Right Wing Nut House

I have thought very carefully about what to say in this post regarding the cartoon controversy. This is due to the fact that it will upset most of my regular readers as well as many on the right who have, in my opinion, been pouring gasoline on a fire where water was called for. Despite the best of intentions - the desire to stand up for our precious liberties - we have deliberately and unnecessarily made a bad situation worse by not only reprinting cartoons that 1.3 billion people on the planet find agonizingly offensive but that we have criticized people and institutions for exhibiting a kind of decency and empathy toward others that in almost any other case, any other circumstance, we would be offering praise instead.

The ability to satirize or mock religion - any religion - is well within our rights as American citizens and indeed, is a right in many (not all) countries that we generally consider part of what we used to define in the days before political correctness and cultural relativism as “Western Civilization.” The set of values and precepts that have emerged from 500 years of western thought have been based on the central idea that a human being, made in the image of the Creator, set upon this earth with a free will and free mind, is endowed at birth with certain “natural rights” that no government, no other man can take away. These natural rights to life, to an ever evolving and changing idea of liberty, and to what Jefferson called “the pursuit of happiness” but is actually a Lockean notion of being free to use reason in the search for truth have given us freedoms that few humans have enjoyed in all of recorded history.

How have we used these freedoms? Here in America, we invented an entirely new way for human beings to live together. We willed into existence a government. We forged a new kind of relationship between the people and that government. And we did all of this to protect what our ancestors saw as something so basic it was “self-evident” - by the simple virtue of being born human, people have the right to live and breathe free.

These are things we rightly take for granted. But by not giving our freedoms a second thought, it becomes difficult to imagine what other people in other cultures with entirely different ideas of what freedom is and what it means, think about this riot of confusing and oftentimes contradictory precepts. The kinds of freedoms that we see as absolutely essential are, in some parts of the world, viewed with suspicion and fear. Our idea of freedom of the press is an anathema to people who would see a publication like The National Enquirer as a threat to the stability of their culture. The fact that we consider this wrong headed and dangerous to our idea of liberty doesn’t mitigate the fact that others can no more imagine living with that kind of press freedom than we can imagine living without it.

Which brings us to the current controversy and how we are responding to it. In all of our calls for solidarity with the Danes and criticism of the ignorant hordes who have taken to the streets calling for the death of their fellow man over a series of cartoons, we may have lost sight of something so basic, so self-evident if you will that all of our posturing and chest thumping in support of free speech and freedom of the press has overridden our ability to see it.

Muslims don’t just find these cartoons offensive. They consider them so far beyond the pale that the fact they exist in the first place is an affront to Allah and by not doing everything in their power to wipe the blaspheming cartoons out of existence, they would be complicit in the sin.

Yes there are many in the Muslim world who are using the controversy to stir up hatred at the west. President Assad of Syria, who didn’t try very hard yesterday to prevent the torching of the Danish and Norwegian embassies, is even using the depth of feeling generated against the cartoons to unite his people and consolidate his hold on power. Other religious/political leaders in the Muslim world are also shamelessly using the issue to raise their own profiles or advance their political careers. But for hundreds of millions of ordinary Muslims, the cartoons and, just as importantly, the reaction in the west to their protests (republishing the caricatures far and wide), have caused pain - real physical discomfort - to people (not a religion or the bastardization of it advanced by the jihadists) who have done nothing to us.

I have tried to imagine anything similar in my own experience that would cause me the kind of pain being experienced by Muslims who feel so violated by the publication of these cartoons. The closest I can come would be watching as the flag is abused and burned by my fellow Americans. I get physically ill when watching people desecrate the flag. It isn’t just feelings of impotent rage and the desire to lash out at the perpetrators. There is also a feeling of nausea, a physical manifestation of contempt and disgust. It’s like peeling something a dog left on the street off the bottom of your shoe or cleaning up a drunk’s vomit off the floor of your house.

It doesn’t help me to be reminded that the protesters who desecrate the flag are exercising their right of freedom of speech. In fact, it makes me feel worse as I recall that millions have served under that flag, have protected it, and that such scum as these are spitting in their faces by carrying out their desecration.

Similarly, we are not reminding Muslims of the profound differences between our two cultures when we throw the caricatures in their faces and challenge them to be tolerant. We are, at bottom, causing them enormous pain. And for that, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Yes we have the freedom to mock religion and satirize other people’s belief systems. And I would fight and die to maintain that right as I’m sure most of you would. But must we lose our empathy in the process? Must we be deliberately hurtful in order to get our point across?

By condemning the publication of the cartoons anywhere and everywhere, it is not a question caving in to those who seek to destroy us by using our freedoms against us. Pat Curley has said it most succinctly: “We can defend their right to publish the cartoons without saying, ‘They are right to publish the cartoons.” This simple idea is the essence of freedom of speech in that it illustrates the fact that there are two sides to almost every issue and that by acknowledging one’s right to speak their mind, we also acknowledge a responsibility to take into account the feelings of others.

I reject the notion that there is no responsibility attached to freedom of speech. For the rational among us, it is simple, common decency to think of how one’s words will impact others before uttering them. This doesn’t mean we have to necessarily moderate what we say. But it does mean that idiots like Julian Bond and others who refer to their fellow citizens as “Nazis” or “Hitler” are being irresponsible and should be taken to task not only for the meaning behind their words but also for deliberately causing another human being unnecessary and unconscionable discomfort. There is no difference between calling a Republican “Hitler” and pulling the wings off of a fly - both are done to deliberately inflict pain. And if this were pointed out each and every time it was done, I daresay such comparisons would dramatically diminish.

The forbearance of the major networks and newspapers in not publishing the cartoons is, I’m convinced, an act not of “dhimmitude” but of simple. common decency. It is also an editorial decision made in the interest of both the news entity as a business and a responsible member of the community. Can the decision be questioned? Of course it can. But to criticize based on the unwarranted speculation that they are somehow fearful that publishing the caricatures will cause them physical harm is beyond the pale. Calling into question the editorial judgment of a news organ is perfectly legitimate. Questioning their physical courage is simple, playground name calling, not worthy of being part of a debate over the sacred rights that we seek to protect and promote.

There is a clash of civilizations going on as I write this. I happen to believe the civilization I live in represents a way of life and thinking that offers the best hope for all of humanity to live as they were intended while extending material benefits that prolong life, hold out the promise of good health, and enjoin its members to achieve a state of being that allows for common people to realize their hopes and dreams both for themselves and for their children. If we are to win this fight, it will not come by force of arms but rather by the strength of our commitment to the battle itself. We don’t give anything up by empathizing with others when pain is inflicted. We do however, lose ground when - whether intentionally or not - we force feed our views of freedom on people who have no cultural touchstone that would enable them to understand what we are trying to accomplish.

I appreciate the fact that I’m swimming against the stream on this issue. But the behavior of many of my friends on the right - people I respect and admire - has been disappointing to me. I don’t expect to change many minds. But if I cause you to think before you next call someone a “dhimmi” for not agreeing with your take on this issue, I will be content.

Anyone who spends much time researching issues on the internet knows full well the difficulty in trying to find non-partisan, objective, and rational discussions that would illuminate rather than obfuscate the facts through which one can make a well-thought out decision about where to take a stand.

