pecunium

  This is going to be a bit slapdash, and I need to write up more detail for my Patreon (which is free... I can't be arsed to presume I'm worth forcing people to pay money to read me; not least because that limits my effective ability to share things, and anything important will end up being open to all because timely).

I expected something like this; and the writing has been on the wall for... at least 6 months (I'd have to trawl my twitter to find out when I first intimated I was expecting it; so that's a plus for long form platforms).

Prigozhin is a symptom of a rotteness in the state of Denmark.  The king will die; and there no one, nor any method, to replace him.

Everything else which played out in this little dance up the M4 toward Moscow is probably predicate on that problem (and not seeing that is a large part of why so many people were caught flatfooted and are dumbfounded at the apparent resolution). Putin has successor; and he alone is running things.

There no equivalent of the Communist Party; and nothing like the PolitBuro.  Apres Putin, the deluge.  So there are lot of people wondering how to ride out that storm; Prigozhin is (or was) one of them.  But Putin had put him in a bind.  EVERYONE knows who he is.  And Putin's Ukrainian Adventure was put on his shoulders.  If the War fails... he's toast.  And he knows better than perhaps anyone how likely a failure is.

So he tried to steer public opinion; by saying MOD was shortchanging him, and then saying they should declare "Mission Accomplished" and commit an Armistice in the hope Ukraine could be forced to accept the new status quo. That's a non-starter.  Putin is probably perfectly willing to take what he's got and call it a day; but Ukraine has to concede defeat; and offer it, or he won't stop trying to attrit to victory.

So the criticisms of Putin started to rankle.  It's also true that the Russian military is a command and control nightmare.  There are at least three didn't command chains, and as I understand it at least three different comms networks.  That's not the biggest problem; the biggest problem is Putin had been using Wagner to use his power abroad; and to do that he had given them more than small arms and some armored cars.  He created an army group (Russian Style, what the US would think of as a Corps).  Russian Army Groups are combined arms units.  They are why we created the AirLand Battle doctrine.  They come with integrated Air Support (because the USSR, sensibly didn't make their Air Force an independent entity).

Those assets are Putin's property, but not in his actual control.  The people in Wagner answer to Prigozhin, not Putin.  Putin pays for them; and provide all their gear and supply, but their Loyalties are to Mother Russia, and Prigozhin; because the legal fiction is they are an independent military contractor.  But they only have one client (which isn't that uncommon; if the US hadn't been contracting with Blackwater in 2004, it would never have become more than a large private security company; and they never really had any other Paramilitary Mission clients).

Being a PMC is a strange beast.  People imagine mercenaries in some strange place between Europe's late renaissance, and the French Foreign Legion.  The former is all but dead (the Swiss Guard at the Vatican being the only remnant of that model), and the Soldier of Fortune romanticised in the '80s from the post-war colonial wars of retention in the '60s never were.

Modern mercenaries are hired thugs who outgun the locals and destabilise the area they are in; think Warren Zevon's song "Jungle Work*"  They accept the risk of death for a better than average paycheck (based on where they live).  But unlike soldiers, who accept they are expendable; and rely on their gov't to not  waste their lives. Mercenaries don't see themselves in that way.  The risks they are willing to run are very different; and if the likelihood of death is too high, they quit.

Wagner is a hybrid.  They know they are actually an arm of Putin's ambitions; but they've been sent places where the risks are low.  Until they were committed to Ukraine.  The reason for the recruiting in prisons was to keep the actual soldiers from getting killed in mass charges.  But that was only going to work for so long.

That's why Prigozhin was so bellicose about needing more ammo.  He didn't mean bullet, he meant artillery, and armor. He has troops who are capable of adapting with reasonable speed; because a lot of them had some experience in Syria, where it's not a one sided shooting gallery.

Problem is Putin wanted something hard to come by; a victory with no hero. Wagner was the only force doing well (if the grinding destruction of Bakhmut could be considered to have "gone well"), but the problem of Putin's succession is ever on his mind ("uneasy lies the head that wears the crown" and all that) means he can't have someone else get a Triumph.

There is also a lot of jockeying in the MoD because nothing is going well. Shoigu is ever at risk of being the next scapegoat (and I think the only reason he's still there is no is willing to accept the risk of being the next failure.  Each replacement ups the stakes), etc.  So the plan was made to absorb Wagner into the Army; thus removing Prigozhin's relevance/power/income, and THREAT.

So, push came to shove. Someone else might have bolted.  Trusted to enough money stashed abroad, and headed someplace safe.  But there is no such place.  I'm not sure there is anyplace he can go, which is both within reach, and won't extradite him.  That's independent of the problem of Putin sending people to kill him.  The only other choice was what happened.

Now it's being called a show of force, and attempt to shake up the people keeping the real situation from Putin and demonstrate his loyalty. It wasn't.  It was an attempted coup.  It went as coups usually do; when they aren't committed without opposition/near the Head of State.  An attack was made; everyone got very nervous, most people sat on the sidelines and waited to see who was going to blink first.

