So, the NSA is keeping a database of all the phone records from AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth.  The only surprising thing about it is how not surprising it is.

I’m going to hope that I still have some privacy since I get my service from T-Mobile, a spin-off of Deutsch Telekom.  Who knows at this point?  My phone is probably spying on me right now.

Pete DeWan

There is a fundamental logical flaw in much of rhetoric questioning American support for Israel.  It is a failure to imagine the counterfactual.  What would happen if America changed its policies?

One answer is implicit in many of the arguments made against American policy.  In this scenario, a more isolated Israel would be forced to pay attention to world opinion and United Nations decrees.  Their bargaining position relative to the Palestinians and the Arab states would be weakened, making a compromise possible.  American policy is thereby making the situation worse by enabling Israel to act more aggressively than it otherwise would.

This belief ignores much of what makes the conflict so difficult.  If it were only a matter of calculating interests, Israel would have withdrawn from the occupied territories decades ago.  Despite American help, their international position has declined dramatically since 1967.  Their state has been militarized and they have endured years of horrific terrorism.  It doesn’t seem rational at all.

Israel’s actions must be understood in the context of the history of the Jewish people.  After the Holocaust, the natural position of a Jewish state is to be overwhelmingly concerned with self-protection.  Despite their obviously huge military advantage relative to potential enemies, there is no feeling of security.  Why else would they continue to hold the high ground of the Golan Heights, a military posture intended to protect Israel from the fearsome threat of pathetically disorganized and incompetent Syria?  Couldn’t Israeli air power easily stop any attack?

Imagine Israeli politics without the comfort of American support and still threatened by Palestinian terrorism.  The United Nations would pass resolutions condemning them.  Emboldened Arab states would take even more hardline positions.  Defensive paranoia would overwhelm every other impulse in the Israeli electorate.  It would be Israel versus the world.  More dangerous leaders elected by the frightened populace would increase tensions with other states, leading to an unstoppable spiral into catastrophic violence.

A more evenhanded approach by the American government could help towards a solution for the Palestinian conflict.  However, this can never go so far as to make Israelis doubt that we are on their side.  That trust is what allows any American influence at all.  If you think Israel with American support is too aggressive, imagine an Israel that believed its only defense against another genocide was its military.  As we have seen in America over the last five years, fear doesn’t engender rational diplomacy — it leads almost inevitably to aggressive idiocy.

Pete DeWan

Yesterday, the CIA fired Mary McCarthy over leaks about secret prisons in Europe.  Super-hack Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas was of course congratulatory.

Could there be a more perfectly clear case of using “national security” to protect political interests rather than the country?  The argument that the revelation somehow helps international terrorists is so ludicrous that it’s difficult to even state.  Assuming that the CIA actually didn’t arrest the wrong guy, one would have to believe that the leadership didn’t notice their people being abducted until The Washington Post pointed it out.

Frightening, isn’t it?  Just think how effective a killing machine al Qaeda will be now that they know the CIA is after them and the NSA might intercept their phone calls.  Before these dangerous revelations, they didn’t bother to conceal their identities and made operational plans over the phone.

Pete DeWan

I wasn’t entirely clear on last week’s post about Proposition 187.  Worrying about the Hispanic vote is a secondary issue.  Even in California, as nasty Mickey Kaus points out (scroll down to March 30th), the Hispanic vote is not large enough to account for the swing towards Democrats.  It seems doubtful in any case that second- and third-generation immigrants are single-issue voters on immigration policy.

The dynamic is much more like the one facing Republicans over racial issues.  The real constituency of concern is not African Americans, who at this point are unattainable.  However, when the Republicans pander to the bigots in their base, they scare off centrist voters of all races and ethnicities.  The majority of American voters are simply not racist xenophobes, and they are going to find these sentiments distasteful.  Being worried about immigration does not mean that one hates immigrants.  

If a politician seems to be attacking your neighbor, your co-worker, or your friend, you are going to react against them.  In a state like California, a construction worker with right-wing views might vote Democratic because he is going to feel uncomfortable supporting bigotry against people he knows.  If he has never met a Mexican immigrant, the whole thing becomes abstract and impersonal.  It’s much easier to hate people you never meet in person.

An anti-immigrant policy may have short-term support. In the long run, as more Americans come into contact with immigrants, they will be more likely to support politicians who aren’t making their living by stoking up ethnic and racial animosity.