And I don’t buy the canard that by delving into both sides of an issue, essential truths are revealed that can assist the interlocutor in finding the means to arrive at a rational position on questions of national import. There isn’t just a chasm between left and right on many issues, there is in fact a universe of difference - alternate realities where the inhabitants live by different physical laws and are governed by different passions, differing worldviews, and conflicting priorities that combine to make it impossible to get to the nub of the matter and uncover the essential factuality that should be driving the debate.

This is especially true on matters pertaining to Presidential power and how it has been exercised under the Administration of George Bush. You can learn virtually nothing by reading sites like this one or those on the other side of this issue simply because the personality and ideology of the President are seen through two prisms where the same facts cast entirely different colors of the rainbow. There is no gray contained in this kind of political spectrum analysis, only darker hues on one side and lighter ones on the other. As such, there is no way to assay the contradictory points of view, an effort that would entail the invention of entirely new colors to describe the reduction of both arguments to a form that would be intellectually useful.

I am not a lawyer. Nor am I a Constitutional expert. I am blessed with no special abilities except my own native intelligence and 52 years of life experience living in a free country where thought isn’t regulated and we are only limited in our search for knowledge by time and circumstance. So when I came to the conclusions contained in this article, I realized a brand new personal verity; humility is truth.

The Dutch priest and humanist Erasmus reached the very same conclusion more than 500 years ago. Admitting you don’t know everything can be a liberating experience as it was for Erasmus who saw the search for knowledge as an excruciating but exciting endeavor. The philosopher lived in extremely turbulent times, not unlike the ones we find ourselves today. He saw the divisions between Lutherans and Romanists which were tearing Europe apart at the time as symptomatic of a sickness of thought and reason that infected the elites and caused them to move the masses to murder and mayhem. “Beware lest clamor be taken for counsel” was an admonition of his that could be plucked from the 14th century and slapped across every computer monitor belonging to those of us who see politics as combat and ideas as weapons.

That said, when examining what powers that the executive branch of the federal government has gathered unto itself under the Bush Administration and whether this concentration of power is dangerous, it becomes necessary to look past the hagiographic rhetoric of the right and venomous bombast of the left in order to arrive at a conclusion that answers the fundamental question any thinking citizen of the United States should be asking; is it necessary to insure the security of the United States that we lose so much of our liberty?

Make no mistake. The Bush Administration, in the name of protecting us from the evil designs of our enemies, has asserted Presidential prerogatives and has at its disposal the technological means to seriously threaten many of the liberties we have taken for granted for more than 200 years.

I hasten to add that this does not mean that those liberties have, in fact, been violated. Only that the potential is there for national security bureaucrats to trample on some of the most cherished rights that have sustained this republic since its founding. Good intentions are not enough. Motives are irrelevant when dealing with the enormous power of the executive branch to violate our privacy, to peer into the most personal and precious aspects of our lives. The fact that corporations are now doing this with an ever growing sense of impunity is extremely troubling but an entirely different issue. When done in the name of national security, the government’s efforts to snoop take on the veneer of oppression if not in strict definition then certainly in spirit. Albert Camus said ” The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.” People who believe themselves to be acting as patriots or in the public good are just as dangerous as those who would use something like the NSA intercept program for nefarious purposes.

Since we will never know all the details of how the intercept program works, it will be impossible for anyone - left or right - to make a definitive determination as to whether or not the program violates the law. Humility is truth. But the question of its constitutionality is a different matter. In that respect, the issue is ambiguous enough that the exercise of authority by the President granted by both tradition and precedent would seem to indicate that George Bush is well within his rights to carry on with such activities. Not being a lawyer, I can only judge such a thing by what I read. And I find the arguments about the program’s constitutionality much more persuasive than those who argue that the President has no such power vouchsafed him by our Basic Law. Looking at history, a President’s power has always been pretty much what he says it is with significant exceptions. For those, the Congress and the Courts exercise their powers to rein in Presidential overreach. This is the essence of the separation of powers doctrine as I understand it and I believe that history bears me out on this.

So despite unanswerable questions about the project’s technical workings, there is a a strong - perhaps overwhelming - case to be made that the NSA intercept program is a lawful exercise of Presidential authority. That said, in order to answer the fundamental question regarding the accumulation of executive power under President Bush, one must look at the totality of actions taken by the Administration in the name of national security. And in this respect, there are very troubling indications that the President has gone too far in trying to secure the nation from a terrorist attack.

I say this not as a civil liberties absolutist but as someone who has been trying to come to grips with what can best be described as this Administration’s single mindedness about security and its impact on both the separation of powers and the personal liberty of individual Americans. I am deeply troubled by what I see as an incrementalist approach to the legitimate questions of our security and freedom. Take a little here, a little there, and before you know it, the executive branch has trespassed into areas that are not their province nor their business.

I am more than willing to trade a little “non essential” liberty for more security. Any rational person would be. What I am not willing to do is support the efforts of this Administration to rationalize the invasions of privacy, the warrantless searches, the indefinite detention of US citizens and legal aliens, the rejection of restrictions on interrogation procedures found in international treaties, and granting the national security state vastly expanded powers to gather domestic intelligence - all in the name of securing the homeland - without more specific approval from the Congress.

I can understand the give and take, the tug of war if you will that occurs between an executive branch that seeks to define its own authority to take action in the name of security and Congress and the Courts who either give their assent or seek to rein in these powers through legislation or judicial decisions.

But the absolute necessity for secrecy like that surrounding the NSA intercept program as well as actions taken by the FBI and DHS to protect us has created a culture that is accountable only to their own good intentions.

And that, from my point of view is totally unacceptable.

Time and again we have seen instances where Congress has either failed to act or has acceded to the Administration’s interpretation of the exercise of executive power without knowing all the facts. We’ve seen it with the prisoner issue and the refusal by Congress to clearly define the rights of those being held as enemy combatants. We have seen American citizens mistakenly picked up in dragnets and held for months at a time with no contact allowed with family or their attorney. There is the case of Cyrus Carr, an American citizen, held in Iraq for almost a year, despite being cleared within a few months of his incarceration. Then there was the anarchist jailed for linking bomb making sites on his webpage. He took a plea deal because he feared the prosecutor would bring him up on terrorism charges which could have added 20 years to his sentence.

These are not isolated incidents. And whether or not you think the people involved deserved what they got is irrelevant; what they deserved were the same protections that you and I enjoy under the Constitution. If you do not believe that, then I pray a day never arrives where your beliefs and politics are placed under similar threat. By limiting freedom for some, we limit it for all. And while I recognize that wide latitude must be given the government - especially in these extremely dangerous times - there simply must be limits. And those limits must be decided by the Congress and the courts.

