Samuel Alito v. James Madison

No member of the Senate who takes seriously the oath they have sworn to defend the Constitution will vote to confirm judicial activist Samuel Alito's nomination to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

To a greater extent than any nominee for the high court in recent memory, and very possibly in the long history of the country, Alito has placed himself clearly and unequivocally at odds with the original intent of the authors of the Constitution and the incontrovertible language of the document.

Alito is consistently on record as favoring steps by the White House to -- in his words -- ''increase the power of the executive to shape the law." Twenty years ago, as a member of the Reagan administration, Alito was in the forefront of efforts to legitimize executive power grabs designed to allow presidents to take dramatic actions, sometimes in secret, without the advice and consent of Congress.

In a 1986 draft memo that advised Reagan and his aides on how to assure that their interpretations of official actions trumped those of the legislative branch, Alito acknowledged that his approach would put the White House at odds with the Congress. "The novelty of the procedure and the potential increase of presidential power are two factors that may account for this anticipated reaction," Alito argued. "In addition, and perhaps most important, Congress is likely to resent the fact that the president will get in the last word on questions of interpretation."

The Reagan administration never fully embraced Alito's proposals, but the Bush administration has. And Alito has been cheering the process of executive power enhancement on, telling the Federalist Society in an address five years ago that, "The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power -- the whole thing."

The "whole-thing" approach adopted by George Bush and Dick Cheney has placed the current administration on a collision course with the Constitution. And it will be the Supreme Court that must sort through the wreckage.

With the high court widely expected to rule on multiple cases involving questions about presidential warmaking, the War Powers Act and domestic manifestations of the Bush administration's so-called "war on terror," the position of every justice on issues of executive authority becomes more significant. And potential changes in the court that might make it more deferrent to an executive branch that appears to be bent on eliminating all checks and balances -- as the confirmation of Alito would surely do -- are, necessarily, the most consequential of matters.

What is at issue here is not a grey area of the legal interpretation.

The authors of the Constitution were absolutely determined to prevent presidents from making war without the consent of Congress, and from abusing a state of war to curtail domestic liberties.

James Madison, the essential drafter of the Constitution who would go on to serve as the nation's fourth president, expressed the concern of the founders when he wrote: "Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals, engendered in both. No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

Madison added that, "War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasuries are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venal love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace." Madison's view was confirmed by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when delegates overwhelmingly approved a motion to deny presidents the power to "make war." That resolution was introduced by Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman, another key player in the shaping of the document, who explained that, "The executive should be able to repel and not to commence war."

George Mason, the Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention who is often remembered as "the Father of the Bill of Rights," said at the time, "I am for clogging rather than facilitating war."

John Marshall, a participant in the Virginia ratifying convention that approved the Constitution, would go on to serve as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In that capacity, he would be called upon to interpret the Constitution with regard to the exercise of war powers by the executive. Writing for a unanimous court in 1801, Marshall asserted that, "The whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States, vested in Congress, the acts of that body alone can be resorted to as our guides."

Much has been done to undermine the system of checks and balances that the founders wrote into the Constitution to control against executive excess. But, as recently as 2004, the court reaffirmed the basic principle that the president must operate within strict constraints in a time of war. Ruling that the Executive Branch does not have the power to hold indefinitely a U.S. citizen without basic due process protections, the court rebuked the Bush administration's actions with an opinion that declared, "A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

The author of that statement was Sandra Day O'Connor, the retiring justice who Alito has been nominated to replace.

Justice O'Connor, who could hardly be referred to as a strict constuctionist, was not merely expressing an opinion with her defense of checks and balances on the executive. She was affirming the Constitution, and she was doing so in a manner that respected the intentions of the founders -- something Samuel Alito's record suggests that he is entirely incapable of doing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols's new book, Against the Beast: A Documentary History of American Opposition to Empire (Nation Books) examines the long record of Congressional checks and balances upon presidential abuses in times of war. Howard Zinn says, "At exactly the when we need it most, John Nichols gives us a special gift--a collection of writings, speeches, poems and songs from thoughout American history--that reminds us that our revulsion to war and empire has a long and noble tradition in this country." Frances Moore Lappe calls Against the Beast, "Brilliant! A perfect book for an empire in denial." Against the Beast can be found at independent bookstores nationwide and can be obtained online by tapping the above reference or at www.amazon.com

Comments (80)

1. This is the issue for Alito. This should have been the issue with Roberts. Hopefully our Senators and MSM will focus on this rather than red meat social issues.

   Posted by Hman23 at 01/06/2006 @ 2:40pm

2. HMAN

   You hit on it...It SHOULD have been an issue with Roberts, yet Mr Nichols "buddy", Russ Feingold let him slide and said "Welcome aborad, Chief Justice".

   But I must say it's humorous to see a progressive like Mr Nichols arguing FOR "original intent"!

   Posted by Mask at 01/06/2006 @ 2:48pm

3. "MSM will focus on this rather than red meat social issues. "

   And likewise conservatives hope the focus will be on the social issues as that's what the majority of the people in those big red states care about.

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/06/2006 @ 2:55pm

4. Mask:

   So I take it that in this case, you agree with Mr. Nichols?

   Posted by Hman23 at 01/06/2006 @ 3:07pm

5. Funny, Mask, but let's see how many originalist conservatives will actually oppose Alito.

   So, who is the hypocrite here?

   Posted by Hman23 at 01/06/2006 @ 3:09pm

6. Yes Todd, unfortunately for everyone in the country "thoee big red states" don't understand that the "red meat social issues" pale in comparison to the importance of checks and balances. Who cares about abortion, gay marriage, etc. when we are all under the rule of a dictator that can jail and torture us when he wants. Not that that is something 99% of Americans should fear now, but what happens in 2 or 3 years or more (especially if Bush and Co. can come up with a way for him to retain the presidency after his 2 terms...I wouldn't put it past them to come up with some scheme).

   Posted by BlueTexan at 01/06/2006 @ 3:16pm

7. Thank you for that opening statement. My only fear is that members of the Senate will not be voting to defend the Constitution and will allow an extremist such as Alito to be confirmed. For those who care enough not to roll back to a Reagan era or to give unlimited power to the president, please encourage your Senators to block the Alito confirmation and call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

   Posted by daisyk06 at 01/06/2006 @ 3:20pm

8. Yes, Todd, Republicans are great at pandering to you on those social issues. But, once in office, they tend to ignore them, don't they?

   Posted by Hman23 at 01/06/2006 @ 3:22pm

9. Bluetexan,

   "Who cares about abortion, gay marriage, etc. when we are all under the rule of a dictator that can jail and torture us when he wants."

   Stupid question...

   Answer: Me... and millions of other Americans.

   And if this wasn't the case, Bush wouldn't be President, Alito wouldn't be nominated, we wouldn't be at war in Iraq, and everything else that liberals don't like wouldn't be happening.

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/06/2006 @ 3:46pm

10. so, todd, would it be ok with you if people were publicly beheaded for chewing gum? where does your tolerance for losing your rights end? where is that line with you?

    Posted by loveloki at 01/06/2006 @ 3:55pm

11. Todd, have you forgotten the circumstances by which Bush has been elected? He doesn't represent the majority of Americans.

    So go on and busy yourself about what women do to their bodies and two people of the same sex do to each other in the bedroom, while the big kids will concern ourselves with the Constitutional viability of this country.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 01/06/2006 @ 3:55pm

12. Bluetexan,

    "So go on and busy yourself about what women do to their bodies and two people of the same sex do to each other in the bedroom, while the big kids will concern ourselves with the Constitutional viability of this country."

    No thanks, I'll continue to go to the polls and vote on the social conservative issues and for the politicians that I believe will stand up for them the most whether you like it or not.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/06/2006 @ 3:58pm

13. Hman,

    "Yes, Todd, Republicans are great at pandering to you on those social issues. But, once in office, they tend to ignore them, don't they?"

