The American Constitution Society and the Liberty Coalition host a speech by Fmr. Vice Pres. Al Gore at the DAR Hall in Washington. Gore speaks about the limits of executive power, the issue of monitoring domestic communications and the authorization of the use of torture in the war against terrorism.

Transcript here.

This is the best speech Gore has given lately. It may be the best speech he has ever given. Its rare you get to see Al invoke some true passion. In many of his speeches, he takes sly swipes at the opposite political party in ways I've often thought were inappropriate. In this case, the entire speech was a swipe, but an entirely deserved and accurate one. Not just against the Bush Administration, but the entire Congress.

One comment that has been abound lately, is that the Democratic party is lacking a single clear and concise voice. Is Al prepared to be that voice, again, for real this time?

[ Hear hear. A rousing speech that should, at minimum, rouse the Congress to action. The fact that I find that outcome unlikely shows just how far we've fallen. -k]

C-SPAN: Fmr. Vice Pres. Gore Speech on Executive Powers

There is a vigorous debate about the war in Iraq today, and we should not fear the debate. It's one of the great strengths of our democracy that we can discuss our differences openly and honestly -- even in times of war. Yet we must remember there is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate -- and it's even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas.

The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

... So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account, and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy -- not comfort to our adversaries.

In this comment Bush essentially accusses his war critics of Treason. I expect this from partisan commentators, but coming from the President its over the top. The Republican party has an army of partisan talk show hosts, television personalities, and editorial writers who spew reams of disingenuous bullshit on a daily basis. If Bush was really serious about cleaning up the nature of political rhetoric he would start in his own backyard. Furthermore, serious, constructive, and, in retrospect, correct criticisms of his Iraq policy coming from inside his administration have resulting in firings. The American people know that if you live in a glass house you shouldn't throw rocks.

Remarks by President Bush on the Global War on Terror

As you can see in News Picks, there is big patent news today. For a long time, we've been complaining about the patent system, particularly as it affects FOSS. It turns out, someone listened. The New York Times' John Markoff has the story, as does Martin LaMonica. Here's Andy Updegrove's take and ComputerWorld.

One might suspect that the success of Groklaw had no small part
in this coming about.

3 Initiatives to Improve the Patent Mess Announced

Administration critics, political and media, charge that by ordering surveillance on communications of suspected al Qaeda agents in the United States, the president clearly violated the law... It takes a superior mix of partisanship, animus and ignorance to say that.

George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr finds "pretty decent arguments" on both sides, but his own conclusion is that Bush's actions were "probably constitutional."

!?@$#$!!??? Orin Kerr's exact words were "it seems that the program was probably constitutional but probably violated the federal law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act." What mix of partisanship, animus, and ignorance does it take to deliberately misrepresent that in an oped peice?

[ No way dude. Selective quotation is a time honored and completely legitimate way of eviscerating your opponents. HONESTY has nothing to do with winning, after all. -k]

Impeachment Nonsense

For the next seven years Hager sodomized Davis without her consent while she slept roughly once a month until their divorce in 2002, she claims. "My sense is that he saw [my narcolepsy] as an opportunity,"

Hager is one of the FDA guys who opposed Plan B and well known on the Christian right. Based on this, he probably needs to be fed depo-prevara and sent to the big house where he can find out just how much fun taking it up the back door without consent is.

[ Maybe I'm not as opposed to capital punishment as I thought... -k]

Dr. Hager's Family Values

We are so shameless now, so openly hostile to one another, that we don't even pretend otherwise. Here is how the senate power structure works: the resolution sponsored by Senator Gordon Smith, Republican of Oregon, honoring that golfer from New Zealand passed unanimously - but commending one of the seminal albums and musicians of the past 30 years gets nixed right away? Come on.

What happened to embracing diversity of opinion in this country? What happened to the idea that a healthy opposition is good for us, that it helps clarify our own views, that only when one idea is shown better than another does it truly strengthen? And when did we stop listening to the other side, if for no other reason than it's polite, humane and hey, it helps us hone our own viewpoint?

I don't love it when musicians or actors (or novelists, for that matter) get on their soapbox. I know my friend Chris doesn't agree with everything the Boss says. Neither do I. But we listen. Part of the paradox here is that many of Mr. Springsteen's characters - the factory worker, the soldier, the working stiff seeking release, the Friday-night racer looking for escape - would vote Republican.