If this all sounds as if I am of two minds regarding the clash between our liberty and security, you are correct. But in the end, I am taking the position that the Administration has overextended itself and is posing a threat to some of our most cherished freedoms. Perhaps some real good can come out of the examination of the NSA intercept program in Congress if it initiates a serious discussion of the issues that I’ve raised. I am not hopeful given the partisan political climate that surrounds these issues. But even the kind of rank partisanship demonstrated by members can be useful if it reveals some essential truths about what we as a people should be doing to protect ourselves from an enemy that seeks to destroy us.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin discusses the author who inspired this post - Ben Franklin. Franklin’s admonition about liberty and security (which has been hijacked and distorted by the far left) was given in the spirit of his times. This was a period in American history that featured an almost unreasoning fear that the country would degenerate into an authoritarian monarchy or just as bad, a “mobocracy” where Congress and the President would be beholden to a rampaging citizenry who would trample individual rights.

We must look to our own times for the answers to our questions. Franklin’s Philadelphia was not threatened by nuclear or biological weapons. Nor were Franklin’s conversations in danger of being recorded or his “private space” so necessary to the flourishing of liberty in danger of being intruded upon. And I’m sure Franklin’s definition of what was “essential” about liberty was very much narrower than our own.

That said, Franklin had a point; it’s easy to define security. But what liberties are truly “essential?” Here Hamlet best guides us: “To Thine own self be true.”

I guess if your name is Clinton, violating the law means never having to say you’re sorry…just make sure you’ve got a good enough lawyer:

A fund-raising committee for Senator Clinton’s 2000 campaign has agreed to pay a $35,000 civil penalty and to concede that reports it made to the federal government understated by more than $700,000 donations to a California celebrity gala held to benefit her Senate bid.

The agreement between the committee, New York Senate 2000, and the Federal Election Commission ends the campaign finance regulation agency’s inquiry into a complaint filed in 2001 by an entrepreneur who financed the fund-raising concert, Peter Paul.

“The civil payment assessed to New York Senate 2000 resolves the question of underreported in-kind contributions, and there will be no further action on this matter,” an attorney for the fundraising committee, Marc Elias, said.

If you’re interested, the Hollywood gala took in $721,000 and Hillary’s campaign reported that she realized $57,000. That’s not so bad. Just hope that when she’s President, she doesn’t name her Finance Chairman David Rosen Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

That won’t be likely since Mr. Rosen is under indictment for misleading the FEC on what was taken in on that star studded night. Another organizer of that same fundraiser, Aaron Tonkin, has already pled guilty to fraud in connection to other charity events unrelated to the Clinton fundraiser.

That’s some crew. Given the number of crooks, scofflaws, leches, loons, and galoots who were in her husband’s Administration, I suppose we shouldn’t be so surprised.

What’s surprising is that Hillary herself has escaped with nary a scrape on her sparkling reputation. This is strange, since Hillary apparently knew all about the effort to flim-flam the FEC:

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton personally negotiated some of the fees for a star-studded Aug. 12, 2000 Hollywood fundraiser, the event’s producer, Peter Paul, said in an interview aired on Sunday - as the event comes under increasing scrutiny by a Los Angeles grand jury and the Justice Department.

And in another sign of potential legal trouble for the top Democrat, a spokesman for the law firm championing Paul’s case said his client informed Mrs. Clinton that her finance director, David Rosen, had failed to accurately report costs for the event to the Federal Election Commission.

“Hillary Clinton personally called the producer of the concert part of this event,” Mr. Paul told Fox News Channel’s Eric Shawn. “She asked him to lower the fee that he was charging of $850,000 at my request. So I don’t understand how she could possibly say that she didn’t know.”

Poor Mr. Paul. He evidently isn’t familiar with the Clinton SOP: Deny, deny, deny. And if that doesn’t work, blame the Republicans.

Ed Morrissey believes that there are lessons to be learned from Hillary’s great escape:

In the end, this probably doesn’t hurt anyone too much, but it should remind voters of two important issues. One: the Clinton’s always seem to trod through the outer fringes of election law when it comes to raising money. Two: These Byzantine rules for designating cash in elections only delight attorneys and accountants, and in that order.

Yep. Which means that the next round of campaign finance “reform” that will most surely be pushed as a result of the Abramoff fiasco will have the shysters and pencil necks licking their chops in anticipation.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin links to Peter Paul’s blog for a more lengthy rundown on Hillary’s complicity in hoodwinking the FEC.

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s guilty plea on conspiracy, tax evasion, and mail fraud charges have started the Capitol Hill sleaze train a-rollin’ down the track and before it stops, there’s a chance that Republicans could find themselves on the outs after next year’s elections.

Abramoff and his partner Michael Scanlon are accused of influence peddling on a truly herculean scale. In exchange for lavish trips, dinners, (I’m sure someone will find some floozies in there eventually), and gifts, Congressmen - almost assuredly mostly Republican - gave up their vote on Indian gaming legislation. The two men ended up defrauding the Indians out of millions dollars in a complex scheme that has yet to be fully revealed but probably involves grandiose promises made by Abramoff of massive lobbying on their behalf while doing precious little in the way of actual work as well as siphoning off some of the $20 million in campaign contributions made by the Indians to conservative PAC’s.

Also, in some truly imaginative sleaze, Abramoff and another partner Adam Kadan faked a $23 million wire transfer so that finance companies would pony up $60 million which would allow them to buy a fleet of off-shore gambling boats in Florida. The scheme involved Congressman Bob Ney (R-OH) who actually went so far as to place comments in the Congressional Record that threatened the owner of the boats Gus Boulis.

What is it about politics that seems to attract these kinds of amoral people? Politics is a deathly competitive calling and the character of people who are more and more being attracted to the political culture in Washington (and to a lesser extent statehouses across the country) seem to reflect a kind of casual turpitude where venality and cynicism vie with high ideals and patriotism in a horrible mish mash of colliding special interests and grasping for power.

Are Congressmen made of the same moral fiber that their fathers and grandfathers were? Probably, but the opportunities for corruption have increased dramatically. There are many, many more lobbyists than there were even when I was in Washington 20 years ago. And every corporation worth its salt has a Washington office with a Director of Government Affairs who keeps an eagle eye on every law passed and every regulation proposed that would impact the company’s business in any way. And most of those companies (and unions of course) have Political Action Committees who are constantly evaluating and grading a Congressman’s performance, working hand in hand with the lobbyists to insure that on their issues, the Congressman is aware of who is buttering his bread come election time.

But what can you do? The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that campaign contributions are a form of free speech. And lobbying is also protected by the First Amendment’s “redress of grievances” clause. If you want to muck around with any of those two protections, you end up getting the kind of potential tyranny represented by McCain-Feingold and the FEC’s draconian measures against blogs. The law of unintended consequences is especially heavy in the area of First Amendment protections, something that so-called “reformers” never fail to miss. That’s why the more they reform, the more loopholes are created that the lobbyists and PAC’s are able to drive fully loaded semi’s through.

Whoever ends up being pulled down by Abramoff will represent the tip of the iceberg as far as corruption in politics is concerned. There has always been a fine line between influence peddling a campaign contributions and the fact that most of the rest of the sleaze that is a way of life on Capitol Hill and goes unrecorded - the cozy dinners, the exclusive golf games, the speeches in Aspen, Las Vegas, and other playgrounds - is a continuing blight on our system of government.