    No, not necessarily. The ones we voted into office here in Oklahoma helped us amend our state constitution to clarify that marriage constitutes the union of one man and one woman, and it further stipulates our state will not acknowledge same sex unions made from outside our state.

    Some of them do the things they say they stand for while campaigning.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/06/2006 @ 4:00pm

14. Mask:

    You hit it on the head. Roberts' position on executive power may be is as troubling as Alito's, and the MSM and Senate Democracts totally gave him a pass. On the other hand, timing is everything. Let's see what happens now.

    Todd:

    You're right that Red State Right Wingers do care about the social issues. It never fails to amaze me that -- like the Senate Democrats, an equally stupid group -- the Red Staters do not understand that the really important stuff are less "sexy" issues like executive power. Indeed, social issues like Gay Marriage and Abortion are really a distraction. Why do I say that? First, because if the Supreme Court returns jurisdiction over abortion to the states, only those unfortunate (foolish?) enough to live in the really backward states will be affected. For those of us living in Illinois, California, New York and the other 30 plus states with pretty liberal abortion statues, the substantive result of any such eventuality will be null. It will also turn pro-choice Republicans against the Republican Party and make them into a small minority party of religious fanatics and other assorted numnuts. Second, since Gay Marriage is a state issue now, it is really nothing more than a distraction to keep the yahoos focused on an irrelevancy.

    Posted by trabaris at 01/06/2006 @ 4:03pm

15. Todd, okay then. Don't come whinning to me when the right to vote has been taken away from you by the Dictator-In-Chief.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 01/06/2006 @ 4:11pm

16. TRABARIS:

    Great points. For this reason, I would not be shocked if Roberts (or Alito, if confirmed) votes to uphold Roe v. Wade, but of course Todd will be outraged. Then he will see what I mean. I suspect that national Republican strategists do not want a full "win" on the abortion or gay rights issues because the result will fracture their party, like you say. It is better for the issues to remain in the disputed area so they can keep using them as a wedge and to pander votes from the social conservatives.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/06/2006 @ 4:25pm

17. No matter how much SHIT you LIBS throw against Alito...He will sail through the senate because your weakling LIB leaders dont have the BALLS to stop him and there is nothing you out of power crybabies can do about it..It is a glorius site watching you detestable LIBS CRACKUP.

    Posted by fuclibs at 01/06/2006 @ 4:31pm

18. HMAN23:

    I couldn't agree more. I predict that Alito and Roberts would allow for states to impose some restrictions (parental notice for minors, for example) but probably not to overturn. While Bush may be too stupid to understand, you can bet that Rove and Cheney know that to overturn Rove would be a complete disaster for the Republican party. That is why the Senate Democrats and the more throughtful Republicans should focus on executive power issues, at least in my opinion.

    Posted by trabaris at 01/06/2006 @ 4:32pm

19. .

    John Nichols v Fairness

    Alito is consistently on record as favoring steps by the White House to -- in his words -- ''increase the power of the executive to shape the law."

    Is Nichols fresh off the farm? Would he hold Samuel Alito responsible for crafty legal maneuvers whereby he got a bank robber or an embezzler off scot free? Does he not know a lawyer's function is to support a client's stake or position? And not just in criminal cases. That holds in business mergers, patent applications, real estate deals, prenuptial agreements, union negotiations, movie contracts, etc. It certainly also pretains in govt turf battles and legislative wrangling. Holding a lawyer responsible for the support he gave a client is crazy.

    Nichols adds insult to injury by going on about the Founding Father's concerns about undertaking war, as if it must be assumed that Alito is cavalier on the matter. That is demagogy.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 01/06/2006 @ 5:36pm

20. NACL:

    There are limits to what a lawyer can advocate for ANY client. A lawyer's duty is also quite different when his client took an oath to observe and uphold the Constitution.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/06/2006 @ 5:43pm

21. Thanks, Blue, but may I add I have to agree with the person now on my ignore list who tried to rebut on the social issues to the extent that gay rights and abortion rights must be preserved. That, too, is important.

    Posted by ash at 01/06/2006 @ 5:48pm

22. Todd's positions, which I do not read except second hand, may be summarized as grrr, kill, kill.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/06/2006 @ 5:51pm

23. Saddam's Terror Training Camps What the documents captured from the former Iraqi regime reveal--and why they should all be made public.

    by Stephen F. Hayes 01/16/2006, Volume 011, Issue 17

    THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

    The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.

    The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million "exploitable items" captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives. Taken together, this collection could give U.S. intelligence officials and policymakers an inside look at the activities of the former Iraqi regime in the months and years before the Iraq War.

    The discovery of the information on jihadist training camps in Iraq would seem to have two major consequences: It exposes the flawed assumptions of the experts and U.S. intelligence officials who told us for years that a secularist like Saddam Hussein would never work with Islamic radicals, any more than such jihadists would work with an infidel like the Iraqi dictator. It also reminds us that valuable information remains buried in the mountain of documents recovered in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past four years.

    Nearly three years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, only 50,000 of these 2 million "exploitable items" have been thoroughly examined. That's 2.5 percent. Despite the hard work of the individuals working on the "DOCEX" project, the process is not moving quickly enough, says Michael Tanji, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official who helped lead the document exploitation effort for 18 months. "At this rate," he says, "if we continue to approach DOCEX in a linear fashion, our great-grandchildren will still be sorting through this stuff."

    Most of the 50,000 translated documents relate directly to weapons of mass destruction programs and scientists, since David Kay and his Iraq Survey Group--who were among the first to analyze the finds--considered those items top priority. "At first, if it wasn't WMD, it wasn't translated. It wasn't exploited," says a former military intelligence officer who worked on the documents in Iraq.

    Posted by fuclibs at 01/06/2006 @ 6:20pm

24. "We had boxloads of Iraqi Intelligence records--their names, their jobs, all sorts of detailed information," says the former military intelligence officer. "In an insurgency, wouldn't that have been helpful?"

    How many of those unexploited documents might help us better understand the role of Iraq in supporting transregional terrorists? How many of those documents might provide important intelligence on the very people--Baathists, former regime officials, Saddam Fedayeen, foreign fighters trained in Iraq--that U.S. soldiers are fighting in Iraq today? Is what we don't know literally killing us?

    ON NOVEMBER 17, 2005, Michigan representative Pete Hoekstra wrote to John Negroponte, the new director of national intelligence. Hoekstra is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He provided Negroponte a list of 40 documents recovered in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan and asked to see them. The documents were translated or summarized, given titles by intelligence analysts in the field, and entered into a government database known as HARMONY. Most of them are unclassified.

    For several weeks, Hoekstra was promised a response. He finally got one on December 28, 2005, in a meeting with General Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of national intelligence. Hayden handed Hoekstra a letter from Negroponte that promised a response after January 1, 2006. Hoekstra took the letter, read it, and scribbled his terse response. "John--Unacceptable." Hoekstra told Hayden that he would expect to hear something before the end of the year. He didn't.

    "I can tell you that I'm reaching the point of extreme frustration," said Hoekstra, in a phone interview last Thursday. His exasperated tone made the claim unnecessary. "It's just an indication that rather than having a nimble, quick intelligence community that can respond quickly, it's still a lumbering bureaucracy that can't give the chairman of the intelligence committee answers relatively quickly. Forget quickly, they can't even give me answers slowly."

    On Friday, however, Hoekstra finally heard from Negroponte. The director of national intelligence told Hoekstra that he is committed to expedited the exploitation and release of the Iraqi documents. According to Hoekstra, Negroponte said: "I'm giving this as much attention as anything else on my plate to make this work."