The lack of immediate flocking to his banner made Prigozhin decide it wasn't going to work; and I suspect Lukashenko helped that happen by convincing Putin that a lack of immediate force would keep Wagner from feeling cornered.  Putin, by not pulling out all the stop managed to look neither scared, nor weak; and avoided tipping his hand.  He needed to put Prigozhin in a less liminal space, to remove the romantic aspect, and prevent any appearance of possible success.

What happens next?   Prigozhin goes into exile. The troops who moved on Moscow get sent to penal battalions; and probably sent to die in mass assaults.  Wagnerites who held the line during the coup get absorbed into the regular army; thus dissolving Wagner (and they probably get broken up, to avoid loci of disaffection).

After that... things are murky.  Belarus is an interesting prison, and how Putin takes his revenge isn't clear, but Prigozhin will be made an example of.




*Track 3 on Bad Luck Streak in Dancing School, released 1980

That's one of the favorite shibboleths of the "Libertarian" wing of the reactionary caucus. They use it in odd ways, mostly to say they ought to be allowed to pay for what they want/use. It's true enough, but not as they tend to try to make it mean.

Which is why, with reservations, I like this: Fee on cars to pay for parks.

The fact of the matter is, we have to pay for things. Until, and unless, we change the 2/3rds rule on tax changes/50 percent on bonds, fees are the only way to raise money. This is, tolerably, even handed, and so I think it's the best of a bad lot; under the present system.

If I had my druthers, the kickbacks (in the form of "tax breaks) given to businesses to beg them to stay someplace (which they can then take, and run; see Boeing the the 7E7), ought to stop, and business properties ought to be reassessed every 5-10 years. I'd like to see this as more than just personal vehicles (because businesses make a lot of money on tourists coming to see our parks; the ought to pay some of the freight)

People like to complain of, "ruinous" taxes, then complain of the ruinous effect of not being taxed. This is the result.

TAANSTAAFL people, It doesn't mean no taxes, it means you get what you pay for.

(comment at Better than salt money)

Lindsey Graham gets it right for once:

Now. I don't know what Nancy Pelosi knew and when she knew it. And I really don't think she's a criminal if she was told about waterboarding and did nothing. But I think it is important to understand that members of Congress, allegedly, were briefed by ... about these interrogation techniques. And again, it goes back to the idea of what was the Administration trying to do. If you're trying to commit a crime, it seems to me that would be the last thing you'd want to do. If you had in your mind and your heart that you're going to disregard the law, and you're going to come up with interrogation techniques that you know to be illegal, you would not go around telling people on the other side of the aisle about it.

He knocked that one out of the park.

Because the record shows that's exactly what they did. They didn't tell the other side of the aisle what was going on. After the fact they told them they had these spiffy new tricks (only they were old tricks, tricks we already knew don't work)which they had approved; but weren't using yet. When it looked as if they were going to be called on the carpet they had a bunch of meetings with Republicans, but not with Democrats.

Why not? If it was all on the up-and-up what was the reason to not tell the other party.

Could be it wasn't on the up-and-up.

To add to that we have Newt trying to double down, with his comment: "I think she has lied to the House, and I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry, and I hope there will be a resolution to investigate her. And I think this is a big deal. I don’t think the Speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters.

I think he's right... lying to the nation on matters of national security does deserve investigations. We can start right at the top, with Bush, Cheney, Powell (and his present pleasant posture, as regards the president doesn't wash the stain of his briefing to the UN, nor his staying in office until after Bush was re-elected), Rice, Addison, and Bybee (who is, IMO, impeachable right now; for contempt of the Senate. He wants to sit on the bench, he sure as hell has to be obedient to the rule of law. He subpoenas someone, I figure that person has the right to say no. Bybee has shown he thinks such things are refusable requests).

If those investigations lead to Democrats. If Pelosi, or Reid, or Harman, or Fienstein, were complicit, prosecute them too.

The Right will say (is saying) this is partisan. Nonsense. Investigating alleged crimes isn't partisan. That's what investigations are for, finding out what went on, to see if crimes were committed; if charges need to be pressed. Some of the crimes aren't just alleged, they are admitted.

Cheney says he had people waterboarded. He used the memos Bybee helped write (and signed off on) to set up tortures. He admits it. Says he's do it again, and that it's a terrible thing we've stopped doing it.

Well those tortures led to people dying. There are, "a few bad apples," in prison right now because they did the things those memos authorised.

Graham, and Newt, spake wiser than they knew.

We ought listen to them.

There have been comments, and memos, and assertions made that Bush has all sorts of power because we are, "at war," and that until such time as we are no longer at war he gets to do all sorts of things which would be otherwise unacceptable.

The Dept. Of Justice now officially believes, so far as I can tell, that anything Bush does is, perforce, legal. We are you see at war, and the Congress has authorised force, and so the only thing that matters now is that the president believes his actions are in furtherance of the end authorised.

DoJ released a document entitled, LEGAL AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY DESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT. It has some stunning stuff in it. According to the theory they are spinning if there is any conflict between what the NSA has been ordered to do, and FISA, then FISA, and the FISA Court are unconstitutional.