Abramoff isn’t exactly small potatoes but he does represent the tip of a very dirty iceberg. Maybe it will take a massive defeat by Republicans to get them to wake up and clean up their act. They can start by making sure that Tom DeLay doesn’t get anywhere near a leadership position even if he’s proved innocent of the trumped up charges by Texas Democratic partisan prosecutor Ronnie Earle. DeLay’s association with Abramoff stinks of the kind of fetid corruption reminiscent of 19th century cronyism and machine politics that Teddy Roosevelt fought the entire time he was President. Would that George Bush were half as brave in taking on the pleaders and hangers on who have corrupted Capitol Hill with the stench of money, greed, and power.

UPDATE

I’ll be updating this post for the rest of the day and probably into tomorrow as blogs weigh in.

Have to start with Michelle Malkin’s excellent round-up and her thoughts:

Maybe, just maybe, Beltway Republicans will finally be forced to get over their fear of challenging Abramoff pal and powerbroker Grover Norquist–not just on matters of political corruption, but on matters of national security.

Interesting take. Norquist has been too buddy-buddy with many Arab governments and individuals whose support of our War on Terror has been less than stellar. Might be time to clean the Republican party penthouse in addition to the cellar.

UPDATE 1/4

Captain Ed:

Regardless of which politicians get proven corrupt — and that means proven in court, not just allegations and indictments — both Republicans and Democrats will be well rid of them. Since the Republicans have controlled Congress for the past decade or more, we can fully expect this to ensnare more GOP politicians than Democrats. Money always finds its way to those whose power runs highest and whose ethics run lowest. And even if an honest and fair investigation and prosecution only convicts Republicans — I’m still looking forward to the housecleaning. Politicians enriching themselves on the public trust deserve to spend some quality time at Club Fed.

Well said. Dante reserved the 9th Circle of Hell for traitors to party and country. And by selling their votes for money and perks, any Congressmen caught up in the sleaze should suffer accordingly.

Betsy Newmark:

I guess that, like other scandals such as Enron, this new scandal will bring lots of calls to reform lobbying rules. Of course, they’ve tried to do this before, most notably in 1946 and then again in 1995, but such laws have been as ineffective in regulating lobbyists as campaign finance laws have been in regulating political contributions. There are already a ton of laws and regulations governing lobbyists. That is why Abramoff was investigated - because he broke laws.The tax code is full of regulations on interest groups.

Good point. What’s needed is a dose of morality not more laws and regulations..

Alright, I give in. The left has won.

Let’s impeach Bush for…well, whatever the left can dream up. Since they really don’t have anything specific to hang their hats on, let’s just say that Bush should be impeached for letting his nose hair grow too long or maybe for trimming his toenails in public. The reason doesn’t matter. It never did. With the left, it’s always been about grasping for the reins of power without much thought to who or what gets hurt - and that includes tens of thousands of citizens who could be killed in the next terrorist attack.

Every single effort of theirs over the last 5 years to find something specific to impeach the President with has been rudely shot down by one investigation or another. Bush didn’t lie to get us into war. He didn’t “twist” the intelligence to sell the war to the American people. He didn’t play a game of slap and tickle with Jeff Gannon/Guckert and give away national security secrets when engaged in sexual acts with the faux journalist. He didn’t “out” a covert agent of the CIA according to Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald. Two Commissions have found he didn’t order American soldiers to torture prisoners (although not resolving their legal status is a disgrace). And the jury is still out - way, way out - on whether or not laws were broken in the execution of the NSA intercept program.

There have been other “scandals” during the last few years that the left eagerly embraced as THE scandal that will bring impeachment proceedings against the President. Each and every one of them as well as the citations above have resulted not in impeachment, but in people pointing at the left and laughing at them. Their rhetoric - so over the top, so out of touch with reality - have made them the laughingstock of the rest of America who they so arrogantly and despicably look down their noses at.

But let’s go ahead and grant them their wish. Let’s impeach the President. In fact, let’s fulfill their stated wish and put back up every wall between intelligence agencies that existed before 9/11. Let’s call off the FBI and prevent them from looking sideways at Muslims. Let’s stop profiling people based on the fact that 99% of terrorist attacks are carried out by one group and one group only. Instead, let’s start profiling 78 year old white women who wear pink polka dot dresses and cotton bloomers. Let us make absolutely sure that if al Qaeda wants to talk to someone in this country, that we scrupulously follow every law, every precedent before we intercept that communication. And let’s do as the left has been doing since 9/11 and stick our heads up our a**es as far as they can go.

In return however, the liberals must sign the following “Hold Harmless” agreement so that future occupants of the White House (no doubt all Republican unless the American people can stop laughing long enough at liberals to vote for them) will not have to put up with their unserious nonsense.
************************************************************************************

1. I, __________________________, the undersigned have read and understand, and freely and voluntarily enter into this Release and Hold Harmless Agreement with THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES understanding that this Release and Hold Harmless Agreement is a waiver of any and all liability(ies).

2. I understand the potential dangers inherent in being at war with a group of merciless, bloodthirsty thugs who will stop at nothing to kill as many Americans as possible. Understanding those risks I hereby release the entire Executive Branch of government and anyone else directly or indirectly connected with the federal government from any liability whatsoever in the event of injury or damage of any nature (or perhaps even death) to me or anyone else caused by or incidental to my electing to stick my head in the sand about said terrorist threat.

3. I understand and recognize and warrant that this Release and Hold Harmless Agreement, is being voluntarily and intentionally signed and agreed to, and that in signing this Release and Hold Harmless Agreement I know and understand that this Release and Hold Harmless Agreement may further limit the liability of The Executive Branch to include any activity, whatsoever, involving a terrorist attack including death, personal injury and/or damage to property.

4. I further understand and recognize and warrant that this Release and Hold Harmless Agreement precludes any nonsensical criticisms of the Executive Branch if, in fact, a terrorist attack occurs on American soil. I will fully and completely recognize that it is my own damn fault for being such an idiot as to refuse to believe that some minor compromises of our liberty must be made in order to increase the odds that terrorists will be prevented from killing me. I further recognize and hold harmless the Executive Branch by not acting like a spoiled brat and screaming “Neener, Neener, Neener…” if, in fact, we are attacked.

5. I further voluntarily agree and warrant to Release and Hold Harmless the Executive Branch from any liability whatsoever, including, but not limited to, any incident caused by or related to said terrorist’s negligence, relating to injuries known, unknown, or otherwise not herein disclosed; including, but not limited to injuries, death, and property damage as a result of my myopic and childish worldview.

In the event of any terrorist attack, I promise to keep my big yap shut.

Date: ________________________________

Person voluntarily entering into this Release and Hold
Harmless Agreement: ______________________________

______________________________
Printed Name

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

It is perhaps inevitable that following a high profile execution like the State of California carried out on Tookie William that the debate on making executions a public event should be re-opened. And while the death penalty issue itself is usually reduced to moral arguments or its efficacy in a modern industrialized society, the idea of allowing 300 million people to become living witnesses to another human being’s death causes even many death penalty advocates to squirm uncomfortably in their seats, recoiling at the prospect of watching life leave another person against his will.

Does this say more about our society’s attitudes toward death or does it say something profound about our ambivalence toward the death penalty? This is no small matter for on the answer rests the fate of the death penalty itself.