    Other members of Congress--including Rep. Dana Rohrahacher and Senators Rick Santorum and Pat Roberts--also demanded more information from the Bush administration on the status of the vast document collection. Santorum and Hoekstra have raised the issue personally with President Bush. This external pressure triggered an internal debate at the highest levels of the administration. Following several weeks of debate, a consensus has emerged: The vast majority of the 2 million captured documents should be released publicly as soon as possible.

    Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has convened several meetings in recent weeks to discuss the Pentagon's role in expediting the release of the information. According to several sources familiar with his thinking, Rumsfeld is pushing aggressively for a massive dump of the captured documents. "He has a sense that public vetting of this information is likely to be as good an astringent as any other process we could develop," says Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita.

    The main worry, says DiRita, is that the mainstream press might cherry-pick documents and mischaracterize their meaning. "There is always the concern that people would be chasing a lot of information good or bad, and when the Times or the Post splashes a headline about some sensational-sounding document that would seem to 'prove' that sanctions were working, or that Saddam was just a misunderstood patriot, or some other nonsense, we'd spend a lot of time chasing around after it."

    This is a view many officials attributed to Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Steve Cambone. (Cambone, through a spokesman, declined to be interviewed.) For months, Cambone has argued internally against expediting the release of the documents. "Cambone is the problem," says one former Bush administration official who wants the documents released. "He has blocked this every step of the way." In what is perhaps a sign of a changing dynamic within the administration, Cambone is now saying that he, like his boss, favors a broad document release.

    Although Hoekstra, too, has been pushing hard for the quick release of all of the documents, he is currently focusing his efforts simply on obtaining the 40 documents he asked for in November. "There comes a time when the talking has to stop and I get the documents. I requested these documents six weeks ago and I have not seen a single piece of paper yet."

    Is Hoekstra being unreasonable? I asked Michael Tanji, the former DOCEX official with the Defense Intelligence Agency, how long such a search might take. His answer: Not long. "The retrieval of a HARMONY document is a trivial thing assuming one has a serial number or enough keyword terms to narrow down a search [Hoekstra did]. If given the task when they walked in the door, one person should be able to retrieve 40 documents before lunch."

    Tanji should know. He left DIA last year as the chief of the media exploitation division in the office of document exploitation. Before that, he started and managed a digital forensics and intelligence fusion program that used the data obtained from DOCEX operations. He began his career as an Army signals intelligence [SIGINT] analyst. In all, Tanji has worked for 18 years in intelligence and dealt with various aspects of the media exploitation problem for about four years.

    We discussed the successes and failures of the DOCEX program, the relative lack of public attention to the project, and what steps might be taken to expedite the exploitation of the documents in the event the push to release all of the documents loses momentum.

    TWS: In what areas is the project succeeding? In what areas is the project failing?

    Tanji: The level of effort applied to the DOCEX problems in Iraq and Afghanistan to date is a testament to the will and work ethic of people in the intelligence community. They've managed to find a number of golden nuggets amongst a vast field of rock in what I would consider a respectable amount of time through sheer brute force. The flip side is that it is a brute-force effort. For a number of reasons--primarily time and resources--there has not been much opportunity to step back, think about a smarter way to solve the problem, and then apply various solutions. Inasmuch as we've won in Iraq and Saddam and his cronies are in the dock, now would be a good time to put some fresh minds on the problem of how you turn DOCEX into a meaningful and effective information-age intelligence tool.

    TWS: Why haven't we heard more about this project? Aren't most of the Iraqi documents unclassified?

    Tanji: Until a flood of captured material came rushing in after the start of Operation Enduring Freedom [in month 2001], DOCEX was a backwater; unglamorous, not terribly career enhancing, and from what I had heard always one step away from being mothballed.

    The classification of documents obtained for exploitation varies based on the nature of the way they were obtained and by whom. There are some agencies that tend to classify everything regardless of how it was acquired. I could not give you a ratio of unclassified to classified documents.

    In my opinion the silence associated with exploitation work is rooted in the nature of the work. In addition to being tedious and time consuming, it is usually done after the shooting is over. We place a higher value on intelligence information that comes to us before a conflict begins. Confirmation that we were right (or proof that we were wrong) after the fact is usually considered history. That some of this information may be dated doesn't mean it isn't still valuable.

    TWS: The project seems overwhelmed at the moment, with a mere 50,000 documents translated completely out of a total of 2 million. What steps, in your view, should be taken to expedite the process?

    Tanji: I couldn't say what the total take of documents or other forms of media is, though numbers in the millions are probably not far off.

    In a sense the exploitation process is what it is; you have to put eyes-on-paper (or a computer screen) to see what might be worth further translation or deeper analysis. It is a time-consuming process that has no adequate mechanical solution. Machine translation software is getting better, but it cannot best a qualified human linguist, of which we have very few.

    Tackling the computer media problem is a lot simpler in that computer language (binary) is universal, so searching for key words, phrases, and the names of significant personalities is fairly simple. Built to deal with large-scale data sets, a forensic computer system can rapidly separate wheat from chaff. The current drawback is that the computer forensics field is dominated by a law-enforcement mindset, which means the approach to the digital media problem is still very linear. As most of this material has come to us without any context ("hard drives found in Iraq" was a common label attached to captured media) that approach means our great-grandchildren will still be dealing with this problem.

    Dealing with the material as the large and nebulous data set that it is and applying a contextual appliqué after exploitation--in essence recreating the Iraqi networks as they were before Operation Iraqi Freedom began--would allow us to get at the most significant data rapidly for technical analysis, and allow for a political analysis to follow in short order. If I were looking for both a quick and powerful fix I'd get various DOE [Department of Energy] labs involved; they're used to dealing with large data sets and have done great work in the data mining and rendering fields.

    TWS: To read some of the reporting on Iraq, one might come away with the impression that Saddam Hussein was something of a benign (if not exactly benevolent) dictator who had no weapons of mass destruction and no connections to terrorism. Does the material you've seen support this conventional wisdom?

    Tanji: I am subject to a non-disclosure agreement, so I would rather not get into details. I will say that the intelligence community has scraped the surface of much of what has been captured in Iraq and in my view a great deal more deep digging is required. Critics of the war often complain about the lack of "proof"--a term that I had never heard used in the intelligence lexicon until we ousted Saddam--for going to war. There is really only one way to obtain "proof" and that is to carry out a thorough and detailed examination of what we've captured.

    TWS: I've spoken with several officials who have seen unclassified materials indicating the former Iraqi regime provided significant support--including funding and training--to transregional terrorists, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Ansar al Islam, Algeria's GSPC, and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Did you see any of this?

    Tanji: My obligations under a nondisclosure agreement prevent me from getting into this kind of detail.

    Other officials familiar with the captured documents were less cautious. "As much as we overestimated WMD, it appears we underestimated [Saddam Hussein's] support for transregional terrorists," says one intelligence official.

    Speaking of Ansar al Islam, the al Qaeda-linked terrorist group that operated in northern Iraq, the former high-ranking military intelligence officer says: "There is no question about the fact that AI had reach into Baghdad. There was an intelligence connection between that group and the regime, a financial connection between that group and the regime, and there was an equipment connection. It may have been the case that the IIS [Iraqi Intelligence Service] support for AI was meant to operate against the [anti-Saddam] Kurds. But there is no question IIS was supporting AI."

    The official continued: "He used these groups because we was interested in extending his influence and extending the influence of Iraq. There are definite and absolute ties to terrorism. The evidence is there, especially at the network level. How high up in the government was it sanctioned? I can't tell you. I don't know whether it was run by Qusay or [Izzat Ibrahim] al Duri or someone else. I'm just not sure. But to say Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism is flat wrong."