Even if there were ambiguity about whether FISA, read together with the AUMF, permits the President to authorize the NSA activities, the canon of constitutional avoidance requires reading these statutes in harmony to overcome any restrictions in FISA and Title III, at least as they might otherwise apply to the congressionally authorized armed conflict with al Qaeda. Indeed, were FISA and Title III interpreted to impede the President’s ability to use the traditional tool of electronic surveillance to detect and prevent future attacks by a declared enemy that has already struck at the homeland and is engaged in ongoing operations against the United States, the constitutionality of FISA, as applied to that situation, would be called into very serious doubt. In fact, if this difficult constitutional question had to be addressed, FISA would be unconstitutional as applied to this narrow context.

Whew!

Part of what goes before that says The AUMF places the President at the zenith of his powers in authorizing the NSA activities. Under the tripartite framework set forth by Justice Jackson in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring), Presidential authority is analyzed to determine whether the President is acting in accordance with congressional authorization (category I), whether he acts in the absence of a grant or denial of authority by Congress (category II), or whether he uses his own authority under the Constitution to take actions incompatible with congressional measures (category III). Because of the broad authorization provided in the AUMF, the President’s action here falls within category I of Justice Jackson’s framework. Accordingly, the President’s power in authorizing the NSA activities is at its height because he acted “pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress,” and his power “includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.” Id. at 635

Interestingly, Congress, back in 2002, was debating this very question. They decided to engage in a little bit of what Jackson's concurrence called, congressional authorization and deny the White House the permission to engage in the sort of wiretapping the NSA was already doing. Mike DeWine wanted to ammend the statue to modify the standard of proof for issuance of orders regarding non-United States persons from probable cause to reasonable suspicion in the FISA.

In a bit of irony (the sort where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing) the Justice Dept. said The reforms in those measures (the PATRIOT Act) have affected every single application made by the Department for electronic surveillance or physical search of suspected terrorists and have enabled the government to become quicker, more flexible, and more focused in going "up" on those suspected terrorists in the United States.

One simple but important change that Congress made was to lengthen the time period for us to bring to court applications in support of Attorney General-authorized emergency FISAs. This modification has allowed us to make full and effective use of FISA's pre-existing emergency provisions to ensure that the government acts swiftly to respond to terrorist threats. Again, we are grateful for the tools Congress provided us last fall for the fight against terrorism...

The Department of Justice has been studying Sen. DeWine's proposed legislation. Because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues, the Administration at this time is not prepared to support it...

The Department's Office of Legal Counsel is analyzing relevant Supreme Court precedent to determine whether a "reasonable suspicion" standard for electronic surveillance and physical searches would, in the FISA context, pass constitutional muster. The issue is not clear cut, and the review process must be thorough because of what is at stake, namely, our ability to conduct investigations that are vital to protecting national security. If we err in our analysis and courts were ultimately to find a "reasonable suspicion" standard unconstitutional, we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions. (and thanks to Glenn Greenwald of Unclaimed Terriroty for finding that.

The DoJ thought the PATRIOT Act had made lowering the stanadard needless.

They also said they didn't want it lowered because that might make it harder to get evidence into court, and so hurt the aim of fighting terrorism.

But over at the NSA we had Gen. Hayden saying that (on the President's say-so) they had gone to a "reasonable suspicion" standard. OK... There are a number of things cops can do with "reasonable suspicion", bring in dogs to sniff a car, luggage, etc. Detain a suspect for a little while while they frisk him, pull a car over, &c. They do, however, have to explain themselves, and can get in trouble if they do it for no reason. My dad's a Auxilliary
Dept. Sherriff in Tenn. If he wants to pull someone over, they will do something which counts. Drift over the speed limit, forget to use a turn signal, heck, if they drive perfectly he can pull them over; because that level of care shows they were worried about being pulled over; which is suspicious, so the standard is pretty loose. But it can be because the cop/agency is liable (generally speaking) if the suspicion wasn't reasonable.

Back to Gen. Hayden. I heard part of his little press conference, and I sat straight up when I heard this exchange:


QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But the --

GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --

GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure...

GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.

Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.

It was more apparent when one heard it that he was saying the Fourth Amendment didn't require probably cause, and that the employees of the NSA are familiar with it.

For the rest of us, who aren't so familiar with it at the good folks running the NSA, I'll (purely as a public service) reprint it here:

" "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

In some sense, he's right. It says we are secure from unreasonable searchs and seizures, and since the NSA wasn't worrrying about warrants the fact that "no Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" isn't really wrong either.

Where am I going with this? It goes back to the 42 pages of the DoJ argument I started this with.

"The same day, the Attorney General elaborated and explained that in order to intercept a communication, there must be “a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda.”

Have any of you ever played six degrees of separation? I have. I'll bet I can get to OBL inside those six degrees. Lessee, 1: Former SecDef 2:Clinton 3: House of Saud 4:OBL.

Whoo! That was hard.

Maybe I have to go to five, what with just who in the House of Saud OBL knows, and Clinton met with, but that's still connecting me, to him, and didn't need all six steps.

What else is in there? Oh yeah, part of the justification is based on the preamble to the Authorization of Force. That's what lawyers call predicate language, it has no legal force (it isn't the first time this administration has done this... they used parts of the predicate language (which they supplied) for the authorization of force against Iraq to show that Congress really wanted them to do it, but I digress).