The last public execution in the United States was in 1936 in Owensboro, Kentucky. But the fight to hide the execution of criminals from public view actually extends back several decades to the turn of the century. The Progressive movement in the United States was all about reform and most progressives believed it barbaric to have people witness the death of a condemned criminal. It called to mind the worst excesses of Rome as well as clashing with Victorian ideas of modesty surrounding death rituals. So beginning in 1890, states began enacting laws that placed the execution of prisoners behind “enclosures” in order to “exclude public view.”

For example, in 1919, the Missouri legislature adopted a statute which required, “the sentence of death should be executed within the county jail, if convenient, and otherwise within an enclosure near the jail.” The Missouri law permitted local officials to give out passes to anyone who requested one in order to become a “witness” to these the executions but this was honored mostly in the breach. In this respect, Missouri’s executions were not “public” because the general populace was excluded by law and the execution itself was carried out behind an enclosure.

Of course, there were still witnesses to executions but these were carefully chosen people whose numbers were kept extremely low. A big reason for this was the manner of execution - electrocution.

There is perhaps no more gruesome way to die than being electrocuted to death. It should go without saying that if an electrocution had ever been televised, public opinion on the death penalty could very well have flipped. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan gave this description of an electrocution he witnessed: (WARNING: GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF DEATH FOLLOWS)

…the prisoner’s eyeballs sometimes pop out and rest on [his] cheeks. The prisoner often defecates, urinates, and vomits blood and drool. The body turns bright red as its temperature rises, and the prisoner’s flesh swells and his skin stretches to the point of breaking. Sometimes the prisoner catches fire….Witnesses hear a loud and sustained sound like bacon frying, and the sickly sweet smell of burning flesh permeates the chamber.

Clearly, it was in the interests of supporters of the death penalty to keep this grotesqueness from the general public.

Then in the 1980’s there was a series of botched executions where horrible suffering occurred when an electric chair malfunctioned. One such execution in Georgia of Otis Stephens was particularly gruesome:

After the first jolt of electricity failed to kill him , Stephens struggled for eight minutes before a second charge finished the job. The first jolt took two minutes, and there was a six minute pause so his body could cool before physicians could examine him (and declare that another jolt was needed.) During that six-minute interval, Stephens took 23 breaths.

But as more and more journalists began to give graphic (and sensational) descriptions of botched executions in the 1980’s and 90’s, anti-death penalty sentiment began to grow. This led to the adoption of the current method of execution by lethal injection. First proposed in Oklahoma in 1977, lethal injection seemed to fill the bill for death penalty advocates in that it offered a more “humane” way to execute prisoners. The process is simple; three drugs are administered by IV into an inmates veins. The first drug is a strong sedative that induces unconsciousness. The other two drugs stop the heart and respiration.

But even with death by lethal injection, there is suffering that would make televising executions problematic. For example, Tookie Williams execution was marred by a frantic search for a vein in which to place the IV’s. This is not uncommon in executions by lethal injection. Some inmates have had to wait up to 40 minutes (WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES OF DEATH) strapped to the chair as poorly trained state employees try and hook up the IV’s. The fact that there are very few doctors and nurses who would break their oaths not to cause a patient harm means that the state must often staff the execution themselves with lay prison workers.

But all of this skirts the real issue of whether or not executions should be televised. Both advocates and opponents of the death penalty have formed an unlikely alliance on the issue - for different reasons of course. Opponents believe that if the American people saw what goes on in the death chamber that their outrage would sweep the death penalty from the books. Advocates are a little more prosaic in their support. They see public executions as confirmation that the state-sponsored death of an inmate is a judgment by society itself and that all should bear witness to what we have wrought. There is also, proponents believe, a deterrence factor inherent in televising executions.

It should be pointed out that there is not a shred of evidence that any deterrent benefit will accrue to society if we make executions public. It is also true that there is no evidence that what would surely be the biggest TV audience in history would be swayed one way or another about capital punishment by witnessing an execution live and in color. What should be the criteria then for deciding whether or not public executions should be allowed?

In many ways, the way a person dies is the most personal and private moment in their life. Watching as life leaves the body has been described as a mystical experience - one moment the person is “there” the next they are “gone.” For this reason, courts have continuously held that prisoners have a right not to be forced into public executions. And of course, it should go without saying that the effect on innocent family members of the condemned who would be watching (or knowing that everyone else is watching) their loved one’s death would be horrible indeed. But when is the personal outweighed by the political? Does society’s compelling interest in bearing witness to an execution outweigh the hardship that would fall on innocent family members?

Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh did not formally request that his execution be televised. But he did question the number of witnesses that were allowed to watch him die:

Given the crime for which McVeigh was convicted, it seems logical to assume that his motives in wishing to have his execution televised are simply to undermine the legitimacy of the federal government by broadcasting a horrific act that the government sanctions. However, if the government sanctions such an act, then by definition (at least in this country), the people sanction it. Clearly, if the public wishes to continue to sanction executions, it is going to have to come to grips with the nature of the procedure. It is gruesome. Executions behind closed doors serve one legitimate purpose; that is protecting the privacy and the dignity of the condemned individual. For that reason, courts have rightly held that prisoners cannot be forced into public executions.

But is “the privacy and dignity” of the condemned reason enough to prevent the people’s need to see what the government is doing in their name? Is it our right to know what it’s like to be executed?

These were questions taken up the the North Carolina Courts in Lawson v. Dixon in which a condemned inmate wished to have his execution filmed and broadcast on the Phil Donahue Show. Their arguments settled on Mr. Lawson’s 14th amendment equal protection claims and Mr. Donahue’s First Amendment right to use “the tool of his trade” - a TV camera - to cover the execution. The three arguments put forth by the warden of the prison (Dixon) were:

1) the ban on cameras in the witness room protected the identity of prison employees involved in the execution from angry inmates and an angry public, 2) broadcasting an execution would incite violence in the prison, thereby threatening prison employees, and 3) video cameras could be used to break the heavy glass surrounding the gas chamber thereby threatening the lives of those individuals in the witness room.

The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dixon, finding that the warden had compelling reasons to exclude video cameras. They also dismissed the claims of Lawson based on the 1st and 14th Amendments. However, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, while not required to address the merits of Lawson’s claim, called into question the validity of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s determination that Lawson did not have any constitutional guarantee to either 1) select those persons whom he wished to witness his execution, or 2) to require that his execution be filmed.

What this means is that it’s possible that public executions in America may become a reality. With the explosion of cable outlets, all it would take would be one tabloid TV show with enough money (and moxie) to convince an inmate to fight for the right to have his execution plastered all over TV. The inmate’s family could be in for a huge payday. This scenario was actually the subject of a 1991 movie entitled Witness to the Execution. And while the story centered on the inmate’s second thoughts of having his execution broadcast on a Pay-Per-View basis and the slimy journalist who coaxed him not to back out, it is not beyond the realm of the possible that such a situation could arise.

Wouldn’t it be better to craft laws that guarantee access to the media in the form of pool coverage? And the biggest question of all; could we actually trust the media not to turn the execution into a three ring circus?