    STILL, some insist on saying it. Since early November, Senator Carl Levin has been spotted around Washington waving a brief excerpt from a February 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency assessment of Iraq. The relevant passage reads: "Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control."

    Levin treats these two sentences as definitive proof that Bush administration officials knew that Saddam's regime was unlikely to work with Islamic fundamentalists and ignored the intelligence community's assessment to that effect. Levin apparently finds the passage so damning that he specifically requested it be declassified.

    Posted by fuclibs at 01/06/2006 @ 6:21pm

25. Levin treats these two sentences as definitive proof that Bush administration officials knew that Saddam's regime was unlikely to work with Islamic fundamentalists and ignored the intelligence community's assessment to that effect. Levin apparently finds the passage so damning that he specifically requested it be declassified.

    I thought of Levin's two sentences frequently last Wednesday and Thursday as I sat in a Dallas courtroom listening to testimony in the deportation hearing of Ahmed Mohamed Barodi. I thought of Levin's sentences, for example, when Barodi proudly proclaimed his membership in the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, and again when Barodi, dressed in loose-fitting blue prison garb, told Judge J. Anthony Rogers about the 21 days he spent in February 1982 training with other members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood at a camp in Iraq. The account he gave in the courtroom was slightly less alarming than the description of the camp he had provided in 1989, on his written application for political asylum in the United States. In that document, Barodi described the instruction he received in Iraq as "guerrilla warfare training." And in an interview in February 2005 with Detective Scott Carr and special agent Sam Montana, both from the federal Joint Terrorism Task Force, Barodi said that the Iraqi regime provided training in the use of firearms, rocket-propelled grenades, and document forgery.

    Barodi comes from Hama, the town in Syria that was leveled in 1982 by the armed forces of secular Syrian dictator Hafez Assad because it was home to radical Islamic terrorists who had agitated against his regime. The massacre took tens of thousands of lives, but some of the extremists got away.

    Many of the most radical Muslim Brotherhood refugees from Hama were welcomed next door--and trained--in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Spanish investigators believe that Ghasoub Ghalyoun, the man they have accused of conducting surveillance for the 9/11 attacks, who also has roots in the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, was trained in an Iraqi terrorist camp in the early 1980s. Ghalyoun mentions this Iraqi training in a 2001 letter to the head of Syrian intelligence, in which he seeks reentry to Syria despite his long affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Reaching out to Islamic radicals was, in fact, one of the first moves Saddam Hussein made upon taking power in 1979. That he did not do it for ideological reasons is unimportant. As Barodi noted at last week's hearing, "He used us and we used him."

    Throughout the 1980s, including the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam cast himself as a holy warrior in his public rhetoric to counter the claims from Iran that he was an infidel. This posturing continued during and after the first Gulf war in 1990-91. Saddam famously ordered "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) added to the Iraqi flag. Internally, he launched "The Faith Campaign," which according to leading Saddam Hussein scholar Amatzia Baram included the imposition of sharia (Islamic law). According to Baram, "The Iraqi President initiated laws forbidding the public consumption of alcohol and introduced enhanced compulsory study of the Koran at all educational levels, including Baath Party branches."

    Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law who defected to Jordan in 1995, explained these changes in an interview with Rolf Ekeus, then head of the U.N. weapons inspection program. "The government of Iraq is instigating fundamentalism in the country," he said, adding, "Every party member has to pass a religious exam. They even stopped party meetings for prayers."

    And throughout the decade, the Iraqi regime sponsored "Popular Islamic Conferences" at the al Rashid Hotel that drew the most radical Islamists from throughout the region to Baghdad. Newsweek's Christopher Dickey, who covered one of those meetings in 1993, would later write: "Islamic radicals from all over the Middle East converged on Baghdad to show their solidarity with Iraq in the face of American aggression. One speaker praised the mujahed Saddam Hussein who is leading this nation against the nonbelievers. Everyone has a task to do, which is to go against the American state." Dickey continued:

    Every time I hear diplomats and politicians, whether in Washington or in the capitals of Europe, declare that Saddam Hussein is a "secular Baathist ideologue" who has nothing do with Islamists or terrorist calls to jihad, I think of that afternoon and I wonder what they're talking about. If that was not a fledgling Qaeda itself at the Rashid convention, it sure was Saddam's version of it.

    In the face of such evidence, Carl Levin and other critics of the Iraq war trumpet deeply flawed four-year-old DIA analyses. Shouldn't he instead use his influence as a senator to push for the release of Iraqi documents that will help establish what, exactly, the Iraqi regime was doing in the years before the U.S. invasion?

    Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.

    Posted by fuclibs at 01/06/2006 @ 6:23pm

26. ASH,

    I don't disagree that gay marriage and abortion rights are indeed important issues. They most certainly are. But they are irrelevant if our country's goverening structure is rendered void by an out of control executive. All common rights will become specualtive if we continue down the road of this Administration, much less rights for gays and women. Our duty as citizens is keep the government structure in check, so that we can go about securing rights for everyone through the proper channels of a government under checks and balances.

    Once we are under a dictatorship, there will be rights for no one. No freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom to practice religion, freedom to watch too much sports on TV, freedom to look at porn, or freedom to do just about whatever you want. We are free to do what the leader tells us and no more. That is not a place I want to live and we are in the very beginning stages of going in that direction.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 01/06/2006 @ 6:34pm

27. If Alito wants to be an advocate for Bush's policies, why doesn't he just go to work for him in the Executive branch...oh wait, he's part of the plan to derail the entire government. I almost forgot. Its funny how so obvious the neocons plan to destroy our way of governing has become. What's really sad about the whole thing is that most of the Democrats and level-headed Republicans on the Hill are just letting them get away with it.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 01/06/2006 @ 6:42pm

28. good stuff here:

    http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8329

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/06/2006 @ 7:06pm

29. .

    HMAN23 01/06/2006 @ 5:43pm

    There are limits to what a lawyer can advocate for ANY client. A lawyer's duty is also quite different when his client took an oath to observe and uphold the Constitution.

    The limits are what advances the client while staying inside the law. People are quite capable of violating a legal oath or breaking a law on their own. They need an attorney to prevent that. A lawyer helps them get their way while staying inside the law.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 01/06/2006 @ 7:10pm

30. NACL, your theories might be plausible; but they aren't holding up to reality in this latest Administration. Bush is surrounded by lawyers, and they are helping him either break the law or break the spirit of the law. They aren't doing what you say lawyers do. Hopefully, the won't be considered for Supreme Court justices 10 or 15 years down the road. I find it hard to believe there aren't SC candidates that didn't work for a past administration that would make quality candidates. Bush is clearly looking to pick a fight and hopefully the Dems will give him one.

    The Dems are all pretty quite right now, but I think its part of their game plan. They are going to rake him across the coals and then stick a filibuster up his back side.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 01/06/2006 @ 7:16pm

31. Plus Bush's latest appointment of an unqualified person will fuel the fire for some folks that might be on the fence about Alito. Bush basically shot them the bird...again. When will the Senate take their rightful place in the government as outlined by the Constitution!?!?

    Posted by BlueTexan at 01/06/2006 @ 7:18pm

32. Venting anger over Bush's policies and his dictatorial governance is like spitting in the wind. Bush is not running for office and he has undoubtedly more power as chief executive than any president in history except for Abraham Lincoln who suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War.

    In any case, Bush broke laws and will continue to break the laws of our country for the simple reason that he puts himself above the law. He made that clear when he signed the anti-torture McCain bill, essentially saying he has a right to preempt that law any time he wishes. As Charles Krauthammer accurately pointed out in one of his columns a couple of weeks ago, even John McCain said as much on Meet The Press when he stated that he would expect the president to ignore the law in certain cases where national security was preeminent.