They take passages of the Federalist Papers, which address the Gov't in general (The Founders, after all, intended the federal Government to be clothed with all authority necessary to protect the Nation. See, e.g., The Federalist No. 23, at 147 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob E. Cooke ed. 1961) (explaining that the federal Government will be “cloathed with all the powers requisite to the complete execution of its trust”); id. No. 41, at 269 (James Madison) (“Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society . . . . The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the federal councils.”). Reading that closely says the total of the Gov't is now vested in the Executive, and they say this is what the founders wanted.

Angels and Ministers of Grace.

They take a number of decisions from before FISA, and say those liberties, to surveille, are still extant (never mind the fact of Congress acting in it's role as the maker of laws, passing a few which curtailed that)

The core argument is that FISA was seen to allow electronic surveillance, and that as this is a time of war, and the people being targeted are "reasonably believed" to be either the enemy, supporting the enemy, or at least speaking with the enemy, there is no need for a warrant because this is just part of normal intel-gathering in a war. That actually makes a certain amount of sense, save that there's no way to know that. There's no oversight.

Looking at this argument The amendments that section 201(b) of FISA made to title 18 are fully consistent, however, with the conclusion that FISA contemplates that a subsequent statute could authorize electronic surveillance outside FISA’s express procedural requirements. Section 2511(2)(e) of title 18, which provides that it is “not unlawful” for an officer of the United States to conduct electronic surveillance “as authorized by” FISA, is best understood as a safe-harbor provision. what I see is that Congress contemplated just such a statutory change and rejected it. Congress decided the 4th amendment concerns were at least as important as gathering intel. From the lack of prosecutions, the complaints of the FBI about the leads they were handed and suchlike it seems they were right.

They go on:

As explained above, it is not necessary to demarcate the outer limits of the AUMF to conclude that it encompasses electronic surveillance targeted at the enemy. Just as a majority of the Court concluded in Hamdi that the AUMF authorizes detention of U.S. citizens who are enemy combatants without expressly mentioning the President’s long-recognized power to detain, so too does it authorize the use of electronic surveillance without specifically mentioning the President’s equally long-recognized power to engage in communications intelligence targeted at the enemy. And just as the AUMF satisfies the requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) that no U.S. citizen be detained “except pursuant to an Act of Congress,” so too does it satisfy section 109’s requirement for statutory authorization of electronic surveillance.10 In authorizing the President’s use of force in response to the September 11th attacks

That seems to argue they think it legal to do this to anyone. If one can detain a US citizen by calling him an enemy combatant, how much less of a stretch is it to say one can tap his phone?

The most frightening thing (and with this I will end this, as it is already longer than it probably ought to be) is the way they interpret the Authorization for the Use of Military Force as being more sweeping, and so conferring more power to the president than an actual declaration of war would be.

As a historical matter, a formal declaration of war was no longer than a sentence, and thus Congress would not expect a declaration of war to outline the extent to which Congress authorized the President to engage in various incidents of waging war. Authorizations for the use of military force, by contrast, are typically more detailed and are made for the specific purpose of reciting the manner in which Congress has authorized the President to act. Thus, Congress could reasonably expect that an authorization for the use of military force would address the issue of wartime surveillance, while a declaration of war would not. Here, the AUMF declares that the Nation faces “an unusual and extraordinary threat,” acknowledges that “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States,” and provides that the President is authorized “to use all necessary and appropriate force” against those “he determines” are linked to the September 11th attacks. AUMF pmbl., § 2. This sweeping language goes far beyond the bare terms of a declaration of war.

Recall that all of the broad claims to presidential power have, thus far, been couched in terms of fighting a war; but this is seen by them as being bigger than a war, which implies the president needs more powers than he has already (and they are claiming some pretty broad powers) when it's only understood to be a war.

What would you do if one of your employees told you he was going to ignore, when he felt like, the rules you, as an employer set up?

You'd fire him.

What would you do if he told you he was going to ignore the rules that the managers you hired to oversee his work?

You'd fire him.

Looking with more attention at the President's statement about his signing of the defense authorisation bill, I see that he's doing that. Not just on the Torture Amendment (I confess to being a trifle tunnel visioned on that subject, but to other things.

Sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 of the Act prohibit the use of funds to initiate a special access program, a new overseas installation, or a new start program, unless the congressional defense committees receive advance notice. The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the President's authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon a legislative grant of authority. Although the advance notice contemplated by sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 can be provided in most situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise, especially in wartime, in which the President must act promptly under his constitutional grants of executive power and authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces while protecting certain extraordinarily sensitive national security information. The executive branch shall construe these sections in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.

Section 8059 of the Act provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 may be used to transfer defense articles or services, other than intelligence services, to another nation or an international organization for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operations, until 15 days after the executive branch notifies six committees of the Congress of the planned transfer. To the extent that protection of the U.S. Armed Forces deployed for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operations might require action of a kind covered by section 8059 sooner than 15 days after notification, the executive branch shall construe the section in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

A proviso in the Act's appropriation for "Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide" purports to prohibit planning for consolidation of certain offices within the Department of Defense. Also, sections 8010(b), 8032, 8037(b), and 8100 purport to specify the content of portions of future budget requests to the Congress. The executive branch shall construe these provisions relating to planning and making of budget recommendations in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to require the opinions of the heads of departments, to supervise the unitary executive branch, and to recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the President shall judge necessary and expedient.

