Not The Justice League of America

The sooner Democratic supporters get that through their heads the better.

Democrats ?Justice League of America

You’d think, wouldn’t you, that after the warcrimes of Iraq and Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, after the warrantless wiretapping of its own citizens, and the theft of an election, that the congressional Democrats would be taking a long, hard look at any candidate for Attorney General that Bush might’ve nominated. A reasonable person might consider that the very fact that Bush, a known criminal and liar, nominated him or her should be sufficient to put a confirmation on indefinite hold.

You’d be wrong.

This is the man, Michael Mukasey, that the Democrats have agreed is a fit person to be potentially in charge of of the impartial administration of federal justice and to be the arbiter of the legality of all executive actions:the judge who took away habeas corpus.

Dealing with terrorists

“Michael Mukasey was the chief judge of U.S. District Court in Manhattan from 1987 thru 2006. President Reagan appointed him to the bench. He was the judge of the 1995 trial of 10 militant Muslims who were convicted of a plot to blow up the United Nations and other landmarks around the city. He should be better known however as the first judge to rule on Jose Padilla after his arrest. He ruled that President Bush did have the authority to hold Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant without charging him for a crime.[4] But he also ruled that the government must allow Mr. Padilla to see his attorneys.

Supports torture

In October 2001, Judge Mukasey “dismissed concerns by a 21-year old Jordanian immigrant that he had been beaten while in U.S. custody, leaving bruises that were hidden beneath his orange prison jumpsuit.”[8] “‘As far as the claim that he was beaten, I will tell you that he looks fine to me,’ said Judge Mukasey.”[9]

Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff reported in the October 1, 2007, issue[10] “that in recent private meetings with ‘hard-liners,’ Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey reassured conservatives that he was committed to the Bush administration’s right-wing ideology:

“According to three sources, who asked not to be named discussing the private meetings, Mukasey said that he saw ‘significant problems’ with shutting down Guantánamo Bay and that he understood the need for the CIA to use some ‘enhanced’ interrogation techniques against Qaeda suspects. Mukasey also signaled reluctance with naming a special prosecutor to investigate Bush-administration misconduct, according to one participant.”[11]
[edit]

“Terror trials hurt the nation even when they lead to convictions.”

In an August 22, 2007, Wall Street Journal op-ed, Mukasey[12] “argues that ‘Terror trials hurt the nation even when they lead to convictions’,” ArgusRun wrote in The Daily Kos.[13] “Not because they involve detainees who have been tortured or mistreated, or secret information not available to the defense. No, this respected jurist does not care about the damage done to the rule of law or our constitutional protections. Rather, he is terrified that the trials give valuable information to the terrorists.”

“Mukasey is obviously just what the Justice Department needs to restore Americans’ confidence in their legal system: A judge who does not have confidence in our legal system,” Argus Run commented.[13]
[edit]

Defended Patriot Act

“In a 2004 speech accepting the Learned Hand Medal for Excellence in Federal Jurisprudence, Judge Mukasey delivered a defense of the controversial counter-terrorism law.[14]

“I think one would have to concede that the USA Patriot Act has an awkward, even Orwellian, name, which is one of those Washington acronyms derived by calling the law ‘Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Interrupt and Obstruct Terrorism.’ You get the impression they started with the acronym first, and then offered a $50 savings bond to whoever could come up with a name to fit. Without offering my view on any case or controversy, current or future, I think that that awkward name may very well be the worst thing about the statute.”

[edit]

Joined at the hip with Giuliani
[edit]
Battling crime in New York

Michael Mukasey was “an assistant U.S. attorney and head of the official corruption unit” when Rudolph W. Giuliani was U.S. Attorney in New York. “To prepare for trials, Giuliani practiced his cross-examinations on Mukasey, who would portray the witness.”[15]

In 1985, when Mukasey was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Giuliani “was coming under intense criticism for his aggressive tactics in prosecuting organized crime, including his use of mass trials, his habit of holding defendants without bail and his practice of subpoenaing defense lawyers to testify at their clients’ grand jury hearings, which lawyers argued was a violation of client confidentiality.

