Welcome! Log in or register to comment on the blog posts you see here, or even write your own blog post! Find out how to use this site, and join the conversation today!
I've been thinking about this story, and how it is related to a number of other accounts of misbehavior by various government officials. They all qualify as instances of the security theater that rules our post-9/11 world, although there are some additional dynamics involved in Prince George's County.
Law enforcement misconduct in PG - too big a problem for simple fixes. Even if he were an honest and honorable guy (which he ain't), County Executive Jack Johnson would have had a huge challenge meeting his 2002 campaign promise to fix the police force. Holding our police accountable, while expecting them to work hard and expose themselves to great risk to keep crime under control, will be a daunting task for any political leader - as good as he is, I don't see Glenn Ivey fixing this problem, although he really needs to make some very tough but necessary decisions in this awful jail house murder. Are there enough honorable, tough, smart, community-loyal people available to get this beast under control, and will we citizens have their backs on any efforts they make? Or will law enforcement be given carte blanche because of fears that they will otherwise not do their jobs, and let crime get (even more) out of control?
State law enforcement surveillance of peace activists - a jump on the Homeland Security gravy train? With severe budgetary problems, all Maryland government departments are under pressure to reduce their expectations from the state's taxpayer-funded coffers. Local law enforcement has the opportunity to obtain funding from Federal sources, particularly (after 9/11) DHS. Given the nature of our (outgoing) federal administration, what better way to make a favorable impression on the puppetmasters of Security Theater than to spy on a bunch of scruffy hippies and ne'er-do-well peaceniks. The only alternative explanation is that the state's chief cop really does fear these peace-loving types, but I prefer to assume that such a level of sheer idiocy is limited to those fools in our national commentariat who surely must check under their beds nightly for hippies and Commies.
Barbara Mikulski, FISA, and telecom immunity. My latest speculation on why Senator Mikulski was so unconcerned about complying with her Senate oath to uphold the Constitution concerns jobs. Specifically, the best kind of jobs - stable and well paying government and government-contract jobs - that are offered by agencies such as NSA at Ft. Meade, and no doubt include a large number of supporting contract jobs. I recently read somewhere that Maryland citizens have the highest average salary of any state in the union. Whether that is exactly true - and I tend to believe it - Maryland certainly does well in the category of professional jobs connected to the Federal government. As such, Maryland politicians like Mikulski are particularly susceptible to the kind of economic blackmail that can severely test their honor and ethics. Hopefully Obama will care more about civil liberties than was indicated by his flip-flop on telecom immunity, which may have been a necessary nod to campaign politics. Even if he works out, though, it would behoove the state development folks to diversify a bit, to the extent our sad economic situation will permit it.
I hope we can honor the sacrifice of past generations by stopping - or at least slowing down - the ongoing erosion of our constitutional rights at the local and national level.
Bush' version of the FISA bill, with telecom immunity, passed the senate 69-28. And again, Ben Cardin was on the right side of the issue and Barbara Mikulski was on the wrong side. I was an Mfume supporter during the last primary, but I've been very impressed with Cardin since he took office. I just wish Mikulski weren't playing the moderate so much now. Whenever she does retire, getting a bona fide progressive elected to that seat needs to be priority number one.
Side note: Clinton voted against immunity, while Obama voted for it. Of course, Clinton now has the luxury of not running a campaign, but it's another pro-Hillary notch in my book. I started the primary season not really believing her or trusting her, and she's slowly managed to earn my respect. She'd make a great majority leader...
It seems a little quixotic at this point, since it looks like the Senate will vote overwhelmingly in favor of the "compromise" on warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity that will sweep the whole matter of the Bush administration's abuse of its surveillance powers under the rug, but we should let our Senators know that this vote to amend FISA is important, and one that we will remember. (For the record, Ben Cardin is against retroactive immunity, while Barbara Mikulski is in favor.)
I'm also going to throw in Barack Obama's contact info; as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he should know that this is not an issue he can falter on and still claim the mantle of change:
PolitickerMD reports that the Fifth Congressional District is getting hit with robocalls from the Blue America PAC and Color of Change criticizing Steny Hoyer's support for retroactive immunity. The call seems to be based on this video by the Rev. Lennox Yearwood:
I doubt that robocalls are going to change anyone's mind or motivate people to press on Hoyer to change course, but it could serve as a wake-up call.
Via all around random blog Boing Boing, apparently this image was on the front page of the AT&T billing site. The poster at BB seems to think it's a joke about warrentless wire-tapping. I think it was probably meant to be some sort of joke about hiding your phone records from someone. Which is bad too. I mean, if AT&T was going for edgy, they ended up overshooting just a wee bit. And whatever way it was meant, the timing of the ad is a little unfortunate.