Section 8005 of the Act, relating to requests to congressional committees for reprogramming of funds, shall be construed as calling solely for notification, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in INS v. Chadha.

The executive branch shall construe section 8104, relating to integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Also, the executive branch shall construe sections 8106 and 8119 of the Act, which purport to prohibit the President from altering command and control relationships within the Armed Forces, as advisory, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional grant to the President of the authority of Commander in Chief.

I suppose the justification for violating the laws is derived from the oath of office, and the idea that such an abrogation of the balance of powers and the system of checks and balances is in needed to, "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Never mind those pesky provisions in Art. I, Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To...

Clause 10: To define and punish ... Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

But this White House thinks that the acts which excercise those powers are based on "purported" authorities.

Purported. Not actual, no the powers the Constitution grants the Congress aren't real, but purported.

To read the text of the legal minds of this administration is to see that Congress has no real power. Declare, to them, means to say out loud. Congress doesn't make war, it merely announces. Once the President has decided war is needful, they get to come along for the ride, and (because there's a war on) they lose the power to make laws which affect some "Department[s] or Officer[s] thereof."

That, my friends, seems to be a statement that the President is trying to sieze dictatorial power.

He can do that, but only if we let him.

Just doing a fly by as Maia and I stop at home on our way to Los Angeles from Sebastapol.

The NSA Spying is important, so important that damn near everything else ought to be filtered through it?

Why? Because knowledge is power, and power tends to corrupt.

Do I wax hyperbolic? I hope so. I fear not, but I hope so.

But this needs to be avoided.

This administration has made sweeping cliams of power. It has said there are no limits to presidential power during war. It says that Congress authorizing force against the Taliban in Afghanistan was a declaration of war, and that until such time as the White House decides the war is over, the war goes on.

Oceania has always been at war.

We are, I am afraid, on the verge of a police state.

The Limbaughs, the Malkins, the O'Reillys, the Hannitys, and all the myriads in freeperdom are calling for the heads of those who disagree. They will claim it's metaphoric, they don't really want to kill "liberals" (a wonderfully fuzzy term) and the "liberal hunting permits" (no season, no limit, and no restrictions) are just humor, which the humor-impaired "PC" "liberals" don't get, but that, as Orcinus points out is a destructive humor.

It's seed corn for pogroms.

The folks who preach these things (Malkin on interment, Limbaugh on the glories of the [Republican] State, Coulter on the need to put Liberals down like rabid dogs, &c) also think there ought to be class. One set of rules for the proles, another for the elite (and we all know where people who divides the world into upper and lower classes put themselves).

After all, Limbaugh said, on 22 Dec, 2005, the NSA snooping everything is just fine “Liberals and Democrats,” Limbaugh claimed, “are only opposed to this because they don’t want anyone finding out what they’ve been up to. … What have you folks been doing that you so desperately want to keep hidden?”

On the other hand his lawyer was defending his rights to privacy in the drug case against him, not a week before with Wolf Blitzer

BLITZER: If Rush Limbaugh has nothing to hide and has done nothing wrong, what’s the problem with letting the prosecutor speak to the doctors and go through all the records?

BLACK: Well, Wolf, that’s an excellent question. A lot of people ask this all the time. You know what? We have a right of privacy in this country that I think is important for us to hold onto. I mean, we could let prosecutors and police into our bedrooms, search our computers, watch us having sex. We could let them do all these things, but then we would have a police state. We would no longer have a democracy. I think it’s very important to fight these privacy battles—and Rush Limbaugh has taken on this battle of privacy with your doctor, and I think it has really been a public service for him. Not only for himself but everybody else who wants their medical records and medical treatment kept private and not to be disclosed in the press or with the police or prosecutors or anyone else who has no business being there.

The core of this is, still, the reasoning by John Yoo, the reasoning which says Congress abdicated all power (but that of the purse) when it authorised force.

That's scary. All oversight, all restraint and all control are ceded to the president, the moment the Congress authorized force.

Not even declares war, merely authorizes force. I'm sure Rush would have been all for Clinton exercising this sort of power.

This is rambling, I apologise. I've not had breakfast, we're late and I want to get this out.

Forget abortion, right to die, gay marriage; or marriage being anything special in the law, and civil unions for all; marriage for churches, school vouchers, voting rights, voting machines, and every other thing you worry about (no matter which side of the aisle).

This trumps them all.

Can Bush run again? No, the 22nd amendment says so.

But he can set aside other constitutional provisions, under the Yoo doctrine. The Legislative, and (mostly) the Judiciary have let him (putting aside a treaty is ignoring the Constitution, Article VI,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of
the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution)

So why trifle at some silly little thing which might allow someone else to come in and end the war he sees needful. Since Yoo has said the power of the Executive trumps the will of Congress, and the prosecution of a war makes the President, de facto, a Consul and Tribune, absolute monarch until the war is done, what is to stop a President (any president, that's the test on power, how would you feel if someone you didn't trust was in office with it) from doing such a thing?