As for the first question, while it may be better to regulate coverage of an execution rather than have it turn into a competitive bidding process, the technical aspects of coverage would be a huge challenge to legislate. However, it has been done before. The law opening up the House and Senate to TV coverage stipulated camera angles and other technical requirements so as not to show lawmakers asleep at their desks or the fact that most speeches are given to a completely empty chamber. Clearly, where there’s a will, there would be a way.

But is the desire really there to televise executions? There is no public clamor at the moment but that may change if an inmate were ever to win a case that would force prisons to open the death chamber to cameras. And that begs the question; how would TV networks handle an execution?

My guess is that it would unintentionally become the biggest extravaganza in TV history. The worldwide audience would be staggering. And no amount of respectful commentary or phony piety on the part of the talking heads would be able to obscure the fact that a human being - cowardly, brutal, and thuggish as he may be - would die right in front of our eyes. “As men, we are all equal in the presence of death” said Publilius Syrus. This is a truth that many Americans may find unpalatable. Would we as a society be able to deal with public executions or would we find the entire exercise so distasteful that the political rationale for capital punishment would evaporate?

We may find out sooner than we are prepared to admit.

I was going to make this an update to my first Tookie Williams piece but Ed Morrissey’s compelling post called for a separate article on my behalf.

Ed is a rational anti-death penalty advocate:

Again, I oppose the death penalty, primarily on two grounds: religious and practicality. I don’t think the state should take a life unless the person represents a present threat to the safety and security of the public, or a threat to the national security of the US or our allies. I also don’t think that the death penalty saves us any money, and needlessly clogs our appellate courts with frivolous motions and delaying tactics. When we have the person locked up, he should stay locked up — and I mean locked up for good, and none of the Club Fed treatment, either. Three hots and a cot, and anything else depends on how well the prisoner behaves. That to me settles the entire case in a relatively expeditious manner without having twenty years of legal motions keeping the case alive.

Ed’s position holds a certain moral and practical attraction. And it is nothing if not consistent with his Roman Catholic faith for which he should be commended for adhering.

However, there is something deeper, more atavistic involved in society as a whole making a statement that taking a life in the fashion that Mr. Williams took 4 others will, after careful consideration and all due process, result in the forfieture of your own. It is more than justice. It is more than revenge. It is an accounting.

Ed believes that this accounting can be achieved by locking the perpetrator up for the rest of his life - true “life without parole.” I would say that first, this is a pleseant fantasy to believe this could be achieved. Already there is a growing unease among our intelligentsia and legal community that too many people are actually being given life sentences and, well, dying in jail. This New York Times article from 10/2/05 made me spit coffee through my nose when I read the headline:

TO MORE INMATES, LIFE MEANS DYING BEHIND BARS

It turns out that prosecutors and judges have been giving a wink and a nod to criminals when giving them a life sentence; they don’t really mean what they say. Now judges and even prosecutors are upset because mandatory sentencing guidelines have taken so much disgression away from them. Here’s what I wrote back then:

There’s a reason people are sentenced to life in prison. And while there may be a few exceptions to the so-called “Three strike” rule in sentencing (and these should be dealt with on a case by case basis) the fact is that sentencing guidelines are in place because too many judges and prosecutors think like the editors of the New York Times; that criminals are in jail not because they’re horrendously violent sociopathic thugs but because they are misunderstood by society or that they’re the wrong color or that they’ve spent time in jail and have actually “reformed” and gone straight.

This kind of thinking caused crime to skyrocket in the 1960’s – 1980’s. It wasn’t until legislatures and the Congress passed mandatory sentencing laws that crime finally began to drop. Yes judges complain they have little leeway in sentencing anymore. But that decision wasn’t taken in a vacuum. It was because judges routinely abused their positions to foist their ideas about crime and society on the rest of us that those laws were passed in the first place.

The point I would like to make to Ed and other rational anti-death penalty advocates, is that as a practical matter, life in prison is a non-starter. The forces at work to free the criminal and get him back on the street are growing not shrinking. When leading criminologists point out that 10 years is considered a long sentence in Europe, you know we are in trouble.

As for the moral argument - especially one involving doctrine - well, you have me there. But the idea that the death penalty is merely state sponsored murder or even just societal revenge is dead wrong. It is a trap door by which a healthy society rids itself of its diseased parts. This accounting is necessary not to deter crime or to give closure to the families of victims, but because it is a rational way to approach the simple problem of dealing with people who have demonstrated that they do not deserve to enjoy the fruits of living in our society - even Ed’s “three hots and a cot.” Who makes that determination? A jury of his peers, acting on our behalf, finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ed does hit the nail on the head here:

If the celebrities want to do something about the death penalty, I’d suggest trying to convince Californians that LWOP means no release, ever, under any circumstances except innocence. They could start by ending their peculiar practice of promoting the murderers as heroes and ignoring their victims. Once the public no longer has to listen to ridiculous arguments about the brilliance and courage of people who shoot helpless victims in the back and can focus on the issues of the death penalty itself, then perhaps we can convince people that we can live without executions and all the lunacy they entail.

Well said and I would add something I mentioned in my last post; until we can figure out how to level the playing field in the criminal justice system for people of different economic backgrounds (not race), the death penalty should be a rarity indeed. It is a blot on the ideas of liberty and freedom that someone’s guilt or innocence can be gleaned by how high the stack of money they are able to place on the scales of justice.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin has the react from blogs and MSM. She links to this powerful piece by Baldilocks who echoes some of my thoughts below about what Mr. Williams hath wrought in South Central LA and elsewhere:

Leaving aside those who oppose the death penalty for moral/religious reasons, few of you have seemed motivated to move into my South Central LA neighborhood to see what “Tookie” and his Crip co-founder Raymond Lee Washington (who’s burning in Hell right now) have wrought for the last thirty-odd years. And I know that you won’t be choosing to live here anytime soon. That’s understandable; however, don’t tell me that we should coddle these TERRORISTS like “Tookie” and those he created if you don’t have to put up with them. (Okay, you can tell me, but you can expect a barely polite response and that’s if I’m feeling generous.)

Secondly—and this is especially for people like Jeremy: black people are thinking, functioning humans who, when adult and without some actual mental deficiency that they can’t control, are just as responsible for their actions as are members of any other race of people. We’re not murderers by nature (that is, any more than any other set of humans are). Therefore, we don’t need a separate, lower standard of behavior in any area, whether it’s education, employment or criminal justice.

Holding Mr. Williams responsible for the activities of the Crips gang is something apparently beyond the capacity of the celeberities, apologists, and other Tookie supporters who ignore the role Mr. Williams’ creation has played in the sacking of inner cities.

The Anchoress has some surprising thoughts on coverage of Tookie and coverage of the new pope:

But when I heard on the radio the ubiquitous Jesse Jackson talking about Tookie’s “strength” as though he was some sort of martyr (Political Teen has video) I just couldn’t help thinking to myself…when Cardinal Ratzinger became Benedict XVI, he couldn’t BUY this sort of sympathetic coverage. While tonight we hear about how Tookie “did more good than harm,” all we heard last April was that the new pope was a hardcase - relentless and inflexible and probably mean, too.

That’s a thought.

Indeed.