    So, the law, just like the U.S. Constitution, means nothing to Bush & his spy organizations like the NSA and CIA and now even the IRS who it was revealed today are combing their list of people to audit based on their political party affiliation. And it just keeps going on and on.

    Nobody can convince me that a single legislator in the current U.S. Republican-controlled Congress has any guts or principles left. That includes Democrats too. Disgusting, whiny Stepford Democrat Nancy Pelosi is a joke and the equally timorous, compromiser Harry "Walter Mitty" Reid has no backbone. Hillary Clinton, in her zeal to promote herself as a centrist, has ingratiated herself by supporting Bush's war forever policies and need I add anything else about the wimpy Joe "What me worry" Lieberman who hasn't seen a Bush war proposal that he doesn't absolutely grovel over.

    The Gen-Xers seem more conducive to sleepwalking with their Ipods, X-Boxes, camera cell phones and IMs online to give a crap about democracy as long as some other chump out of high school is willing to be a guinea pig to test out al Qaeda in Iraq's growing sophisticated and more deadly roadside bombs, IEDs and suicide bombers. Try reading the Knight Survey that was reported last February.

    And who is to blame for this abominable waste of life by giving these poor suckers their marching orders to rumble through the Iraqi city streets with under armored Humvees and Bradley Fighting Machines? None other than the career senior officers who are so obsessed with kissing the asses of the equally depraved politicians so they can pin another star on their shoulders in order to reap huge lifetime retirement benefits all courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. And, of course, those same retired generals will keep the revolving door open to secure a fat CEO position on the board of directors of Bush's no-bid defense corporations and contractors. Like Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower said, one of the biggest dangers to our democracy is the military industrial complex. Only now it is not so complex. It is standard operating procedure.

    Survey finds students lack First Amendment knowledge February 1, 2005 WASHINGTON –– Most American high school students lack a full understanding of the freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a survey released yesterday said. Seventy-five percent of 112,000 students surveyed said it is illegal to burn the American flag as a means of political protest, and nearly half believe that the government can censor the Internet.

    The survey, commissioned by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and conducted by researchers at the University of Connecticut, includes responses from 544 randomly selected public, private and parochial high schools.

    The survey found that 36 percent of the students believe that newspapers should not be allowed to publish without government approval of stories, and 17 percent of the students believe that the public is prohibited from expressing unpopular opinions. Overall, the survey found that high school students express little appreciation for the First Amendment's tenets: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble and the right to petition the government.

    Nearly three-quarters of student respondents said they either don't know how they feel about First Amendment freedoms or take them for granted.

    The survey's findings are "distressing," said Michael Maidenberg, vice president and chief program officer at the Knight Foundation. Noting President Bush's recent call for expanding democracy around the world, Maidenberg said it is critical that American youth understand why the First Amendment is so important.

    That, of course is just one survey but 112,000 students is no small number. How will these kids feel later on when they realize that they have to pay the bills for all their toys? How will they pay for their retirement if they've spent all their money and gone into debt to get their 450 horsepower rocket ship that gets 12 mpg?

    How will they retire when they have failed to not only not save a penny but are upside down on every material possession they went into deep debt over? The answer? Preemptive war against any country that has anything we want. Bomb them back into the Stone Age and take whatever they can get by force. Only problem is, other countries are already outstripping the United States in technology and science due to the dumb asses whose idea of science is Intelligent Design and Creation Science. The tables could be turned real quick and they'll find themselves speaking either Chinese or maybe even Russian since Putin is making defense deals with China and other U.S. adversaries.

    Keep the war going and keep repeating the mantra, "we're winning the war on terrorism" and keep on catapulting the propaganda.

    Posted by richard38 at 01/06/2006 @ 10:17pm

33. HMAN

    Yes...yes, I DO agree with Mr Nichols.

    Now...I just wish he would stay true to "original intent" a little more often as I do.

    Posted by Mask at 01/06/2006 @ 10:31pm

34. sources please for the IRS story, Rich

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/06/2006 @ 11:42pm

35. .

    BLUETEXAN 01/06 @ 7:16pm

    NACL, your theories might be plausible; but they aren't holding up to reality in this latest Administration. Bush is surrounded by lawyers, and they are helping him either break the law or break the spirit of the law.

    There are one million lawyers in the United States. However many work for the White House plenty more are available to the Democrats to sue violations of law.

    If you can only charge the White House with your mouth but not with legal action, then you are admitting, your hate and distrust have outrun your brains and your grounds.

    Bush is clearly looking to pick a fight and hopefully the Dems will give him one.

    Nominating Samuel Alito doesn't mean the president is looking for a fight. He almost certainly isn't. But Bush clearly believes Alito is solid enough to be able to withstand a tough grilling. He may well get it, that is the Judiciary Committee's job. If the nominee is lacking in ability or integrity, that is the place to find out. There are enough responsible Republicans on that committee to oppose an unqualified man. Let's hope there are enough responsible Democrats there to eschew a filibuster. With a filibuster they would be saying, we haven't real gounds, we just don't want another conservative who shares the president's general outlook on the court.

    That however won't work. The president has a responsibility, and is expected by the Constitution, to nominate someone whose qualities and point of view he approves of, not disapproves of. If the Senate cannot find objective grounds for barring Alito, it has a duty to confirm. If the Democrats insist on stamping their feet and going off into a partisan pout with a filibuster the country will punish them at the polls.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 01/07/2006 @ 12:57am

36. So much for a bounce back. And I don't think that little mustache he's just itching to grow under his nose is going to help much either.

    PRESIDENT BUSH

    Overall Job Rating in recent news media/nonpartisan national polls

    Survey_________________Dates_______Approve ___Disapprove__Unsure __Difference

    AP-Ipsos *_____________1/3-5/06________40 ________59__________0______-19

    Gallup________________12/19-22/05______43_________53_________4______-10

    CNN/USA Today/Gallup__12/16-18/05______41_________56_________3______-15

    ABC/Washington Post____12/15-18/05______47_________52________1_______-5

    NPR LV_______________12/15, 17-18/05____44_________54________2______-10

    FOX/OpDynamics RV_____12/13-14/05______42_________51________7_______-9

    Diageo/Hotline RV_______12/12-13/05______50_________47________3_______+3

    Posted by Bushfools at 01/07/2006 @ 12:12pm

37. * AP-Ipsos question includes a "mixed feelings" option.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

    Posted by Bushfools at 01/07/2006 @ 12:17pm

38. Bushfools,

    The fallacy with your argument which is basically "See Bush's approval ratings are going lower, more and more people are unhappy with him, liberals are right! We need to get him out of there" is this:

    I'm unhappy with Bush big time...

    But only because he has done a poor job on the border situation and a poor job in the war on terror.

    In my mind we should have already cleaned house in Iraq, and been on to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

    Bush is not being conservative enough from my point of view.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/07/2006 @ 12:18pm

39. Go figure?

    ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Dec. 15-18, 2005. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS.

    "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism?" Asked of half the sample

    __________________Approve______Disapprove_____Unsure

    12/15-18/05_________56_____________44___________1

    Posted by Bushfools at 01/07/2006 @ 12:31pm

40. http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm#2006

    Posted by Bushfools at 01/07/2006 @ 12:32pm

41. Todd

    "Bush is not being conservative enough from my point of view".

    Bravo Todd ! You are a true "bien-pensant" to borrow a term for the orthodox believers in the time of the "Sun King". ( You would have loved Louis lV Todd ! ). Actually the Orwellian term "goodthink" applies just as well and may be more familiar to you. Whatever you want to call it you've mastered it !

    Speaking of Orwell you may remember Syme's remarks just before he was vaporized "Orthodoxy means not thinking --- Not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

    Keep up the good work Todd ! "goodthinking" "not thinking"; it's all one to those who have truely mastered the Zen art of unconsciousness.