That, I think is a trifle beyond even my worst fears. Easier to rig an election (and the GAO report on the results in Ohio, combined with the flap the White House made in Ukraine [where the election tallies didn't match the exit polls, and that was grounds for a revote, but in Ohio; well that was because of a flaw in the polling method. Never mind that a host of statisticians said just one poll being off was unlikely, but three was tantamount to impossible).

When did we become so trusting of the Gov't? We are founded on a deep distrust of central authority. We fought a war because of the abuses of such an exectutive. We formed a nation, under the Articles of Confederation, which had no central authority. We only got the present Constitution because a Bill of Rights was promised.

At what point did we start to let fear (of the "other" of crime, of random forces from outside) take over? FDR was right, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Why? Becase fear makes us irrational, and that abandonment of reason gives people a chance to exploit our weaknesess and convince us to give up some essential liberty in the name of security (yep, I'm trying to make a meme)

Who would you trust with every secret you've got?

Who would you give keys to your diaries? Passwords to your computers; and all the passwords to your bank, e-mail, amazon account, library card... the lists are as varied as you want to make them)? Who would you also give the keys to your house, and the path of everywhere you drive (got OnStar?).

Why should you give them to the Gov't? (which is why Roberts, and Alito bother me, both of them favor the Gov't, in the form of the Executive, having this sort of power).

I'll close with the grievances of the Declaration of Independence, the reasons for the stirring language at the front of the document, slightly edited.

See which one's might apply to the present.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

Lots of folks are getting gooey because Bush has accepted the McCain amendment prohibiting torture.

This was, by me at least, expected. Bush has been fond of talking tough, dragging out the "V" word, but the record shows that when someone calls his hand on that one, he always folds.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad McCain found some small piece of the spine he used to have, the one he seems to have given up after the 2000 Primary season.

He'll never get my vote. There was a time when my vote for him might have been in play, but the events of the campaign in 2004 made it a pretty slim hope (the Dems would have to have run Nader, or perhaps Lieberman to make McCain look acceptable).

After he voted for Bertie "It ain't torture if they don't die, and the pres can authorise that anyhow" Gonzales though, forget it.

It's Bertie, by the way, which makes me think this whole amendment issue is great theater, but all in all has no real effect.

Recent events (the NYT article on spying by the NSA, spying on American citizens, without a warrant, for more than a year [because it wasn't new when the Times found out about it, and they admit to sitting on it for a year. Where has the spirit which ran the Pentagon Papers gone? I don't see any affliction of the comfortable {well, not since they swallowed the Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate nonsense, but since that was afflicting "a liberal," or at least a Democrat no one seems to think it was bad, but holding Bush's feet to the fire, that's not on. Sorry, back to business) imply the administration doesn't think the law applies to it.

They are still playing as if the rhetoric of war (even though none has been declared. This is, perhaps a technicality, but bear with me, it's an important one) means all restraints are off. They think Bush is Consul and Tribune, that he has the, "inherent power" to set aside the law if he thinks it interferes with national security.

So what makes us think they will obey this one? Just because Cheney asked for the CIA to be allowed to do it? That doesn't make me think they'll refrain from having anyone they can find to squeeze the pliers from breaking peoples fingers.

These are the same people who still think Ollie North is a hero. They let him run for office in their party. He lost, but they gave him their seal of approval. Why?

Because he broke the law, to fulfill the wishes of the president.

So, we now have a US law, which confirms a ratified treaty. It's already illegal to torture POWs. The law which prohibits it is one step below the constitution. If they thought that didn't matter, why in the world should anyone think they will decide to obey the demands of Congress?

It's pleasant theater, but it won't change a damned thing.

The only thing that will is an honest election, and that turning them out of office.

Digby (who reminds me of someone I know by that name, but I am sure it isn't him... it's very strange. I want to meet him just so the disconnect of hearing his words in someone else's voice will go away) has a piece up (Burning Witches about torture, and why we need to keep railing against it.

Why it must remain completely beyond the pale of what we will accept.

Do I think the US has used, winked at, conived and suborned torture? Of course I do. Do I think it recent, and only of such recent ilk as the present flap has brought to light? Of course not.

We supported death sqauds in El Salvador. We knew they existed, and the Reagan administration broke laws (a lot of them, from the Boland Amendment to letting cocaine come in the side door while we were slipping illegal arms out the back) to keep the people who had them in funds so they could keep up the killing.

Digby points out one of the crucial things about torture, it isn't really about getting information, not when it becomes an instrument of policy.

One might assume that there is no one on the planet who thinks that torturing innocent people is right. Certainly, it's going to be hard to find intelligent educated people who believe that it is a moral good to do so. But not impossible. As it turns out there is a moral argument for torturing innocent people:

From Orrin Judd:

You might want to go back and brush up on your history, witchcraft was quite popular, even within the Church, for an awfully long time. In fact, it's back today in the form of Wicca. In its denial of the basis of Western Civilization it is so transgressive that it deserved to be and was persecuted. People who deny there were witches because they don't like how the religious treated them are akin to the Left denying there were Communists because they don't like that Americans reviled them. Jews too were justifiably, though unnecessarily, persecuted for their beliefs and inability to conform to social norms. The great injustice was the persecution of the conversos in Spain, who were sincere converts to Christianity.