It appears that Congress is about to finally take the lead and clarify the legal status of detainees who have been languishing at Guantanamo and other sites around the world in a kind of legal limbo that has been both a blot on American jurisprudence and an invitation for criticism from the international community:

A bipartisan group of senators reached a compromise yesterday that would dramatically alter U.S. policy for treating captured terrorist suspects by granting them a final recourse to the federal courts but stripping them of some key legal rights.

The compromise links legislation written by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), which would deny detainees broad access to federal courts, with a new measure authored by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) that would grant detainees the right to appeal the verdict of a military tribunal to a federal appeals court. The deal will come to a vote today, and the authors say they are confident it will pass.

The measure will not go far enough to appease liberals who want to treat the foreign terrorists like law abiding American citizens. And it will almost certainly trouble some conservatives who wish that the prisoners be thrown into a black hole to rot. But the compromise will solve the bureaucratic tangle that has existed between the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense who, for different reasons, have wished for such clarifying language.

One potential stumbling block is the insistence by both Senators Graham and Levin on linkage between their bill and a bill introduced by Senator John McCain that prohibits torture:

Graham and Levin indicated they would then demand that House and Senate negotiators link their measure with the effort by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to clearly ban torture and abuse of terrorism suspects being held in U.S. facilities.

“McCain’s amendment needs to be part of the overall package, because it deals with standardizing interrogation techniques and will reestablish moral high ground for the United States,” Graham said.

McCain’s bill is almost certainly drawn too broadly as evidenced by opposition voiced by Vice President Cheney who wished to exempt the CIA from its provisions. However, if a way can be found to satisfy the Administration’s legitimate concerns while still standardizing interrogation techniques, a significant victory for the rule of law will have been achieved.

It has been a national disgrace that the detainees have been held these past 3 years with their legal status up in the air. The situation was complicated unnecessarily last year when the courts ruled that detainees had a right to a hearing on their status. The resulting flood of motions - both frivolous and serious - became a nightmare for the Justice Department and DoD who had been asking Congress to clarify what rights the detainees had in this unique legal situation. The fact that both the Administration and the Republican Congress took their own sweet time in addressing the issue only gave our international foes an opening in the propaganda war.

The compromise neatly addresses the concerns of DoD in that intelligence gained from interrogations as well as the way certain information on individual terrorists was obtained either through “National Technical Means” (eavesdropping, spy satellites, etc.) or through informants will not be used in open court by activist lawyers seeking to undermine our intelligence capabilities in the War on Terror. The bill will also give the Justice Department some guidance on how to proceed with the appeals process. And incorporating some form of the McCain bill will standardize the the Army Field Manual techniques for interrogating prisoners thus putting the nation on record that it opposes the kind of interrogations that have led to more than 400 investigations by DoD into accusations of abuse with 230 determinations that have resulted in either reprimands or court martials.

All parties involved - the Administration, and the Departments of Justice and Defense - are taking a wait and see attitude toward the bill:

An administration official briefed on the compromise said yesterday that so far, neither the Justice Department nor the Defense Department nor the White House has seen a complete package to support, although there are elements to back.

Neither Congress nor the administration wants a veto fight. That dynamic is pushing the drive for a deal that will satisfy both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

If satisfactory language can be found in a compromise on McCain’s bill, the Congress will have made a start toward rectifying a hazy legal situation as well as a stain on America’s honor. There are still issues to resolved including the practice of “rendition” which sends some detainees to countries that practice torture as well as the recent revelations about CIA prisons that are not subject to Congressional oversight. But this bill could become the start of a power sharing arrangement on detainees between the executive and legislative branches of government, something in the interests of the country and the people.

UPDATE

Here’s a fascinating “Tale of Two Cities.” The Captain disagrees with my position on the Senate bill to define detainee rights:

It depends on the manner of the capture of these detainees as to whether they should have access to federal court and how much jurisdiction those courts should be given. Those captured in open battle against American troops, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, should have none. We do not want to treat battlefield captures as arrests, and have defense attorneys issuing subpoenas to American soldiers for courtroom testimony.

Actually, I think the compromise takes care of the Captain’s concerns. The appeal will come after they have been adjudicated by the military so no courtroom testimony will be forthcoming. Instead, the detainee will have a judge review both his status and sentence - a measure that could protect the innocent as well as American intelligence practices.

Ed also calls it “the best retrieval possible of a bad situation.” I agree although I see it more as a start toward Congressional oversight of the entire detainee situation which is long past due.

SSSSHHHH…Be Vewy Quiet. I’m huntin’ Repubwicans…heheheheheheh!

The indictment of Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay is one of the least surprising developments in politics since the Democrats’ efforts to buy votes with crack cocaine in Ohio last November. Given the level of scrutiny directed toward the Texas Republican regarding everything but his bathroom habits, the laughably partisan Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, like his counterpart Elmer Fudd, was destined to succeed in finding the rabbit but will be hard pressed to ultimately catch the critter and make a stew out of him.

Instead, all Earle has succeeded in doing is making hash out of his investigation, something a federal judge will not find amusing - federal judges having a much narrower sense of humor than your average Texas pol. For in order to understand the indictment of DeLay, one must understand the wild, wild, west nature of Texas politics and how being “colorful” and “larger than life” is the best way to get ahead in the rough and tumble mud wrestling of Texas political culture.

Unlike in some of the more staid environs out east and in the Midwest, politics in Texas is a spectator sport, albeit one that requires the spectators to come equipped with a scrub brush and an extra-strength bar of soap. Both DeLay and Earle have come up through the ranks of their respective parties by successfully playing as close to the edge of the law that ethics and decency will allow, all the while “Aw Shucks”-ing and backslapping their way through successful election campaigns. It is the campaigns themselves with the ungodly amounts of money raised and spent that grease the skids of law and politics at the statehouse level.

An example would be your typical campaign for an obscure public office like State Railroad Commissioner. Through some quirk in the law, the Commission controls the oil industry in Texas which may have something to do with the fact that on average, candidates spend well over half a million dollars to get elected and most candidates spend much more than that. A run for the Texas Senate is similarly expensive. Contrast those figures in my own state of Illinois where the average amount spent on a state Senate seat is around $50,000 - figures skewed upward by races run in Chicago and its suburbs - and you have an idea of how really, really, important it is to raise money in Texas if you want to get anywhere in politics.

If money is the mother’s milk of politics, Texas has a corner on motherhood. And down through the years, well meaning reformers from both parties have attempted to change the political landscape by trying to put a stop to some of the more outrageous examples of campaign finance shenanigans, mostly to no avail. Like reformers of federal campaign laws have discovered to their utter dismay, the more strictures you put into place, the more loopholes wide enough you can drive a Texas sized 18 wheeler through are created.

Hence, we have the laughable spectacle of DeLay being indicted for a campaign finance tactic carried out gleefully by both sides. Texas law stipulates that corporate contributions to candidates are illegal. No problem, say both parties. They simply channel the money to the national parties who then churn the money back to candidates for state office through “local party building” efforts that allow the national party organs to donate money for that purpose.

Simple, elegant, legal…and unethical. Here’s a tally of what the Democrats have done with the law recently:

In fact, on October 31, 2002, the Texas Democratic Party sent the Democratic National Committee (DNC) $75,000, and on the same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $75,000. On July 19, 2001, the Texas Democratic Party sent the DNC $50,000 and, again on the same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $60,000. On June 8, 2001, the Texas Democratic Party sent the DNC $50,000. That very same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $60,000.

