too, to maintain your position while releasing classified information to the press. But the real motive for this argument is that if the public comes to agree with it, it will shut down leaking almost entirely. Few federal employees would have the courage to sacrifice their careers, and risk civil or criminal liability, by going public with classified information. Going public, moreover, would automatically "plug the leak" by ensuring the removal of the leaker.

Clearly Republicans hope to take some of the Democratic anger over Plamegate and stand it on his head: they'd like to use the current political rhetoric against "leaking" and turn it against federal employees that release embarrassing information to the press on atrocious programs like the secret prisons, the NSA's domestic spying, the use of extraordinary rendition, torture of detainees, etc. That's why I'd like to see some Democratic politicians defending McCarthy and making the point that we need more of McCarthy's variety of leaks and fewer of the Plamegate variety. Better yet, they should use the flap to squarely focus the press where it most belongs: on the shocking abuses of power that gave rise to the leaks in the first place.

Leaking classified information about programs that run counter to any reasonable characterization of American values, and clearly need a public airing and Congressional oversight, is something to be honored and encouraged. In terms that George Will would understand, that brand of leaking represents an efficient breach of contract. Plamegate involved no such high public purpose: I think most Americans rightfully condemn releasing the identities of CIA operatives as part of a disinformation campaign to confuse the public and intimidate one's political opponents.

College Republicans Strike Again

As anyone who follows that august organization knows, the College Republicans have spent the last few years adapting, even perfecting, the methods of our favorite governing party. They've bilked seniors out of millions of dollars, for example. They've seen beyond the talking points and rallied to kill Social Security. And now the Penn State chapter is organizing what looks to be a highly educational, unifying event to inform the public about immigration issues (in my inbox this morning - as far as I can tell, it's real):

Press Release
For immediate release
Tuesday, April 11th, 2006
Contact Amadeo Pablo Olivares ( Truevoices.psu@gmail.com ) Or call 814-863-0047

True Voices calls for Immediate Rally against Racism and Xenophobia

On March 16, 2006 at approximately 11:00am members of the PSU Latino Caucus stumbled across flyers publicizing a program-"Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day", which was supposed to be put on later that day by the PSU College Republicans.

After confronting the PSU College Republicans, members of the PSU Latino Caucus were successful at postponing the program, until its purpose could be clarified. In conversations between the two organizations, it was made clear that the premise of this game was to "capture" individuals wearing orange t-shirts reading "illegal immigrant". The reward for capturing the "illegal immigrant" was a candy bar. It was then that the PSU Latino Caucus demanded that the College Republicans did not continue on with their event. The PSU College Republicans refused. The event is still scheduled to take place during the week of the 18 th in April-now, with superficial changes.

It's worth noting that this is the same chapter whose president, about three years ago, posted delightful photos of College Republicans in blackface on the group's website - prompting the University to call for an entirely new organization of Republicans. Apparently, the new one is just as tolerant and enlightened as the old, which in retrospect shouldn't surprise anyone. All of which leads me to ask: should we concerned citizens begin wondering why it is that the College Republicans tends to attract this assortment of, um, what's the word: thieves, liars, and bigots? And, why it is that the national Republican leadership doesn't try to discipline their young proteges?

America's next generation of leaders, everyone!

El Grito de New Haven

Here are some pictures from the immigration rally on the New Haven Green this past Monday. It was a fabulous event and even more inspiring than I had expected. There must have been around 2,000 people there if not more: immigrants, their families, community leaders, and friends and advocates like those of us from the Law School. Not to mention a sweet mariachi band which played the most unusual rendition of "Sweet Home Alabama" I've ever heard. Even the mayor showed up.

Grand Old Preying

Read this this column in the WaPo all the way to the punchline at the end. It appears that the GOP's transition from the party of Lincoln to the party of fraudulent mail scams is complete. And my very own Senator from North Carolina's signature on the front page! Way to go, Senator Dole!

What If Janet Reno Had Said This?

Attorney General Alberto González gets half a point for candor, but only half a point - because while he's forthcoming enough to admit that the Administration now believes it has authority to wiretap purely domestic communications without court warrant, he's still playing games with the public about exactly what the National Security Agency is up to:

Gonzales: Bush Could Order Domestic Wiretaps: "'I'm not going to rule it out,' Gonzales said, referring to the possibility of monitoring purely domestic communications.