I think he understands something I failed to understand about this argument. This isn't about terrorism. It isn't about national security. It isn't about the rule of law or enlightenment values. It's about conforming to social norms. That puts the whole thing in perspective, doesn't it? What I call "innocent" isn't innocent at all. Just being a practicing Muslim makes one guilty.

It's nice to know that we shouldn't be persecuting those who have converted to Christianity (or properly protestantised Islam, which translates into an embrace of Western Civilization.) The good news is that "protestantising" (forcing Western conformity on) the billion Muslims out there will be a cakewalk:

You can have a number of voices so long as everyone has just one hymnal. That's the essence of the protestantism that the End of History requires. It'll be easy enough to Reform Islam, just as we did Catholicism, Judaism, and the rest.
Posted by: oj at November 25, 2005 10:56 AM

And here I thought the whole "End of History" thing had been laughed out of town by the events of 9/11. Apparently History has only been postponed. Protestantism is still on the march, "reforming" witches and Muslims alike. And if it takes a little waterboarding or burning at the stake to get the job done, so be it. These people have to understand that we're going to end History one bloody non-conformist bastard at a time if we have to.

It's all of a piece. Hussien used torture to make people conform, to suppress dissent. Stalin did the same. Say something out of line to the wrong person, and "poof" you disappeared. Hitler, well he could be kinder. Von Stauffenberg was slowly killed, as an example. Rommel, implicated in the same plot was allowed to kill himself, which would spare his family the same, inevitable, fate, if he was publicly accused, and then; of course, convicted.

What could Rommel do? Even if he was innocent, his fate was sealed. Suicide, and his family lives, insist on his innoncence, and they get killed.

Torture works; if a state where fear of the denouncement is the place you want to live.

To quote A.E. Houseman, slightly out of context,

He gathered all the springs to birth
From the many-venomed earth;
First a little, thence to more,
He sampled all her killing store;
And easy, smiling, seasoned sound,
Sate the king when healths went round.

Which seems to be becoming a semi-normal state of affairs.

Rep Murtha (D-Penn) spoke out recently (not less so than the day before yester) saying we needed to pull out of Iraq now. His reasoning; this pooch is so screwed the question isn't if, but when. He thinks there is nothing going to get better from our being there, and that makes the expenditure of more blood and treasure pointless.

It doesn't matter what you think of the arguments, he's got not only the right, but the duty, to speak to the issue. He's a member of congress, as a Representative he swore to look to the needs of the country, with a focus on the specific interests which affect his district. If he has decided the war (for which he voted, and he makes no bones about his vote; he says that based on what he was told, and knew, he'd vote that way again; is no longer in the interests of the nation, he must speak out, his exact comment was, "The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

"General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, "the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency." General Abizaid said on the same date, "Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is part of our counterinsurgency strategy."

"For 2 ½ years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait - the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction - but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.

"We spend more money on Intelligence that all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused."

Murtha, to give a bit of background, is no shrinking violet. He's a vet. He did two stints in the Corps; 1952-1955, and 1966-1967. He finished out Marine Corps Reserve career in 1990, doing more Reserve time in between '55 and '66. He's got two Purple Hearts, visits Bethesda and Walter Reed, regularly, and once told the commandant at one of them to award a Purple Heart which had been denied to a kid who'd been blinded and lost both hands; because it was friendly fire, saying that if they didn't he'd give the poor bastard one of his.

He's regularly supported the military; and he has the ear of the Corps, as well as contacts in DoD.

He takes no guff. When someone mentioned Cheney he shot back, "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

The response from the Republicans has been severe.

Today, on the floor of the House Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio)(the woman who barely won the Second District, running against Paul Hackett; Marine)said this, "Yesterday I stood at Arlington National Cemetery attending the funeral of a young marine in my district. He believed in what we were doing is the right thing and had the courage to lay his life on the line to do it. A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bop, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body – that we will see this through."

After the House lost all semblance of order she asked that it be stricken from the record.

Npw, according to Rollcall (which requires a subscription, so I'll quote it)"Republican lawmakers say that ties between Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and his brother’s lobbying firm, KSA Consulting, may warrant investigation by the House ethics committee.

The calls come as Murtha, a former Marine and pro-military Democrat, has made headlines this week by coming out in support of a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

According to a June 13 article in The Los Angeles Times, the fiscal 2005 defense appropriations bill included more than $20 million in funding for at least 10 companies for whom KSA lobbied. Carmen Scialabba, a longtime Murtha aide, works at KSA as well.

KSA directly lobbied Murtha’s office on behalf of seven companies, and a Murtha aide told a defense contractor that it should retain KSA to represent it, according to the LA Times.

In early 2004, Murtha reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. A company called Lennar Inc. had right to the land, and Laurence Pelosi, nephew to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was an executive with the firm at that time.