(HT: Captains Quarters)

As the Captain points out in his article, DA Earle has a problem separating his duties as a prosecutor representing the people and a partisan representing the interests of his party. This is not unusual in Texas as I’m positive you can find similar examples of Republican DA’s in Texas acting in a manner not in keeping with the ethical requirements of their office. It is the nature of the system. And that system lives and breathes money. Doing the Texas Two-Step with the campaign finance laws is a dance done by both political parties. To pretend otherwise is hypocritical. And having DeLay indicted for violating campaign finance laws in Texas is like indicting a politician for kissing babies; it may be true but given the nature of the beast and the fact that everyone does it, how can you do it in good conscience?

The funniest observer of Texas politics, Molly Ivins, has said “Good thing we’ve still got politics in Texas — finest form of free entertainment ever invented…. ” The Loony Toons moment of indicting Tom DeLay will probably be good for a few laughs but I suspect Ronnie Earle will share the fate of Elmer Fudd and other Bugs Bunny nemeses and will end up in the stew pot himself instead of the “wascally wabbit.”

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin has an outstanding round-up of both blogger and media reaction to the indictment. Press react this morning has been predictable with a New York Times editorial calling for DeLay’s permanent removal from his leadership position and having a disguised editorial on the front page gleefully listing what they consider to be Republican baggage going into the midterms next year.

Also, the Captain weighs in with WaPo’s surprising skepticism regarding the indictment.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

There is a school of thought that believes the idea of loyalty to one’s country is a crass, outmoded concept not worthy of consideration by thinking people. Rather, loyalty if given at all, should be reserved for nebulous and ethereal entities like “humanity” or “the family of man.” International socialism has long advocated this global view of loyalty - except, of course, when the old Soviet Union was in trouble for one of its frequent deviations from civilized behavior. It was at this point that Moscow would crack the whip and leftists from Berlin, to London, to Los Angeles would dutifully parrot the party line, excusing the brutes in the Kremlin for all sorts of very unsocialist and inhuman atrocities.

Thankfully, this view of loyalty is not shared by the vast majority of citizens in the United States. Most Americans recognize the importance of loyalty to the government during a time of war when America’s sons and daughters are in harm’s way. This has never been more evident than when looking at how we view the war in Iraq.

According to the latest polls, barely 40% of the country approves of the way that President Bush is conducting the war in Iraq. But when asked if we should pull our troops out before the job of securing the country and helping the Iraqis achieve a stable, democratic government is complete fully two thirds of Americans say no. This slap in the face to the leftist narrative of how the American people see the war in Iraq seems to have been lost on this past weekend’s partygoers in Washington whose speakers continued to insist that the majority of the people opposed the war and wished the troops to come home.

Leave it to the left to never let the truth stand in the way of a good old fashioned Soviet-style propaganda campaign.

True, there are permutations within permutations in the poll numbers. One of the more remarkable tidbits to be found in these figures is the fact that the belief that the war was a “mistake” because no mass stockpiles of WMD were found has hovered near the 50% mark for more than a year. What makes it remarkable is that even though roughly half the nation thinks going into Iraq was an error, a sizable portion of those people also believe we should stay until the job is done.

The left would point to these Americans and call them confused. I think they should be congratulated for their loyalty. What the left sees as stupidity, I see typical American common sense. Most Americans - even those who opposed going to war in the first place - realize the dire consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The destabilization and possible collapse of the Iraqi government would place America in great danger and would be inimical to our national interest. This fact is so obvious that it calls into question why almost all of the speakers at the anti-war rally in Washington on Saturday called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops.

To understand why one need only look a little closer at the motley collection of socialists, anarchists, anti-globalists, pan-Arabists, post modern deconstructionists, one worlders, and racialists who descended on Washington for their moment in the media spotlight. If there’s one thing the tatterdemalion left has become over these last lost years since the fall of the Soviet Union it is publicity deprived. They are absolutely starved for media attention. Even the anarchists can’t have a decent riot that hardly rates a blurb in The Guardian. Part of the problem is the fractured nature of their “coalition.” The only way they could get the kind of numbers necessary to get anyone to pay any attention to them was by inviting everyone in the world who has a grudge against America.

Hence, most of the podium speakers at the rally were not there to solely promote an anti-war agenda but rather each had their own particular anti-American ax to grind. The racialists called for an end to racism. The tribalists called for an end to capitalism. The primitives called for an end to industrialized civilization. The greenies called for an end to everything else. Yes, they all paid lip service to the anti-war message that brought them together in the first place. But their real reason for bringing their followers to Washington was to garner support from the hard-left moneymen like George Soros and leftist PR gurus like David Fenton who is currently managing Cindy Sheehan’s race toward obscurity. A few dollars here and there gleaned from the Smart Set in Washington will at least keep the mimeograph machines going and pay the rent for a few more months.

Not surprisingly, there was very little talk of loyalty. When “patriotism” was brought up, we were continually assured that yes, these were indeed patriotic Americans who only wanted to exercise their right to dissent from government. Of that, I have little doubt. The question isn’t whether they are patriotic Americans, the questions is are they loyal Americans?

The two terms are related but not mutually exclusive. Patriotism is a feeling, a “love or devotion to one’s country.” Loyalty, by definition, is an action word. It is “allegiance to one’s country” or “faithfulness to one’s government.” Many a traitor has come and gone calling themselves “patriots.” Few would agree that they were being loyal.

How does the left get around this little non-sequitur? They huffily point out that they are being loyal to the “idea” of America or “American ideals.” Since these ideals were present at the founding of the nation, it is perhaps gratifying that so many on the left have finally embraced the idea of strict constructionism - at least when it becomes a convenient explanation for their perfidy in giving aid and comfort to an enemy that is shooting at American soldiers overseas.

For that is what the demonstrators in Washington forgot to mention in all their sloganeering and speechifying; the fact that the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq have only one chance to achieve their goal of overthrowing the Iraqi government and gaining power. And that is only if America walks away before the job is done.

They are hoping that history repeats itself and America abandons an ally to its fate as a result of both timid policy makers and domestic opposition to the war. And since this hope is all that the insurgents have to go on (for they can never defeat the US military on the field of battle), leftist opposition to the war can only be judged as disloyalty. They can call themselves patriots if they want. There is no way we can look into their souls and judge their love or hate for the United States. But we can certainly judge their loyalty based on their actions - actions that have the practical affect of encouraging the insurgents in Iraq to up the body count of Americans to test the mettle of our citizenry to stay the course until the job is well and truly done.

As the democratic process in Iraq moves forward in fits and starts and the Iraqi people slowly and cautiously march toward an uncertain future that may yet include sectarian violence and other setbacks in achieving national unity, the need for our troops to stay and assist them in this historic task will remain great. And to sustain our elected leaders in this hard, slogging task with our loyalty will become more and more critical as time goes by. It no doubt is the greatest test of our fealty to the United States government that many of us will ever have. But it will be absolutely necessary for us to win through to total victory and bring our sons and daughters home in triumph.