The comments mark a dramatic departure from previous statements by Gonzales, Bush and others within the Bush administration, who have repeatedly stressed that an NSA eavesdropping program ordered after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks was focused only on international communications.

Gonzales previously testified in the Senate that Bush had initially considered including purely domestic communications in the NSA spying program, but said the idea was rejected in part because of fears of public outcry. He also testified at the time that the Justice Department had not fully analyzed the legal issues of such a move."

I'm counting down the days until this Administration leaves office. But the problems they've left us will take years to sort out - and I'm not just talking about the $3 trillion (and counting) in debt that Bush and the Republican Congress have run up, or the Iraq War, or the isolation and resentment we've encouraged even among our allies, or the erosion in independence and scientific credibility of agencies like EPA, NOAA, and NASA. To me, one of the darkest Pandora's boxes this Administration has opened up is the use of maximalist interpretations of Article II of the Constitution.

Not to bore anyone with Constitutional law, but this really does matter and the public has mostly ignored this, I think. The unifying legal concept behind the NSA spying scandal, the torture and other atrocities at Abu Ghraib, Bagram Air Force Base, Guantanamo and other facilities, and "extraordinary rendition" by the CIA to countries that torture on our behalf, the indefinite detention of Americans captured on American soil (i.e. Jose Padilla) is that in times of war and crisis the President can rely on his powers as "commander in chief" to set aside such pesky statutes as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or the laws on torture.

Article II of the US Constitution, the only section that elaborates on the powers of the President, is remarkably terse. It says that the President "shal receive Ambassadors and other public ministers," allows him to nominate ambassadors and ministers and supreme court justices "with the advice and consent of the Senate," commands him to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," and names him "commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."

On this last, slender reed hangs virtually the whole of the Administration's legal arguments. The typical mode of argument, exemplified in this DOJ white paper, is that the President has "inherent" powers to do virtually whatever he may deem necessary and appropriate to preserve the national security of the US. Any law that stands in his way is unconstitutional if not capable of a more generous interpretation.

This is an utterly pernicious line of argument, not to mention one utterly alien to our system of rule of law and checks and balances. It's also one that the Bush Administration has gone to great lengths to avoid putting to the test, as seen most recently in its attempt to render the Padilla case moot by transferring him to civilian custody. And it's one that future administrations - Democratic and Republican - will surely pick up and use for ends more nefarious even than Bush's. This simply has to be nipped in the bud, yet the institutions that should have done so long ago - Congress and the courts - have mostly played along. And as Bruce Ackerman points out in this brilliant piece for Slate, if they won't stand up to the President in this relatively peaceful time, how will they behave when the next September 11th occurs?

Zakaria Gets It

Fareed Zakaria, writing in the WP, finally hits it on the head:

To Become an American: "Many Americans have become enamored of the European approach to immigration -- perhaps without realizing it. Guest workers, penalties, sanctions and deportation are all a part of Europe's mode of dealing with immigrants. The results of this approach have been on display recently in France, where rioting migrant youths again burned cars last week. Across Europe one sees disaffected, alienated immigrants, ripe for radicalism. The immigrant communities deserve their fair share of blame for this, but there's a cycle at work. European societies exclude the immigrants, who become alienated and reject their societies.

One puzzle about post-Sept. 11 America is that it has not had a subsequent terror attack -- not even a small backpack bomb in a movie theater -- while there have been dozens in Europe. My own explanation is that American immigrant communities, even Arab and Muslim ones, are not very radicalized. (Even if such an attack does take place, the fact that 4 1/2 years have gone by without one provides some proof of this contention.) Compared with every other country in the world, America does immigration superbly. Do we really want to junk that for the French approach?"

So, Lou Dobbs doesn't want to see any flags but the American flag flown here in the good ol' USA. The Scrooge would even have us shut down St. Patrick's day, or so he said on the Daily Show last week. Well, that sort of statement makes me feel sorta uber-patriotic. So here's my family-friendly response to Lou Dobbs:



And, another one just for solidarity:



And, just to prove how wonderful it is that we live in a country where people from so many countries (except Lou Dobbs) can co-exist peacefully and yes, even celebrate each other's culture, here's Old Glory:



Lou, get a life. Flying the flag of your homeland is neither a rejection of the USA and its democratic values, nor an attempt to divide us. It's an expression of pride in one's origins, and in this case, it's a symbol of self-affirmation in defiance of a perceived assault from conservative politicians trying to demonize, intimidate, and oppress hard-working immigrants in this country.