    Posted by Merle Blanc at 01/07/2006 @ 1:17pm

42. This is truly a farcical posting by Nichols. There is no one here, left or right that honestly believes Nichols is concerned about or even cares about "Original Intent". That term is anathema to far left Liberals like Nichols and has been continually derrided by liberal/progressive posters on this site.

    I haven't seen any of them show their disagreement as to the reasoning by Nichols, simply because they support his conclusion.

    Yet, Nichols and all who agree with him are on truly shakey ground.

    1. Bush while not needing it (under the authority granted to him in the War Powers Act of 1973), obtained a resolution authorizing force from Congress.

    2. Congress has done nothing to exercise it's authority under the WPA to stop this war.

    Thus like so many issues preceding this one, the aim of the left is rendered as useless as a rifle with no sight and a smashed barrel; it cannot hit it's proposed target.

    Alito will be confirmed overwhelmingly. The endorsement this week by the ABA just adds to the facts that Alito deserves to be confirmed

    "As a result of our investigation, the committee is of the unanimous opinion that Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. is well-qualified for appointment as associate justice of the United States Supreme Court," said Stephen L. Tober, chairman of the ABA panel.

    Perhaps someone from the left will be able to provide a creative response as to why Alito should not be confirmed now when the Senate previously approved him by unanimous vote for the Appeals Court and as US Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/07/2006 @ 1:24pm

43. "Which comes closer to your view? The government should take all steps necessary to prevent additional acts of terrorism in the U.S., even if it means your basic civil liberties would be violated. OR, The government should take steps to prevent additional acts of terrorism, but not if those steps would violate your basic civil liberties." Options rotated. Form B (N=522, MoE ± 5).

    ______________Take ALL StepsNecessary__Don't Violate Basic Liberties__Unsure

    12/16-18/05_____________31____________________65________________4

    And the numbers on this one haven't changed that much in a few YEARS. So it shows that most (grown up) people do understand the difference between safety and liberty. Want safety w/in the law. And most are ready to discard the BC BS regime. And per recent news, congress IS growing balls. But like all medicine, it takes a while for the hormones to kick in. Here's hoping the BC BS regime doesn't pull a 'So-Dumb-Insane' and start calling up the opposition one at a time and dragging them outside for execution... But then again blackmail is much different, isn't it?

    Posted by Bushfools at 01/07/2006 @ 1:32pm

44. LL

    Gotta agree with you there...the idea tha Mr Nichols cares about the "original intent of the Founders" ...ALL the time...is a farce.

    Reminds me of the Michael Kinsley line about the Left and the 2nd Amendment..."If the Left used the same Constitutional standards they use for abortion, for the 2nd Amendment...gun ownership would be MANDATORY!"

    Word on the street (or Net) is that the Dems are FINALLY going to "make their stand" on the Alito nomination....no wimpy backdowns, no Russ Feingold gladhanding Chief Justice Roberts, but a full-out fight. The fact that John Nichols is pulling out an "original intent" argument shows that they may decide to try any and everything to stop Alito.

    Oh...but before you think you and I are allies on this...we're not.

    The ONLY reason I voted for Kerry in 2004 was on judges...and if it were really possible to stop Bush's appointees (something I doubt given 220 years of history)....I would.

    Posted by Mask at 01/07/2006 @ 2:16pm

45. Perhaps someone from the left will be able to provide a creative response as to why Alito should not be confirmed now when the Senate previously approved him by unanimous vote for the Appeals Court and as US Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/07/2006 @ 1:24pm

    I confess that for some reason I am not so agitated by this issue to do much background reading. But your connecting previous confirmations to his upcoming one is flimsy; followed fully, it would mean that anyone placed in a federal position by a senate committee is automatically worthy of the highest position within his/her field. Obviously this would be a pretty lazy method of filling appointments. Imagine, for instance, that every federal judge received the weeklong hearing that Roberts experienced or that Alito will--the higher position, the more time that is necessary to review the appliant's background.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/07/2006 @ 2:21pm

46. Man, I just need to go back to bed. My last post ended in jibberish:

    "Imagine, for instance, that every federal judge received the weeklong hearing that Roberts experienced or that Alito will--the higher position, the more time that is necessary to review the appliant's background."

    I needed to have continued: The senate committees cannot devote that much time to lesser appointments. Therefore, for the top-of-the-line post in a particular department, a full review is necessary, regardless of previous federal experience. In addition, your already-been-reviewed claim doesn't address those nominees without previous federal appointments, leading to an imbalance in the approval process.

    There. Enough of me.

    As an aside, Jorcheim, I think your posts today on the various active blogs have been exceedingly well-thought out and very interesting.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/07/2006 @ 2:35pm

47. Tj, may I echo that sentiment, any disagreements I have with Jorchy notwithstanding.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/07/2006 @ 2:41pm

48. TJ,

    I did not mean to imply that those previous confirmations should mandate an automatic approval for Alito or anyone else.

    What I am suggesting is that you cannot demonize someone as completely out of the mainstream who has received the level of Congressional and peer approval as Alito.

    I hope this clarification is helpful.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/07/2006 @ 2:51pm

49. Merle,

    "Keep up the good work Todd ! "goodthinking" "not thinking"; it's all one to those who have truely mastered the Zen art of unconsciousness."

    Thank you! I sure will keep it up = )

    I appreciate your back handed compliment!

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/07/2006 @ 5:35pm

50. Mainstream politics. What a concept, to which the only suitable reply is that had the people who started this country been mainstream thinkers, we'd still be part of the United Kingdom. Fortunately, there was that tiny minority which chose to break with the mainstream, and the rest is history.

    Posted by Legba at 01/07/2006 @ 7:15pm

51. TJBEHRENS1 and JOHANNESROLF:

    Thank you for your kind words. I consider them high praise, coming from you guys.

    Posted by jorcheim at 01/07/2006 @ 9:39pm

52. ((See...THIS is why the Left can't win even the GOOD fights))

    From the "Daily Princetonian"--

    CAP critic dropped from Alito witness list Dujack '76 regrets controversial op-ed, will not testify before Senate committee

    Mark Stefanski Princetonian Staff Writer

    An alumnus tapped by Democrats to testify in next week's Senate hearings on Samuel Alito '72 will no longer appear, removing the only witness slated to speak specifically about a controversial conservative alumni group of which Alito was a member.

    Stephen Dujack '76, an environmental writer, had been outspoken in his condemnation of the group, Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which during the 1970s criticized the University's move to coeducation and adoption of affirmative action. Opponents of Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court had seized on his membership in the group to show that he is out-of-step with mainstream America on core issues.

    Though it wasn't immediately clear why Dujack was removed from the Democrats' witness list, some observers believe he was vulnerable to attacks over an April 2003 Los Angeles Times column he wrote that compared animals killed in slaughterhouses with victims of the Holocaust.

    On Friday, the office of Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), a strong Alito backer, circulated copies of the column. By that evening, Dujack's name had been removed from a full list of witnesses released by the judiciary committee.

    The column has not been specifically cited as the reason for Dujack's removal from the witness list, and he said he still plans to submit written testimony about the alumni group to the judiciary committee to tell senators "how awful this organization was."

    "I'm going to want to explain why those of us who know the organization can be filled with revulsion at hearing that a person who was selected to go our nation's high court was proud of his membership in that organization," Dujack said in an email.

    Politics professor and prominent conservative constitutional scholar Robert George described Dujack as "an example of a witness Republicans would be able to beat up pretty badly."

