Change fail

As a friend of mine sometimes likes to say when something outrageous and silly happens, "Really? We're doin' this now?"

It appears that the Obama Administration's Department of Justice has not only embraced some of the more ridiculous claims of the Bush Administration when it comes to the wiretapping and surveillance of domestic communications, but has actually gone even further.

Not cool.

Glenn Greenwald lays it out like this:

...EFF -- which was the lead counsel in the lawsuits against the telecoms -- thereafter filed suit, in October, 2008, against the Bush administration and various Bush officials for illegally spying on the communications of Americans. They were seeking to make good on the promise made by Congressional Democrats: namely, that even though lawsuits against telecoms for illegal spying will not be allowed any longer, government officials who broke the law can still be held accountable.

But late Friday afternoon, the Obama DOJ filed the government's first response to EFF's lawsuit (.pdf), the first of its kind to seek damages against government officials under FISA, the Wiretap Act and other statutes, arising out of Bush's NSA program. But the Obama DOJ demanded dismissal of the entire lawsuit based on (1) its Bush-mimicking claim that the "state secrets" privilege bars any lawsuits against the Bush administration for illegal spying, and (2) a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim of breathtaking scope -- never before advanced even by the Bush administration -- that the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is "willful disclosure" of the illegally intercepted communications.

This is absolutely unacceptable. Obama and his staff have already done a lot of good for this country, rolling back many of the more egregious pieces of legislation passed under Bush and pushing for many progressive programs, but that by no means buys them a free pass to get crazy in other areas.

And crazy they've gotten, in terms of basically reaffirming and actually expanding upon every single one of the Bush DoJ's radical secrecy powers.

There is simply no reason whatsoever that the government needs to be or should be allowed to spy on its own citizens without warrant. The sheer volume of information gathered through such means alone is grounds for criticism, as no amount of man or computing power could possibly sort through it all to find the potentially relevant tidbits. But even more important is the issue of legality and civil rights. We the People have the right not to be eavesdropped on at the whim of government.

And yet? That's exactly what they have been, and likely will continue to be doing. The insult to injury is that the government is now saying that we have no recourse to hold them accountable for these illegal actions. It's essentially the DoJ giving American citizens the ol' Scalia va fanculo.

Greenwald again sums it up well:

Thus: how the U.S. government eavesdrops on its citizens is too secret to allow a court to determine its legality. We must just blindly accept the claims from the President's DNI that we will all be endangered if we allow courts to determine the legality of the President's actions. Even confirming or denying already publicly known facts -- such as the involvement of the telecoms and the massive data-mining programs -- would be too damaging to national security. Why? Because the DNI says so. It is not merely specific documents, but entire lawsuits, that must be dismissed in advance as soon as the privilege is asserted because "its very subject matter would inherently risk or require the disclosure of state secrets."

What's being asserted here by the Obama DOJ is the virtually absolute power of presidential secrecy, the right to break the law with no consequences, and immunity from surveillance lawsuits so sweeping that one can hardly believe that it's being claimed with a straight face. It is simply inexcusable for those who spent the last several years screaming when the Bush administration did exactly this to remain silent now or, worse, to search for excuses to justify this behavior.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Heck, even Keith Olbermann is deeply displeased with the move, and he's been one of Obama's biggest cheerleaders. You should know you've messed up pretty royally when you've pissed off such a loyal supporter.

So are we going to sit back and continue to allow this sort of gross violation of our rights to go unchecked? I sure as hell hope not. Thankfully, we've got organizations like the EFF and ACLU getting our backs, but it's going to take all of us standing up and speaking out, working to hold the appropriate people appropriately accountable, to make the big difference.

Otherwise, we have no right to call ourselves a democracy.

Illegal hiring practices at the DoJ

The first part of a report that seems to confirm what we've suspected all along about hiring practices at the DoJ during the Bush administration:

Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used “political or ideological” factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.

I'm overjoyed to see that someone is following up on this, but sadly, won't be surprised if no one of consequence is held accountable for it. These days, the most the public can seem to hope for is that the wrongdoings are brought to light. Hoping for the responsible parties to meet with appropriate punishment, however, is far too often all for naught.

Maybe I'll be surprised this time.

As cynical as this administration (and our mostly spineless Democrats) has made me over the last eight years, I can't help but still be royally pissed off at the rough shod that's been run over this country's most essential organizations (DoJ, FEMA, CIA, etc.) and most dearly held rights and ideals. No one is being held accountable. At most, they get a slap on the wrist and a well-paid job with some lobbying firm--which, really, seems to be the new American way. And that's a crying fucking shame, and we need to actually do something about it.

We can never deter everyone from doing anything wrong--that's a pipe dream if ever there was one. Thing is, we've done very little to deter anyone from doing anything wrong. What kind of example is that to set?

Stranger at the gate

What's so terrifying about homosexuality?

Is it something in certain peoples' deep, primal psyches that takes issue with their inherent inability to procreate together? Bigotry and fear instilled by a religious system that decided to stigmatize homosexuality because its original oppressors (see: Romans) practiced it so freely? Ignorance? All of the above?

It can't be because it's "unnatural." Homosexuality exists in several species of animal--bonobos, dolphins, various birds, elephants, even lizards and fruit flies--and has been a recorded part of human history since we started keeping track.

It can't be because it's "harmful." Harmful to whom? I can't find a shred of unbiased research that shows any significantly higher risk of medical problems for homosexuals. Contrary to common stereotypes, gays and lesbians are no more or less promiscuous, prone to mental illness or likely to molest children than people who identify as straight. If anything, the only extra harm involved in being gay is that which comes from discrimination and hatred by other people.

So why is it, then, that homophobia is still so rampant?

Today, I read about Tammy Baldwin's partner being initially denied permission to fly with her on a military flight for a congressional trip to Europe. It took the intervention of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to secure an exception. Now, whether or not you agree that members of Congress should be allowed to bring spouses along on these trips, the fact remains that Baldwin's spouse was specifically disallowed because the Pentagon/military doesn't recognize same-sex partnerships.

This is ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as our military continuing to use the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" rule.

Then, I read about further investigations into the US Attorney firings at the Justice Department, and how in at least one case, it looks very much like a highly qualified attorney was fired specifically because of rumors that she was gay. This part is especially telling:

The Justice Department's inspector general is looking into whether Hagen was dismissed after a rumor reached Goodling that Hagen is a lesbian.

As one Republican source put it, "To some people, that's even worse than being a Democrat."

Worse than being a Democrat. Is that how we want to run our country? By firing highly skilled professionals based on personal prejudices and then replacing them with less qualified partisan sycophants? I wouldn't want that to happen regardless of the political party that was doing it, period.

Gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in all levels and branches of the government and military, no exceptions. They're already there (and have always been), doing what they believe is their duty to their country, regardless of what the rules say. They should be judged for the positions applied for in the same manner as anyone: by their actual skills, records of service, etc--you know, qualifications for the job. Anything less is not only mean-spirited, it's short-sighted and detrimental to the improvement and safety of our country.

This sort of institutionalized discrimination should never be tolerated, especially so in a country founded on the idea that everyone should get a fair shake in life.