The Post's Maryland Moment has a nice little posting that describes Donna Edwards' first couple of days in office. This is why elections shouldn't just be about electing more democrats, but better democrats as well:
Day 1: Sworn into office. Votes in favor of H.R. 5781, giving federal employees the option of using accumulated sick and personal leave for up to 8 weeks of paid parental leave in order to take care of newly born or adopted children. How's that for actually taking action in favor of families rather than just paying lip service to family values.
Day 2: Votes against FISA changes, in opposition to giving telecom companies immunity from, you know, actually being punished for breaking a law.
...definitely makes all the phone calls and door knocking worthwhile.
After Steny Hoyer's shameful performance in pushing the FISA bill through the House [which just sailed through the cloture vote in the Senate --IS], there's been talk about putting up a primary challenge to him in 2010. Even if it's only a protest candidacy, it might at least register the outrage many Democrats feel about their party's leadership giving in to Republicans' demands to let telecom companies break the law, and then turning around and portraying it as a victory for Democrats. It was infuriating enough when Democrats were in the minority, but to see Hoyer, et al, do the same thing as the majority party is almost inexplicable.
But is a primary challenge the best way to hold Hoyer accountable? I see three things to consider here:
Is FISA a big enough deal that Hoyer ought to be taken out because of it? Certainly for many Democrats, it is: Not only is Hoyer abetting the Bush administration's erosion of the Fourth Amendment, but by implicitly conceding that the Republican position is right, he is giving them an unearned victory in the national security debate. On the other hand, while rank and file Democrats are exercised over it, it's less clear that the broader public feels the same way. Yet again, FISA capitulation could be the issue that leads to a broader discontent with Hoyer, much as Al Wynn's attempts to quash net neutrality led to the discovery of a whole set of issues where he was serving his constituents poorly.
If we answer yes to the above, could you find a candidate wiling and able to run against Hoyer? That's tricky. Hoyer's got connections to just about everybody in the Maryland Democratic Party; unlike Wynn, Hoyer has been pretty successful in making more friends than enemies during his career. Moreover, the Fourth District was extremely lucky that someone as smart and talented as Donna Edwards decided to run for office when she did. It's possible that someone of similar caliber is willing to risk it (Populista mentions Paul Pinsky, my state senator, for example), but even then, it would be very much a long shot candidacy.
And lastly, does a primary challenge potentially put Hoyer's seat at risk of being scooped up by Republicans? The Fifth District has a Partisan Voting Index of D+9, and Hoyer hasn't faced a viable Republican opponent in years. At the same time, the Fifth District has a fairly high proportion of rural and conservative voters compared to neighboring districts; if and when Hoyer decides to leave Congress, the GOP will likely make a strong play for the seat.
So while it's possible that someone could mount a successful primary challenge to Hoyer, the stars would have to align in a very precise manner for that to happen. Besides, I suspect that, for better or worse, FISA, warrantless surveillance, telecom immunity could well be old news by 2010: The Bush administration's obsession with secrecy and unaccountable power is sui generis, and while the FISA "compromise" sets a bad precedent, I doubt it will survive a Barack Obama presidency. If John McCain is elected, on the other hand, we may still have a problem.
UPDATE: The Great Orange Satan's discussion of primary challenges in 2010 is worth a read.
Looks like Donna Edwards will be hitting the ground running today, with the House set to vote on a "compromise" concerning President Bush's warrantless surveillance program and retroactive immunity for telecoms that assisted the government in doing so. I use scare quotes because even a casual glance at the proposal shows that it essentially gives the Bush administration what it wants; i.e., freedom from ever being held accountable for their repeated violations of the Fourth Amendment. Even the Republicans aren't calling it a compromise, and with good reason: Whereas before the Bush administration wanted telecoms to be given blanket immunity, under the new proposal immunity would only be granted if the telecoms can show a judge that they participated in the warrantless wiretapping program at the behest of the government. I have a hard time believing any of the telecoms in question here will find it difficult to meet that standard.
I'll leave it to others to discuss the implications this "compromise" has for civil liberties in this country; right now I want to focus on the fact it was Steny Hoyer, my congressman, who engineered it, and has succeeded in getting it voted on with almost no time for debate. It probably shouldn't surprise me by now that Hoyer, like too many other Democrats, is willing to compromise on core Constitutional issues in order to avoid "looking weak" on national security. What's galling about this recent turn is that there seems to be no reason why they made this "compromise" in the first place. President Bush commands almost no respect anymore, and the Republicans are now losing on every issue, even national security. Indeed, four months ago, Hoyer and the Democrats recognized this and said "no deal" on retroactive immunity. What impelled them to reverse course so dramatically is beyond me.