    "I noticed conservative websites were just salivating because [Dujack] just seemed like such an obvious target," George said. "They could use him to say, 'Look these people against Alito are just these extreme people on the left.' "

    Posted by Mask at 01/08/2006 @ 08:51am

53. Goodness isn't everyone dainty up on The Hill:

    Dujack, from the Washington Times:

    "To those who defend the modern-day holocaust of animals by saying that animals are slaughtered for food, and give us sustenance, I remind them, the Nazis used slave labor and made 'useful products' of their victims," he wrote in the Los Angeles Times on April 16, 2003. "There is only one little step from killing animals to creating gas chambers a la Hitler and concentration camps a la Stalin," he wrote.

    Gasp! Egad! He's unfit to talk about anyone else's unfitness! It's crystal clear, says Rep. Hypicritical Sinmaster.

    I'm no wacko (a few on this site might disagree, and if so, I have a mirror for them), but I'm a vegetarian. He's just making a friggin' comparison to emphasize his horror at modern methods of "handling" the animals eaten in this country. Geez, Big Head Cornyn has said some of the most retarded things utted in DC over the last few years, but I'm sure in this instance his connections to the cattle industry in no way is affecting his move. Asshole.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/08/2006 @ 11:13am

54. Yes, yes, my finger hit the wrong key in "hypocritical".

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/08/2006 @ 11:15am

55. TJBEHRENS1:

    As much as it pains me to do so (because I LOVE eating furry animals... mmm mmm good... I grew up on a small beef farm, by the way), I have to agree with you on this. You're absolutely right about modern agribusiness techniques for slaughtering and butchering animals for food. If you have ever read on your chicken package before cooking the words "mechanically separated", that means simply that human hands do not touch the carcass during the butchering phase. You can find similar phrases on beef products, turkey products, etc. WHy is this important? Simple. When you butcher an animal, if you are not very careful, there is a high probability of severing the spinal column, thereby releasing spinal fluid into the carcass at large. There are numerous prionic pathogens, as well as viral and bacteriological pathogens to be found in this spinal fluid, and is a considerable risk. Hence, I try to stick only to farm-raised, organic, hand-butchered meat, of whatever species.

    Also, let us not forget the continued use of protein-based (read: non-edible, non-salable carcass parts in the form of processed protein pellets) feed for all livestock. Keep in mind that all the livestock we consume as sustenance are herbivores by nature. Feeding them recycled animal parts, against nature, is the primary disease vector for BSE (bovine spongiform encephalitis, or mad cow disease). Oprah was right on on this issue. This is a substantial risk, as the prionic pathogens of BSE pass easily through the brain membrane due to their ultra-small size. You cannot kill BSE, as prions are not technically alive. They are simply protein strands, much like RNA, and as such have no biological processes which can be halted (thereby "killing" it).

    Many of you surely will say I am being a "Chicken Little" with my comments about livestock. That's fine. Just remember that you have been warned. It takes a long time for the compounded effects of BSE to be seen, manifesting itself in dementia. more and more studies are showing a considerable cache of research that links BSE to Alzheimer's. For those of you who do not know, the rates of Alzheimer's have been increasing over the past 25 years considerably, almost in lockstep with the level of prevalence of protein feeding for livestock.

    In regions of the world where this unnatural practice is unknown, the level of adult onset dementia and Alzheimer's is considerably lower (although not absent).

    Posted by jorcheim at 01/08/2006 @ 12:15pm

56. Results of a recent poll: Should George Bush be impeached and removed from office ?

    Yes, because he lied us into war, has used the NSA to eavesdrop on the conversations of Americans without a court order, and has violated the Constitution in other ways. -68%-

    No, because George W. Bush was justified in going to war and continues to do a good job. -14%-

    No, because even though he has made mistakes those mistakes do not rise to the level of impeachment. -15%-

    I don't know. -3%-

    Okay but what was the source for this poll you ask ? Was it conducted by and were the results distorted by a lot of namby pamby left leaning fuzzy thinking liberals ? Actually this came from the John Birch Society web-site of all places ! Go figure !

    So is the Right's coalition as monolithic as we give it credit for or is it just a house of cards cobbled together by Karl Rove inc. atop a temporarily dormant fault line ? Are these fissures that are beginning to show in the facade the signs of real problems ? Or are they only an aberation that will dissipate as soon as the Right regroups from its recent drubbing at the hands of a suddenly resurgent media ? Will Republicans be able to get back their strangle hold on the American psyche before the 2006 elections ? Or will a Democratically controlled Congress impeach Boy George and Darth Cheney relegating them to the bone yard of history ? And where was the slave who was assigned to sit behind the Testy Kid during his second coronation last year and whisper sic transit gloria mundi in his ear ? Was he there all along and we just couldn't hear him over the hoop la ?

    For now at least the natives are growing restless ! The drums are getting louder.

    Posted by Merle Blanc at 01/08/2006 @ 1:32pm

57. Merle,

    Your argument is a canard..From the Dem Zogby to hard conservative Newsmax, polling shows a majority of Americans line up with the president.

    (Angus Reid Global Scan) – Americans are divided over the wiretapping of telephones under specific circumstances, according to a poll by Zogby Interactive. 49 per cent of respondents believe U.S. president George W. Bush has the power to authorize the interception of international communications without the approval of a federal judge, while 45 per cent disagree.

    http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12495

    In one of the largest responses to a NewsMax poll ever, more than 150,000 people across the Internet have made their opinions known about this controversy.

    And they resoundingly say that the President was justified in taking this action to protect America.

    Here is a breakdown of the poll results for several key questions:

    1) Has President Bush been justified in tapping the conversation of U.S. citizens? Justified - 80% Not Justified - 20%

    2) Do you believe the President must have a court-approved warrant to conduct a wiretap? Yes - 23% No - 72% Not Sure - 5%

    Posted by love liberty at 01/08/2006 @ 2:28pm

58. Love Liberty

    What do you think the good News Max responders will say when they find out the NSA had started evaesdropping on such dangerous subversives as William Saphire apparently for no other reason than that he had been in a conversation with a reporter whom they were already spying on ? Now I can understand them spying on the newsmedia, we all know what commies they are, but William Sapphire ? As usual polls like the one you refer to are conducted before people have the facts. Let's see what tune they play as this whole dirty business starts to really unfold. You seem to accept at face value the Administration's argument that it is doing this only to protect Americans. Given their track record why in the world would you believe that ?

    Posted by Merle Blanc at 01/08/2006 @ 2:46pm

59. Merle,

    What is your proof they were doing it for other than National Security?

    Posted by love liberty at 01/08/2006 @ 3:10pm

60. I think that the major part of Merle's first post is that there are certain sectors within the Right that are beginning to separate themselves from the administration. Obviously the John Birch Society is part of one extreme element of the Right, but this administration's hostility toward the UN and other international treaties (not all of them, but a good amount) is no longer enough to overcome the "activism" within our borders perceived by the JBS.

    Others would know better than I but I suspect that NewsMax junkies would have to be hit in the head with a Bush scandal baseball bat before turning away from the object of their adoration. Those with skulls of more reasonable density are putting on their helmets, picking up their toys, and seeking more conservative playmates. It's gonna be a fun year--we might actually have real debate across the board.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/08/2006 @ 4:05pm

61. TJ,

    I think Dems and other progressives overestimate the unity of conservatives in the US. That is good for us, but masks the reality. In point of fact, the GOP and the conservative movement have never been a unified entity.

    Therefore when anyone cites a Pat Buchannon or in this case the JBS, it reality doesn't have meaning with conservatives. For us, it is part of our ongoing debate. It is healthy and keeps us strong.

    As to it's effect on Bush-very slight. Our disagreements with Bush pale in comparison to our disagreement with liberalism.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/08/2006 @ 4:22pm

62. Bush says he can break the law, and Alito agrees with him, otherwise the Conservatives who hate America would protest.

    Posted by reidsucks at 01/08/2006 @ 4:58pm

63. Polls don't mean shit.

    Posted by Legba at 01/08/2006 @ 5:08pm

64. Conservatives can bring their polls, saying people think Bush can break laws, into court. The original intent of the Constititution is to avoid precisely the situation where the executive breaks laws.

