The Bush administration has wreaked havoc on the constitutional principle of separation of powers.  The abuses of the executive branch have undercut both the legislative branch (signing statements, stonewalling subpoenas, and outright lawbreaking) and the judicial branch (suspension of habeas corpus, weakening of other constitutional protections, etc)

With that groundwork laid, what might happen with Obama (or a Democratic successor) in control of such an enormous amount of executive power?

I happened across a copy of Leni Reifenstahl's epic Nazi propaganda piece, 'Triumph Of The Will' the other day.

As I was watching it, I became aware of the similarities between the political frame of reference of the Nazi leaders and the Neocons, who have perpetrated upon us President Bush.

Keep in mind that I am not saying that the Neocon's actions or public policies are anything like the Fascist German state, just that their fundamaental political frameworks have some very similar characteristics.

It's (almost) unbelievable that this could happen to anyone under American law.

The first person to be tried in a military tribunal at Guantanamo will remain incarcerated no matter the verdict. Concerns remain about the procedure's fairness.

By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 4, 2008

Clip of article is below the fold.

I have a ridiculously long post on torture and some of the revelations we've seen this week, in the Jane Mayer book, the Omar Khadr tape, etc.  Those who have been paying attention know what has been done in our name.  Much of the torture and abuse was subjected on people who had no intelligence value and were never credibly charged with any crime.  The methods were based on decades-old survival techniques produced by the Navy to resist torture, and a manual from the Chinese that used torture to elicit false confessions.  They used psychologists to develop a program of "learned helplessness", reverse-engineered from the SERE techniques.  In the end, not one terror suspect has been convicted of anything since 9/11.  The "intelligence" gained from the likes of Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was of the wild goose chase variety.  Evidence of torture inflamed the Islamic world and became a recruitment poster for Al Qaeda.  And on and on.

I wanted to reiterate some of it here, because it's indicative of the fundamental rot at the heart of the American system these days, and why we'll forever be diminished until we cut the rot away.

I know that everyone should have FISA OVERLOAD by now.  I know I do.  But I really what everyone to read my interpretation of New Executive Power as outlined below.

It is a quick read and I think we need this discussion.  It will help in the future as we attempt to fight for our 4th Amendment rights.

Many have blindly believed the FISA bill is a bad bill, an unconstitutional bill.  I did.  But yesterday, I set out to read the new FISA bill, for myself, to see if these claims were actually substantiated.  Here are my thoughts.

Special thanks to Seneca Doane and her/his diary http://www.dailykos.com/...

Ever since the House’s approval of the FISA capitulation and Obama’s subsequent embrace of it, those of us who care about the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment and accountability have been told by many on this site to essentially "sit down and shut up." Then we're told we also need to keep giving our money and time. That sounds too much like a mugging to me.

NOTICE: In a spirit of friendly advice, I strongly suggest to anyone already prepared to attack me as "an Obama hater" to first read some of my comments prior to June 20. If you do, you'll save yourself some embarrassment. On the other hand, if you're one of those who will think "He must be a paid McCain troll who spent the last several months establishing a cover so he could try to divide us at a moment of vulnerability!", you're too paranoid to be reasoned with anyway... so flame on.

Shorter FISA  --  If the president tells you (a telecom) to do something, it is legal.

Either McCain does not understand our laws or does not respect them.  Not a good sign for someone sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws of our land.  Even worse for someone who aspires to be president.

In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.

Source: NYT

This week the McCain campaign tried to tell us that his administration would not in any way be, in effect,  a third term for George W. Bush.  Apparently, someone forgot to send that memo to McBush advisor, Douglas Holz-Eakin, who, according to this morning's  New York Times, has sent a letter to the National Review stating that :

We do not know what lies ahead in our nation’s fight against radical Islamic extremists, but John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from such threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.

Emphasis mine.

More after the jump

As the primary is all but decided, and Democrats are largely focused on defeating McCain at the polls this fall, it's worth remembering that the current administration is not yet out of office, and still primarily composed of radicals, criminals, torturers, liars, thieves, and basic tormentors of the other 99% of humanity.

The egregiously unconstitutional "unitary executive" theory for the vice president is apparently alive and well.