“Springing to Giuliani’s defense was a former colleague, Michael B. Mukasey, who argued in a strongly worded opinion piece that Giuliani’s tough tactics were justified to defeat an enemy that, he said, was far more dangerous and powerful than Giuliani’s critics were willing to acknowledge,” Alec MacGillis reported September 18, 2007, in the Washington Post.[16]

[edit]

Swore Giuliani in as NYC Mayor

On January 2, 1994, Judge Michael Mukasy swore in now Republican 2008 presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani as Mayor of New York City.[17]

“When Giuliani was elected mayor of New York in 1993 and 1997, Judge Mukasey presided at his friend’s swearing-in. In fact, one of the ceremonies was held at Mukasey’s own Manhattan apartment.”[15]

[edit]

Justice Advisory Committee

Michael Mukasey and his son, Marc L. Mukasey (see below),[18] both partners (Michael prior, Mark current) in Giuliani’s law firm, are both members of Giuliani’s Justice Advisory Committee.[19][20]

There’s more, much more…

Those who want actual change in America aren’t going to find it via any Democrat.

Either Dems’ve been pressured (it’s not just hippies get wiretapped) or they really do not give a shit anymore for anything except short-term political self-interest or they’ve just gone “Oh, it’s only another 15 months, what the hell, saves hassle”. Any one of those reasons is enough to prove they’ve totally abdicated their responsibility to their country.

An electorate that allows their Democratic representatives to continue to cave in to Bush and the far-right, over and over again, and who then continue to donate to and vote for them, deserves everything it gets as a consequence. America was a great political experiment, once. It’s very sad to anyone who believes in liberty and equality to see it fall apart like this.

Tasers As A Litmus Test

The reaction of some allegedly liberal bloggers to the tasering of a student at a Kerry event speaks volumes to me about the normalisation of torture. For the writers it’s not an issue of whether tasers should be used on citizens in a free state at all and whether police should be allowed to render what is, in effect, a punishment without a trial. For them it’s merely an issue of who deserves it and who doesn’t.

Torture is becoming normalised – here, as if we needed much more proof is a demonstration of that normalisation:

Awww, how cute. This cute pink seal taser’s perfect for any budding little hitlerjiugend on your Christmas list. Imagine the joy on Christmas morning! No more childish bickering over the Wii…

Tasers even come in cool designer colours, like electric blue, black pearl and baby pink. Match your taser to your cellphone and go jackbooting in style! Not just handy for shutting up kids or getting rid of annoyingly on-point loudmouth sophomore journalists, tasers are a must-have for shutting up annoying relatives, cripples and the mentally ill:

Permanently.

Wheelchair-Bound Woman Dies After Being Shocked With Taser 10 Times

Wed Sep 19, 9:38 AM ET

A Clay County woman’s family said it’s seeking justice after their loved one died shortly after being shocked 10 times with Taser guns during a confrontation with police.

The family of 56-year-old Emily Delafield said it would take the Green Cove Springs Police Department to court, according to a WJXT-TV report.

In April 2006, officers with the police department said they were called to a disturbance at a home in the 400 block of Harrison Street just before 5 p.m.

In a 911 call made to the Green Cove Springs, Delafield can be heard telling a dispatcher that she believed she was in danger:

Dispatcher: And what’s the problem?

Delafield: My sister is waiting on my property.

Dispatcher: Your what?

Delafield: My sister (inaudible) is on my property trying to harm me.

Officers said they arrived to find Delafield in a wheelchair, armed with two knives and a hammer. Police said the woman was swinging the weapons at family members and police.

Within an hour of her call to 911, Delafield, a wheelchair-bound woman documented to have mental illness, was dead.

Family attorney Rick Alexander said Delafield’s death could have been prevented and that there are four things that jump out at him about the case.

“One, she’s in a wheelchair. Two, she’s schizophrenic. Three, they’re using a Taser on a person that’s in a wheelchair, and then four is that they tasered her 10 times for a period of like two minutes,” Alexander said.

According to a police report, one of the officers used her Taser gun nine times for a total of 160 seconds and the other officer discharged his Taser gun once for a total of no more than five seconds.

A medical examiner found Delafield died from hypertensive heart disease and cited the Taser gun shock as a contributing factor, the report said. On her death certificate, the medical examiner ruled Delafield’s death a homicide.

More….

Did Emily Delafield deserve it, too? If not,why not?

“But she was in a wheelchair!” So what? She was armed. The Kerry protestor wasn’t armed – but if he deserved it, why didn’t she? Who decides who deserves it and who doesn’t anyway, the cops?

You see where we go when accept the premise that tasers can be used by a supposedly civilised society against it’s citizens? Right down the rabbithole.