Pete DeWan

Seymour Hersh’s frightening article in The New Yorker tells us not only that Bush is planning to attack Iran but that he is considering using nuclear weapons to do so.  Given all the anonymous sources, it’s hard to be sure how seriously to take it.  Perhaps it is all part of some behind-the-scenes negotiating strategy, but it also doesn’t seem wise to believe that these people recognize just how crazy their ideas are.  The kicker line from some defense official is that they believe “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.”  Doesn’t that sound like exactly the kind of thing that they might believe?

When the administration geared up to attack Iraq, I thought about what my response should be.  On moral grounds, I felt that removing Saddam was the right thing to do.  In the real world, though, the chances of the cure being worse than the disease looked awfully high.

I went to some futile protests, where I got to walk with some supporters of the North Korean regime.  Later I watched on television as “Shock and Awe” began the inevitable disaster that Iraq has been.  I felt hopeless and turned away to disengagement.  To pacify my conflicted feelings, I told myself I wouldn’t stand by if it came to attacking Iran.  There is no moral or pragmatic confusion — bombing Iran would be both evil and idiotic.

Now it seems that the day may be arriving soon, perhaps in time for midterm elections.  If Bush decides to attack Iran with nukes, what responsibility do we have as Americans?  When do we say enough is enough, risk our comfortable lives, and take action by any means necessary?

Pete DeWan

Way back in 1994, before I sadly left behind the Pacific Ocean for a grayer life on the Atlantic Coast, I lived in Los Angeles.  It seems hard to remember, but back then California had Republican governor Pete Wilson, memorialized in the Disposable Heroes cover of the classic Dead Kennedys song.

1992 had been the first year that California had gone Democratic since the 1964 Johnson landslide. Prior to that, it had been mostly a Republican state.  With the Republican dominance under threat, Wilson backed Proposition 187, an anti-immigrant political stunt that even the official state election guide described as a bad idea.  It won handily, as did Pete Wilson.

In doing so, though, the Republicans cemented their image as a reactionary and hateful party.  California flipped. It is now one of the safest Democratic states in the country.

The national Republicans seem like they are on the same course.  Cooler heads are trying to slow it down, but they still may pass an idiotic and cruel law.  At the very least, they are stepping up as the anti-immigrant party.  It may help them in the 2006 election.  Regardless, any law will almost certainly be ineffective, and the more vicious provisions will be struck down in the courts.  

If the Democrats play it right, which is always an iffy proposition, they have a chance to pull a California nationwide. With an anti-gay, anti-immigrant message, the Republicans place a whole number of close states at risk. Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Ohio, and Nevada were battleground states in the 2004 election.  Have you been to these places?  Is bigotry really a good long-term strategy?

Keep your Alabamas, your Mississippis, your Idahos, and your Dakotas.  But watch out Texas, we’re coming for you.

Pete DeWan

Russ Feingold’s censure resolution is going to be debated in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

There’s been an ongoing debate in the blogosphere about the effects of the resolution.  Right Blogsylvania claims it will help Republicans by rallying their base.  Left Blogistan claims that the Republicans are scared.

It looks to me like the Republicans are trying to split the difference.   They aren’t squelching the debate, so maybe they think it will help with the more committed members of their base.  However, they did release the news as a one-sentence statement on a Friday evening and are holding the hearings on a Friday as well.  Getting bad news out on Friday afternoons is a traditional way of mitigating the impact since fewer people follow the news on weekends.

Will this be the scandal that finally sticks, so we can start to recover from our permanent Constitutional crisis?  Or will it disappear like torture and rendition and suspending habeas corpus and ignoring the Geneva Conventions and lying about Iraq’s weapons and outing CIA agents and setting up secret prisons and I had better stop this list if I want a blog entry and not a research paper.

Make your bets now and take a look at Glenn Greenwald once a day for ongoing developments.

Pete DeWan

I don’t have anything clever to say here, but why is the Pentagon releasing a report accusing Russia of having moles in our military and giving troop plans to Saddam?  They’ve apparently had the report for a while and have just decided to declassify it.

Taking the most optimistic view, I could imagine that they are trying to back Russia off so they can flip Lukashenko out of power in Belarus.  Sometimes the national interest and moral principles are not contradictory, even for the Bush administration.

A more pessimistic view might be that it has something to do with the “Great Game” of getting pipelines across Central Asia.

Who knows, though?  It might just be a poke in the eye by old Cold Warriors like Rumsfeld and Cheney with a visceral distrust of Russia. Sometimes their diplomacy seems to be driven by nothing more than childish spite.

It’s hard to guess with these people.