Murtha also inserted earmarks in defense bills that steered millions of dollars in federal research funds toward companies owned by children of fellow Pennsylvania Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D).

Murtha and KSA have denied engaging in any improper or unethical behavior. Murtha’s offices in Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C., could not be reached for comment at press time.

But with GOP leaders infuriated by Murtha’s declaration this week that the United States should pull all its military forces out of Iraq in six months, renewed attention is being focused on Murtha’s dealings with KSA.

“I have read the articles about these appropriations projects that benefited his brother’s lobbying firm,” said Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.). “If there is a potential pattern where Congressman Murtha has helped other Democrats secure appropriations that also benefited relatives of those Members, I believe this would be something that merits further review by the ethics committee.”

Now, I won't say this isn't unpalatable, because if it's as presented, it sure looks bad, but then again this is the same House which passed a rule saying that the Majority Leader wouldn't have to step down if he was indicted. The same House that thinks paying half a million dollars to one's wife for a stint as campaign manager (and some tens of thousands of dollars to his daughter as a consultant of some sort, IIRC) is just ducks. At least the firms and people to whom Murtha is accused of tossing the red-meat of contracts had to provide something of benefit to the people, in the form of jobs and goods.

On the other hand, the last three grafs go like this, "Jennifer Crider, a Pelosi aide, dismissed the allegation that the Minority Leader was involved in anything improper as “absolutely ludicrous, and an attempt to divert from the real issue that Mr. Murtha is attempting to engage in debate on a critically important topic — U.S. policy in Iraq. The real story here is the Republican strategy to try to discredit at Congressman Murtha” while he is pushing for a U.S. pullout from Iraq.

Republicans acknowledge that Murtha’s Iraq statement — coming from a Member with strong military credentials — is driving their renewed focus on the ethics questions surrounding the veteran Democratic lawmaker.

“It strikes at the heart of his credibility on [military] issues,” said the GOP lawmaker. “He’s put himself on the frontline.”

What we see is more of an organized use of the levers of power to attack, intimidate, and (if successful) destroy people; people who are merely doing their jobs.

Durbin was forced to recant, when he'd done nothing wrong. So was Newsweek. Saxby Chambliss said his opponent was a coward, who hated America, never mind that he was a Vet, who'd lost his legs in Viet-nam. Hackett was called a coward, because after all, he only led a Civil Affairs detatchment (a small group who go out, by themselves, no infantry support, no armor, no helicopter gunships on call) and mingle with the people, trying to convince them we are the good guys. Civil affairs goes and sees what's wrong, and then rolls up there sleeves to fix it. A pothole? They come back with some engineers and fill it.

He did that for a year. But he's not a "grunt" so how can he claim to be a combat vet.

It's reprehensible. It's petty. It's destructive of the political system. The ideas stop counting. Duty is maligned, and those who attempt to practice it are to be brought low, while those who shirk it are raised up.

It has to stop.

Judge Alito said his legal opinion was that the Constitution doesn't support the holding of the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade. Since we are contemplating his appointment to a job where he will be using his legal opinions to make decisions, I think it matters still.

He said this when he was hoping to be hired by the Reagan administration. Senator Feinstein (with whom I've already shared a piece of my mind. I am not happy with her, haven't been for years, the only real problem is the alternatives I've been offered) said today, in response to him saying, in essence, "I didn't really mean it, I was just trying to get the job,"

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., an abortion rights supporter and the only woman on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said she asked the conservative judge about a document released Monday showing Alito in 1985 telling the Reagan administration he was particularly proud to help argue that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

"He said first of all it was different then," she said. "He said, 'I was an advocate seeking a job, it was a political job and that was 1985. I'm now a judge, I've been on the circuit court for 15 years and it's very different. I'm not an advocate, I don't give heed to my personal views, what I do is interpret the law.'"

When asked whether she found his answer satisfactory, Feinstein said: "The question is, Did I believe he was being absolutely truthful, and I did."

The question I have is whether she believes he was being truthful when he said he would lie to get the job, because it is, at its best interpretation, disingenous to think the personal and the political never intersect with the legal opinions of those on the bench.

We know that he has, in the past, decided his testimony to the Senate about how he would behave on the bench could be rendered, "inoperative," to use the words of another menadacious public servant, in light of his not recusal in cases where he'd promised to do so.

He, and his supporters are also playing the public for fools (not exactly a bad bet), byh saying, "He relied on precedent [not clear, given his record of reversal] in the past, so (now that he has the right to set precedent, and no one abovce him to overturn; barring the odd Graham type amendment to defense bill, in response to Supreme Court decisions), he will retain that level of restraint in the future.

Bullshit.

His record is one of putting the corporation over the individual, the police over the magistrate, the gov't ahead of the citizen.

The Ninth Amendment says the list of rights in the Constitution, and the eight preceding amendments, are not restrictive; that the people retain all sorts of rights, not enumerated. Alito, and his ilk, take the other tack, that only those rights (and not broadly) mentioned exist. Where there is a conflict between the privelege of the state and the liberty of the people, the people lose.

To be honest, I'd rather see nine Thomases on the court, than one Alito.