Now if only they’d used the pretty pink seal taser on her, at least she’d’ve died smiling at teh cute and they might’ve avoided a lawsuit…

I don’t suppose this report will raise any more outrage with some liberal bloggers than did the Kerry tasering, though. One of the things that’s so shocking about the Kerry video is the way Kerry just let it happen and how the audience, inured to Jerry Springer-hype shenanigans, just sat there and watched avidly and worst of all was the approving applause from the audience – and some bloggers

If it were up to those bloggers being a pretentious writer and careerist publicity hound iwould be a crime deserving of summary judgement and umpty-thousand volts. Christ, if if that were the case then many of those same bloggers wouldd’ve been regularly writhing in agony on their own floors these past years. I suggest they go read their own archives, it can be a sobering experience.

There is at least one useful result though from the controversy; it’s causing a real sorting of sheep from goats as ‘sensible’ liberals come out as objectively pro violent repression, or at least pro when it suits them.

If now isn’t a time to choose which side you’re on – for or against creeping corporate neofascism – when is?

As Martiin points out, anyone who is in favour of taser use in any way, shape or form has taken a political position that’s entirely incompatible with any known definition of ‘left’ or ‘liberal’.These are the same bloggers who’ve appointed themselves the vanguard of the revolution and who’ve proclaimied themselves ‘the left’ – when what they actually are is anti-Bush and anti-Republican, which is not at all the same thing.

This is highlighted most clearly when it comes to authoritananism and policing: many self-described US liberals, when it comes to repressive policing, seem to consider it to be ‘for thee but not for me’. However much they might try to convince themselves otherwise to try and retain their alt credibility, they are conservatives, not liberals, because they don’t want to question the political system we live under, they want to conserve what they have, and if that takes harsh and repressive policing, so be it.

Crack a few jokes about prison rape and Scooter Libby, really stick it to the man, man, it’s all good snark – but ignore the fact of insitutionalised torture, sexuali abuse and modern slavery in US jails because that’s what’s propping up your own comfy lifestyle.

The Kerry incident brought out something very ugly in US liberal blogging – but it’s also served the useful function of reminding us just how skewed notions of left and right in US politics are and how useless it is to try and compartmentalise left and right when the entire public discourse, is slanted so far right to begin with that the Democrats, far from being the flaming communist atheists the rightwing media paints them as, are pro-free-market, pro-military imperialism and pro the status quo, and would be out on the right iwng of any given .eu conservative party.

Democrats are not the left or the good guys. You won’t see Democrats rolling back the police state when in power: just so long as it happens to people they don’t know or who they can easily despise and dismiss, and they don’t have to question capitalism and they get to keep their stuff, repressive paramilitary policing is no problem.

What I hope is that the furore of comments that’s resulted from their flip and callous reactions to the Kerry tasering has also caused some ‘liberals’ to examine their consciences and ask themselves what it is they really stand for when they accept taser use as a given.

If nothing else, the Kerry incident’s pushed taser misuse into the public spotlight, so I suppose you could at least count that as a plus.

Of Reichs and Men

UPDATE: Sorry, no InstaDean for UC Irvine. An agreement has been reached, But the point made below stands.

=====

The University of California prides itself on being at the educational cutting edge; and it is, if by ‘curring edge’ what you mean is ‘in the vanguard of the new conservative reich’.

Not content with resting on its laurels after producing such horrors as UC Berkeley’s Boalt Professor of Law John “Torture Memo” Yoo, now via Lawyers, Guns and Money comes the story of the university’s politically-motivated dismissal of eminent legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky:

IRVINE, Calif. — In a showdown over academic freedom, a prominent legal scholar said Wednesday that the University of California, Irvine’s chancellor had succumbed to conservative political pressure in rescinding his contract to head the university’s new law school, a charge the chancellor vehemently denied.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a well-known liberal expert on constitutional law, said he had signed a contract Sept. 4, only to be told Tuesday by Chancellor Michael V. Drake that he was voiding their deal because Chemerinsky was too liberal and the university had underestimated “conservatives out to get me.”

Later Wednesday, however, Drake said there had been no outside pressure and that he had decided to reject Chemerinsky, now of Duke University and formerly of the University of Southern California, because he felt the law professor’s commentaries were “polarizing” and would not serve the interests of California’s first new public law school in 40 years.

Oh, give me a break. No outside pressure? My ass. This kind of political censorship and pressure is not new to the university; it has quite a history of political repression and coercion.

Read More

Parasite or Paragon?

It’s a dry day, I’m not feeling too bad, St.Salaria has visited and we need Frontline and flea spray if I’m to avoid being eaten alive so I’m going to take advantage of these freak conditions and get some things done while I’ve got the necessary oomph and also take some pictures of houseboats if possible. That’s the trouble with this warm wet weather, perfect incubating conditions for all manner of bugs and parasites.