Pete DeWan

It’s astounding that the federal government can’t seem to put forward a legitimate case against any terrorism suspects.  Without going through the litany of previous missteps, here’s some of what is going on now:

In the Lodi terrorist case, the chief informant has been making ridiculous claims about the presence of several Qaeda bigwigs in the town, including Ayman al-Zawahiri.  I’m sure that doesn’t speak to credibility or anything.

In the trial of apparently insane Moussaoui, the prosecutors have been coaching witnesses to protect insurance company interests.

In the trial of an associate of Sami al-Arian, who has already been declared not guilty, the FBI blatantly misrepresented the contents of wiretaps to the court.

In an Albany case, the court denied a defense motion to appeal on possibly illegal wiretaps for reasons that will remain secret.

Another day, another trumped-up terrorism charge.  How many of these could possibly really be cases of framing the guilty? How long will it take to execute Mohammed Sacco and Abdul Vanzetti?

Pete DeWan

Let me start by saying that I think Joseph Lieberman is a sanctimonious, backstabbing, spineless opportunist, one of those wretched politicians who make their living attacking their own party.  Digby documents an all-too-typical Joementum move.  Let me also add that I’m perfectly happy with conservative Democrats, even when they have to vote against things I believe in to keep their districts happy.  It’s not the positions Lieberman takes that are infuriating, it’s his parroting of Republican talking points.

But this goes too far, as does this.  Supporting the right of Catholic Hospitals to refuse to offer contraception or abortion is not equivalent to supporting rapists, nor is it even equivalent to supporting those positions themselves.

Basic freedom of conscience in this country allows individuals to act on their own morals, so long as this does not directly harm another and is not discriminatory on inalterable ascriptive characteristics like race.  Refusing a woman contraception may not be moral in my mind, but it certainly falls within the range of legitimate moral decisions for someone else.  The same is true for the pharmacist who does not offer birth control pills.  Let the employer deal with it and keep the state out of the decision.

That said, definitely support Ned Lamont.

Pete DeWan

There’s a continuous argument in Left Blogistan about whether the Democrats should take up more religious rhetoric.  The idea is that this will make a political appeal to the white voters who have abandoned the party over the years.  Basically, this comes in three flavors.

Some say that it is a matter of saying God more, explaining political positions in terms of “values” and religious beliefs.  Voters will recognize that mainline (read moderate) Christianity is just as valid as conservative evangelicalism.  This was a widespread instant response to John Kerry losing to George W. Bush.

Others say that it should be sufficient for the left to more modestly point out that their political values are more in line with the teachings of Jesus (and other religions).  In other words, lefties are better at caring for the meek and the powerless.  The New Testament as a whole is clearly about this approach rather than a fire and brimstone moralism.

I would like to believe that one of these tactics would work.  We all admire the Catholic social worker, the Reform Jewish ACLU lawyer, and the Presbyterian activist for gay rights.  But they are not the face of activist religion in America today.

So, I have to agree with those who say that there is no point in really getting into this argument.  The people that are voting on religious grounds are not going to be swayed by a few more mentions of God and morals.  They are really supporting a conservative social order with its attendant opposition to gay rights, feminism, and the like.

Conservative Christian polemicist Thomas Reeves has it right here.  As a larger social trend, liberal religion is a first step towards no religion.  That is why these churches keep getting smaller while more moralistic brands are increasing in size and influence.

There’s no reason to attack the religious.  That would be both wrong and stupid.  But to believe that the left can co-opt this religious fervor is plain wrong.  For many years it seemed that modernity would lead to more liberal and less religious societies, and the American left imagined that Western Europe was our future.  Nobody can say whether that will still be true in the long run, but the engagement of religion in politics today is a reaction against liberalism.  It should be recognized for what it is.

Pete DeWan

You have to admire Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.  His ability to make false statements without technically lying must make Bill Clinton green with envy.  Glenn Greenwald has the rundown on the NSA testimony.

Today, Gonzalez  says that that “We are aware of no other nation in history that has afforded such protection for enemy combatants.”  Now you might scratch your head at this one.  Haven’t other countries followed the Geneva Conventions?  Could it really be true that America is setting a newly humane standard for treatment of prisoners?

Well, no.  It depends on what the meaning of enemy combatant is.  The administration defined it in court filings as:

An individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.

We could have some fun with this.

For instance, I am aware of no other group of enemy combatants of such deeply virtuous character, with so glamorous a sense of style, so attractive in mind and body, and so dedicated to working for good in the world.

If only the U.S. is using this term and it applies only to this conflict, it’s all perfectly true.

Pete DeWan