Rock and a Hard Place

Gross observes that the changes recommended by a commission appointed by the President will have much greater negative effects on taxpayers in Democratic regions. Its as if the tax changes are a form of economic gerrymandering whose impact will be to significantly reduce the net take-home pay of (surprise!) Democratic donors.

[ Interesting. I had skimmed the highlights of these plans but not had time to read them all the way through, or, of course, do any analysis. I guess, thinking back now, I had thought that the eliminated deductions applied only to second or third or etc. houses, not primary residences, but it would seem I read that wrong. It does not particularly surprise me that the administration would craft a long view policy designed to reduce wealth in democratic areas. After all, tort reform is largely about the same thing... reducing the wealth of a highly democratic group of people. -k]

The politics of taxation

Rove also denounced last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling Roper v. Simmons in which five justices ruled that convicted murderers under the age of 18 could not be put to death. Rove noted that 20 states allowed capital punishment for those under 18 and argued that the high court was depriving those states of the right to self-government.

Minors can't vote and they don't have much money and they don't really read the paper anyway, so the papers run sensationalistic stories on youth crime because it speaks to their target market. Local corrupt politicians want to speak to that market too, so they pass laws cracking down on young people and especially young criminals. They crack down and crack down and crack down, year after year although it really doesn't have any effect. It makes good press. It keeps people elected.
Karl Rove wants to electocute people who are too "immature" to buy a beer or vote in an election or be outside after 11PM. When Breyer mentioned the fact that we're one of the only places left in the world that does this he was simply trying to prove that he isn't crazy. However, I view this in a slightly different light. I think this is one area in which the United States, up until Roper, could be viewed as primitive and backward. There is a reason that everyone else on the planet thinks this is immoral. It IS immoral. It is a brutal and primitive practice that most societies have outgrown. By leading the charge back to this Rove bares the banner of immorality.
When the federalist society talks about "limited government" what they mean is "limited (federal) government." The fact that the "federal" part is silent is the big lie of the right. They don't want individual liberty. They want unlimited state government, so their networks of old boys who are too corrupt or too stupid to make it on a federal level can oppress the crap out of people back home without any interference from those damn feds.

Rove re-emerges at conservative lawyers' group - Tom Curry - MSNBC.com

Decius wrote:

Rattle wrote:
I fully realize that recommending an Ann Coulter article about the withdraw of Miers is kind of like putting out a person on fire by pissing on them.

I'm not sure what you're going to get from her but it certainly isn't insight. I think I was wrong about Miers. She wasn't an attempt to fuck the system. She was a way of diverting attention. See Monica Lewinsky.

Now, rather than go on about how this is a good thing while stating that I half expect the next nomination to be just as laughable...

I expect the next nomination to be quite serious. Hopefully the radicals will be unhappy.

Tom and I were discussing this briefly last night at NIN. I agree that this was calculated. I believe that no one actually seriously thought Miers had a chance, and that she played sacrificial lamb for the sake of distracting the media away from the Delay and Plame situations.

The next candidate will be very serious indeed, but will have the same distracting effect as the real battles ensue.

RE: Ann Coulter on Miers Withdrawal: It's Morning in America!

The CIA is divided between the Directorate of Intelligence, which houses the analysts, and the Directorate of Operations, which houses the spies and the paramilitary forces. The spies are, in general, divided into two groups. There are those with official cover and those with non-official cover. Official cover means that the agent is working at the U.S. embassy in some country, acting as a cultural, agricultural or some other type of attache, and is protected by diplomatic immunity. They carry out a variety of espionage functions, limited by the fact that most foreign intelligence services know who the CIA agents at the embassy are and, frankly, assume that everyone at the embassy is an agent. They are therefore followed, their home phones are tapped, and their maids deliver scraps of paper to the host government. This obviously limits the utility of these agents. Being seen with one of them automatically blows the cover of any potential recruits.

Then there are those with non-official cover, the NOCs. These agents are the backbone of the American espionage system. A NOC does not have diplomatic cover. If captured, he has no protection. Indeed, as the saying goes, if something goes wrong, the CIA will deny it has ever heard of him. A NOC is under constant pressure when he is needed by the government and is on his own when things go wrong. That is understood going in by all NOCs.

George Friedman of Stratfor on the way the CIA divides up its clandestine staff, and how it relates to the Plame situation.

Stratfor via DailyKos: The Importance of the Plame Affair