Speaking of which in the meantime here’s a blast from the past about another sainted personage, this time Our Lady of the Progressive Blogosphere, Arianna Stassinopolous-Huffpo.

I’m republishing it because a commenter at TBogg reminded me that it’s not only Republicans who use politics to social-climb, and not just cats that have parasites. Ironically enough it’s by Christopher Hitchens, who should know a thing or two about both.

Enter the gifted Greek
Evening Standard (London), Jul 27, 2000 by CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS

IF you are standing in a circle of political types, in Washington or New York or Los Angeles, and the name “Arianna” is mentioned, everybody knows at once who is meant. This saves a lot of time, because there’s no need to pronounce either of the other names under which she’s already been celebrated: Arianna Stassinopoulos, Arianna Huffington or Arianna Stassinopoulos-Huffington. (During the brief reign of the third, it was no extra trouble to throw in a Puffington as a suffix and have done with it.) She’s Huffington now.

I was at a smallish dinner at her understated but beautiful house in the Brentwood area of LA a few nights ago. Nothing special; Norman Mailer and his wife Norris Church (in honour of whose first novel the bash was given), putative Presidential candidate Warren Beatty, several columnists and the man who might be the first Hispanic mayor of Los Angeles. The next day, both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ran quite extensive accounts of the soire, emphasising the fact that there will be “Shadow Conventions” at both the Republican and Democratic gatherings this summer, and that “Arianna” has organised them, and that she’s already booked more interesting speakers than the two parties have.

How did we get here? Readers of my age will remember Arianna Stassinopoulos
from the late Sixties: arriving from nowhere like one of the daughters of Zeus, she was one of the first women to be elected president of the Cambridge Union, and followed this up by writing an against-the-grain counter-feminist hit entitled The Female Woman. She was a star of the chat-shows and the social circuit, kept company with Bernard Levin and produced biographies of Maria Callas and Pablo Picasso. Interested in “New Age” spirituality, she held evenings for an outfit calling itself “Insight” and was mocked a bit in consequence, by me among others.

The magnet of America always exerts itself on such people, and by the mid-Eighties Arianna was to be seen around New York and Washington a good deal.

She’d become more decidedly political by then and married a junior figure in the Reagan administration named Michael Huffington. A nice but slightly ineffectual chap, young Huffington had access to pots of money through his father’s Texas oil business, and Arianna was very much at his side when he ran successfully for Congress on a conservative ticket. He used his time in Congress mainly to run for the Senate in California, against the incumbent Democrat, Diane Feinstein. By this time, Arianna was a positive blur of energy. She held upscale political dinner parties in DC, at which there were prepared topics for discussion (and according to rumour, a tape-recorder of hers running under the table). She was often closeted with Newt Gingrich, the supposed conservative revolutionary who had captured Congress from the Democrats for the first time in decades.

WHILE back in the Golden State, she was standing in for her husband at public debates, writing his speeches and directing his campaign. From nowhere, he came to level pegging in the polls with Feinstein and is said to have spent almost $30 million of his own money. The joke was – and it was told seriously – that Arianna would ride him all the way to the White House.

Two things unhorsed this plan. The Huffingtons were found, in the last days of the campaign, to be employing an unregistered immigrant as a domestic servant. And Michael, well, it looked as if Michael wanted to lose. He probably did want to lose, at that. It turned out that he’d been an unhappy secret gay man all his life. Arianna divorced him amicably, retaining custody of the two lovely daughters and receiving a pretty decent settlement. Then she moved sharply to the Left.

I was not ready for this. Nobody was. Suddenly the avenging figure of Huffington was everywhere, on her own radio spot in LA and in a nationally syndicated column, denouncing conservative America’s cruelty to the poor. She started a think-tank, the Committee for Effective Compassion, which seems to have given Governor George W Bush the idea for his campaign slogan of “Compassionate Conservatism”. She wrote a book called How to Overthrow the Government, in which she denounced the corrupting role of big money in politics. To her home came all the aspiring liberals and radicals. She personally floated the short-lived but much-publicised idea of running Warren Beatty as Hollywood’s liberal answer to greed and glitz.

SHE has persuaded Senator John McCain, the most popular politician in the country and the man most Republicans wanted in the Vice- Presidential spot, to open her “Shadow Convention” in Philadelphia this weekend. When the Democrats gather in LA on 13 August, they are to be shadowed by a “rapid reaction team” to include (as I gathered when I reeled from her dinner table) Gore Vidal (Al Gore’s cousin), Warren Beatty and perhaps your humble servant.