    Posted by reidsucks at 01/08/2006 @ 5:11pm

65. Polls are security blankets for people who don't have the courage to swim against the political current. If polls meant anything, George Bush would never have become president, after all, the nation, when polled with an actual vote, rejected his candidacy in the year 2000.

    What matters is political movement, people working the neighborhoods, organizing at every level. Everything else is just suckers arguing about legal technicalities. The question is, does the state, when notably criminal in behavior, have the right to spy upon its population. And the answer, for a growing minority, is no, it most certainly does not. Fuck this shit. We don't care what the mainstream says. We will struggle with this insanity and we will win.

    Posted by Legba at 01/08/2006 @ 5:12pm

66. Alito would help Bush torture people, spy on people, kidnap people, lie to Americans to start wars, kill people, steal oil. Alito isnt going to stop Jesus from throwing you Conservatives in Hell forever though.

    Posted by reidsucks at 01/08/2006 @ 5:22pm

67. LEGBA:

    The most important poll, in my opinion, is the massive portion of people who opt out of the voting process altogether. Unlike most other "democracies", or more accurately, republics, our population votes by not viting. To me, this is a stern commentary on the state of politics in our nation today. As a wise man once said, "If God had meant us to vote in this country, he would have given us candidates". How can anyone, from either party, claim to have a mandate "from the people" when over half the people refuse to vote? I believe we should enact a third option on all ballots. The option is called "none of the above", or NOTA, as it is more commonly called. If a majority of people choose this option, the election must be run again. While I'm sure I will get jeers from this idea, calling this option too expensive, my retort is simple. If we get serious about having real candidates, instead of these corporate whores who, when told to jump by corporate America, ask "how high?", perhaps we can start talking about real substantive issues like the real state of the economy, or the real reasons for going to war in Iraq, rather than emotional issues like abortion, or prayer in schools, *gasp* gay marriage. Only then will we move forward, and leave this parade of mediocrity behind us.

    Posted by jorcheim at 01/08/2006 @ 10:08pm

68. TJ

    Just curious...but how do you think liberal JEWS (who would normally oppose Alito) feel about the fact that Mr Dujack says that a chicken at Frank Perdue Plant #3 in Bentonville....has the "moral equivalency" of their Grandfather Hesh who was walked naked into a shower at Dachau and later had the gold fillings pulled from his body by his brother Schlomo?

    Posted by Mask at 01/08/2006 @ 10:18pm

69. Polls don't mean shit.

    Posted by LEGBA 01/08/2006 @ 5:08pm

    Hey....there's a bipartisan moment...me and LEGBA agree.

    Posted by Mask at 01/08/2006 @ 10:19pm

70. Polls don't mean shit.

    Posted by LEGBA 01/08/2006 @ 5:08pm

    Hey....there's a bipartisan moment...me and LEGBA agree.

    Posted by MASK 01/08/2006 @ 10:19pm

    Really?

    Only thing that matters is the poll numbers...and they're "bad" but not "as bad" as the hard-core anti-war crowd claims.

    Posted by MASK 01/07/2006 @ 2:23pm

    So, which is it? :)

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2006 @ 09:55am

71. HMAN...let's take a look at the WHOLE context---

    "It's also the reason they're not taken serious by either their opponents in Washington (or as shown by Hillary and her "stand-offish" attitude towards Cindy Sheehan), by their "friends" in DC either.

    Only thing that matters is the poll numbers...and they're "bad" but not "as bad" as the hard-core anti-war crowd claims. Want to see their REAL impact, watch the politicians."

    Polls matter to the POLITICIANS....especially NUMEROUS ones.

    But even a number of ONLINE polls, where there is NO scientific accuracy or ways to block "multiple votes by single individuals"...are still useless, yet the ones quoted by the "Impeachment drumbeat gaining strength".

    Even if you got several MAJOR polling companies coming back with "pro-impeachment" numbers...Dem politicians who took up the charge MIGHT be in trouble. The Repubs who impeached Clinton had some "polling numbers" and ended up nearly losing the Congress over their attempt.

    My point was....lotta polls showed Kerry beating Bush by 52-48% (and "Diebold conspiracy theories" aside)...how did THEY work out?

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2006 @ 10:03am

72. I smell fear in progressive hearts; every week has shown the Nation, MoveOn, Democracy Now, Pacifica Radio, Counterpunch, etc., etc., all proclaiming the latest nail that would put Bush in the coffin liberal/progressives obsess about daily.

    Alas for my poor liberal/progressive friends, Bush continues, his poll ratings have improved, Roberts was confirmed, Bolton is at the UN, tax cuts continue, and Alito will be confirmed within the next 60-90 days.

    The agony, the agony, when will it end they cry!

    Posted by love liberty at 01/09/2006 @ 10:05am

73. TJ

    Just curious...but how do you think liberal JEWS (who would normally oppose Alito) feel about the fact that Mr Dujack says that a chicken at Frank Perdue Plant #3 in Bentonville....has the "moral equivalency" of their Grandfather Hesh who was walked naked into a shower at Dachau and later had the gold fillings pulled from his body by his brother Schlomo?

    Posted by MASK 01/08/2006 @ 10:18pm

    What "moral equivalency"? He is arguing that supporters of modern meat processing systems defend the barbarism of these systems in ways similar to those used by Nazis, in terms of efficiency and utility. I cannot speak for Dujack, but I suspect he was aware that his comparison would read as an overstatement--to gather attention because of shock value. Yet, such a comparison is useful because it draws attention to the manner in which we determine the type and duration of existence certain animals live.

    I get irritated by the fluff-minded, hypocritically sensitive politicians who are unable to counter one argument with another and must resort to simply claiming "outrage". Cornyn needs to get his panties out of his crack and use whatever stuff lies (dormant, no doubt) in his melon to engage the debate rather than decry it.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/09/2006 @ 10:16am

74. TJ,

    Sorry to disagree but I have read Dujack's statement and it clearly implies moral equivalency. Not only that, the Jewish people understood it in that manner. A number of Jewish groups have expressed their outrage at his comments.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/09/2006 @ 10:33am

75. I'm an insensitive goon sometimes (just ask my wife), but the outrage thing is such a weak response. It's not as if Dujack is denying or approving of the Holocaust. There are comparisons to be made, rationally IMO, yet I still do not see moral equivalency arguments being made or their implications.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/09/2006 @ 10:59am

76. LL:

    "Bush continues?" Keeping his job, improving (however slightly) low poll numbers, getting Roberts (his second choice) confirmed; using a recess appointment for Bolton; and his tax cut remain. That is quite a low bar you have set for Bush. Has he accomplished anything? Take a look at what he promised in 2000, and see how many things he has not delivered. Whether Bush keeps his job or not, most Americans view him as a failure.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2006 @ 11:05am

77. LL:

    Dujack's style should be familiar to conservatives who so often like to compare Hussein to Hitler and the War in Iraq to WWII.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2006 @ 11:09am

78. TJ

    Want a clear cut example of why the Left is losing....

    YOUR acceptance of ANY "analogy" between animal husbandy....and HUMAN GENOCIDE.

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2006 @ 11:51am

79. Mask, you're a delight.

    Inhumane conditions and slaughter of animals. Inhumane conditions and slaughter of humans. Each group killed by the millions.

    Losing. Quite honestly, the biggest problem facing us today is that too many politicians view the world as you suggest; rather than seeking what is right or just or moral, they seek what will keep them in power. That's rather short-sighted and is certainly not very mature. Ultimately, it will fail or we will all fail.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/09/2006 @ 1:55pm

80. another starw man erected by right wing loons.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/11/2006 @ 08:33am