In response to congressional requests for Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff David Addington's testimony in the approval of enhanced interrogation tactics at Guantanamo Bay, Cheney’s attorney, Karen Wheelbarger claimed today that the U.S. Congress -- a coequal branch of government, powers given to them by the U.S. Constitution – lacks the authority to investigate his conduct in office.

Any investigation of the vice president’s office, according to Ms. Wheelbarger is...

"... not within the [congressional] committee's power of inquiry".

After his resignation, "President" Nixon claimed "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." It's bad enough that when I turn on MSNBC I'm reminded of Watergate by Pat Buchanan but do I really have to hear US v. Nixon re-argued? Unfortunately it seems that administration officials fashion themselves as Doug Flutie and are stepping back to make their Hail Mary pass.

Recently I had the opportunity to eat lunch for the former director of the White House Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith.  Goldsmith has been a lighting rod of attention, praise and criticism from both the left and the right. I thought I would share with the Kos community some highlights from this interesting, if disturbing, experience.

I felt a need to pass this on. It is from one of my favorite news sources: www.truthout.org

I feel this argument should become part of Obama's narrative as he begins prep for the general election. Moreover, he can use it to frame "Patriotism" so that the "lapel pin people" start to understand things a little better.

Here is a choice snippet from the t r u t h o u t | Perspective piece by Joe Brewer and George Lakoff:

The president is not supposed to be commander in chief of Congress, nor commander in chief of the FBI or the Justice Department, nor commander in chief of the American people. (snip)

[T]he commander-in-chief role does not extend to most protections that a president should be concerned with - natural disaster (FEMA), health (FDA, health care agencies), environmental protection (EPA) etc. A president must address these domestic issues through leadership skills outside the realm of military action.

More on the article below the fold....

After reading TPM this morning and all the discussion over over Berkeley's Dean justification for keeping John Yoo on the faculty at the Law School, one writer pointed out a small point that all the attorneys their had missed, and the implications for this oversight reach out to us all and our future.

All of us need to step back and look at what we are saying/advocating here and on other web sites. The dangerous implications for the future of this country are to great and frankly, bruised egos and impassioned beliefs have no place in the voting booths when they cloud the reality of what's at stake here.

Let me first disclose that I am a strong Obama supporter, but not a blind supporter.

Beneath the fold, I am pasting in its entirety a piece I received today from Stratfor via email.  The email encourages re-posting in full with a link, which I've provided.

Short version is this: the entire Middle East is in a state of profound agitation.  Israel is on a pre-war footing, as is the American Navy, and while Syria appears to be in the crosshairs of both powers (owing to the still-perplexing September 2007 action), it is hard to ignore (and Stratfor doesn't) the possibility that Iran is the critical variable.

Consider for a moment that American military personnel (officers, no less) are passing warnings to the media about looming false flag actions designed to ensnare Iran in a ginned-up war.  Consider also that Senator Conyers last week -- seemingly out of the blue -- threatened impeachment against Bush should he unilaterally decide to invade or attack Iran -- and it is impossible for a rational person to remain unconcerned.

I was reading the Brown Alumni Magazine yesterday when I came across a good article by Republican Representative Lincoln Chafee about how the political maneuvering to cut Congress out of the loop of government started even before 9/11.

Many had been there in 1990 when the president's father, President George H. W. Bush, agreed to raise taxes to shrink the deficit, a big factor in his loss two years later. With presidential leadership exercised and political pain already endured, why would we suddenly want to turn the treasury upside down and shake out every last dime.

To me, the tax cut was a stalking horse. The Cheney-Bush strategy behind the cut was to set the tone—to preempt the Congress not just on taxes but on every issue. It would tame any future resistance to a radical agenda by serving up this politically irresistible prize: lawmakers could go home and say they had voted to cut taxes. The White House was out to neuter Congress, and the minute Congress rolled over for the cuts, it set the stage for one-branch rule in America and all the consequences we live with today.

(Original title: If I can get you cork-soakers to quit...)

...reccing every "Obama walks on water" and "I hate Hillary" post for a few minutes to read this lowly non-candidate diary, maybe someone can help me make some sense of this.

The SCOTUS has ruled that "Treaties No Longer Supreme Law of the Land"

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court dealt President Bush a defeat today and ruled that he does not have the "unilateral authority" to force state officials to comply with international treaties.

Or at least, that seems to be the case. But then I looked into it a little further...