At last, the Press will have something to write about.

Copyright 2000
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.

Old as I am and with a history of several decades worth of reading Private Eye, It’s a matter of continued surprise to me that a woman who ascended to career socialite-ism by flitting about London’s salons on the arm of reactionary Times columnist Bernard Levin, who peddled spurious psychological group therapy (and even became a minister in its ‘church’) to the London literati and who then wrote several, allegedly partly- plagiarised books, one attacking feminism, should be so feted by the sensible American liberals.

But then I suppose they have to: if an Arianna can be in the big tent too, surely so they can they, be they movie star, trust fund baby or hedge-fund manager. Her rise to progressive prominence shows them they need have no qualms about being obscenely rich, just as long they say the right things and butter up the right people at the right time.

Here she is in 1994 arguing for the proposition that the woman’s movement as a disaster:

The main news in these agreeably contentious two hours is the emergence from the campaign closet of Mrs. Huffington, a sometime head of Cambridge Union, the debating society at Cambridge University, as a well-prepared, fast-thinking advocate, even of as murky a cause as “the spiritual dimension of life.”

She is responsible for the evening’s hottest moment, incited by her denial of credit to the women’s movement for the 19th Amendment. When Judge Burstein suggests that Mrs. Huffington is not up on American history because she did not go to school in the United States, this Greek-born, British-educated, naturalized American citizen retorts that the judge can get away with that sort of put-down of immigrants only because she is a liberal.

[My emphasis]

Bestest friends with Newtie?. Progressive, my ass.

Mrs S-H is a flip-flopper par excellence who’s always managed to take advantage of the political zeitgeist to advance her own career. I’d trust her political convictions as far as I could throw her private jet, because as soon as the Right look to be in ascendant again she’ll be bigging them uip as the best thing since sliced bread. If she is to be sainted perhaps it should be as St Arianna of the Opportune Moment.

In that respect you could say she is an epitome of the Democratic party – self-made, but not; liberal, but not, principled, but not, a parasite on the body politic.

Liberal imperialism

HTML Mencken is annoyed at the liberal hawks getting all the good gigs:

The liberal press — internet and dead tree versions — aren’t the gravy trains that the wingnut press is. Contrary to wingnut beliefs, George Soros isn’t handing out much ‘moonbat-welfare’. There’s already one guaranteed outlet for writers who’ll always be Liberal Hawks: it’s called The New Republic, and a worthless pile of shit it is, for that and other reasons. Why on earth do other progressive press organs, though, seem to desire to reward writers with such pseudo-progressive instincts? Does this reflect the sentiments of the movement? Are you, lefty blog reader, a liberal hawk? Jonathan Chait admitted that Liberal Hawks are massively over-represented in the Liberal press. Why do progressive people continue to put up with this shit, then? Why is it okay that Washington Monthly hired Liberal Hawk Kevin Drum to be its regular blogger? Why is it okay that TAP rewarded Ezra Klein and Yglesias with paying jobs for their Liberal Hawkery?

I hate to say it, but I’m afraid people like Kevin Drum, Matt Yglesias or Ezra Klein are far more in touch with mainstream liberalism on this subject than HTML Mencken is. Post-WWII liberalism has always been hawkish, has only differed in degree, not in kind, with conservative/Republican foreign policy. The only time that mainstream liberalism was even remotely dovish in outlook was at the end of the War on Vietnam, when the mood of the country forced the Democratic Party to become ever-so moderately antiwar, just as is happening now. It didn’t last.

The only real difference between liberal and conservative imperialism is that the former tends to be more realistic about America’s abilities to enforce its will on the rest of the world. For example whereas the neocons-to be were wetting their pants about the USSR’s overwhelming military superiority, it was that stereotype of lilylivered liberalism, president Carter, who made sure the Soviets walked into the trap marked Afghanistan. Not to mention that it was largely through Democratic Congressman Charles Wilson that the Muhajedin got the support they needed to keep the Soviets busy, while Reagan was busy ignoring them in favour of his beloved “freedom fighters”, the Contras.

Apart from this, conservatives and liberals largely agree about the foreign policy the US must follow, which in a nutshell is to keep the United States as the only superpower by any means necessary. Democrats tend to do this through institution building (UN, WTO, NAFTA etc) and soft power (diplomacy, peacekeeping, undercover dirty work), while the Republicans tend to do it through military action.