How far have we come?

I would like to paste in the entire article since it dates back three years but to stay within fair use will only use a sample.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A reported U.S. plan to keep some suspected terrorists imprisoned for a lifetime even if the government lacks evidence to charge them in courts was swiftly condemned on Sunday as a "bad idea" by a leading Republican senator.

The Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for those it was unwilling to set free or turn over to U.S. or foreign courts, the Washington Post said in a report that cited intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials.

Some detentions could potentially last a lifetime, the newspaper said.

Influential senators denounced the idea as probably unconstitutional.

"It's a bad idea. So we ought to get over it and we ought to have a very careful, constitutional look at this," Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said on "Fox News Sunday."

[Emphasis mine]

So, how's that Gitmo thing working for you?

The world was still reeling from the tsunami that had just hit.

We were still trying to grasp the enormity of the damage done by Hurricane Katrina four months earlier (not to mention the destruction of buffering wetlands for development and the inadequate maintenance on the levees, neither of which were acts of God).
This photo from the Lower Ninth Ward was in an article by the Rude Pundit who had just visited New Orleans. Rebuilding is still going on today and there is so much more yet to be done.

How about this excerpt from an article?

A. VIOLATING AND IGNORING THE LAW
The Committee finds that the domestic activities of the intelligence community at times violated specific statutory prohibitions and infringed the constitutional rights of American citizens. The legal questions involved in intelligence programs were often not considered. On other occasions, they were intentionally disregarded in the belief that because the programs served the "national security" the law did not apply.
While intelligence officers on occasion failed to disclose to their superiors programs which were illegal or of questionable legality, the Committee finds that the most serious breaches of duty were those of senior officials, who were responsible for controlling intelligence activities and generally failed to assure compliance with the law.
Subfindings
(a) In its attempt to implement instructions to protect the security of the United States, the intelligence community engaged in some activities which violated statutory law and the constitutional rights of American citizens.
(b) Legal issues were often overlooked by many of the intelligence officers who directed these operations. Some held a pragmatic view of intelligence activities that did not regularly attach sufficient significance to questions of legality. The question raised was usually not whether a particular program was legal or ethical, but whether it worked.
(c) On some occasions when agency officials did assume, or were told, that a program was illegal, they still permitted it to continue. They justified their conduct in some cases on the ground that the failure of "the enemy" to play by the rules granted them the right to do likewise, and in other cases on the ground that the "national security" permitted programs that would otherwise be illegal.
(d) Internal recognition of the illegality or the questionable legality of many of these activities frequently led to a tightening of security rather than to their termination. Partly to avoid exposure and a public "flap," knowledge of these programs was tightly held within the agencies, special filing procedures were used, and "cover stories" were devised.
(e) On occasion, intelligence agencies failed to disclose candidly their programs and practices to their own General Counsels, and to Attorneys General, Presidents, and Congress.
(f) The internal inspection mechanisms of the CIA and the FBI did not keep -- and, in the case of the FBI, were not designed to keep -- the activities of those agencies within legal bounds. Their primary concern was efficiency, not legality or propriety.
(g) When senior administration officials with a duty to control domestic intelligence activities knew, or had a basis for suspecting, that questionable activities had occurred, they often responded with silence or approval. In certain cases, they were presented with a partial description of a program but did not ask for details, thereby abdicating their responsibility. In other cases, they were fully aware of the nature of the practice and implicitly or explicitly approved it.

Any of that sound contemporary? Well, the section above was taken from the findings of the 1974 Church Committee. Some of us are old enough to remember it. The report is titled "Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans." DBJ wrote about it at Daily Kos two years ago today.

How are you feeling about your rights these days? Do you trust the government of the United States to uphold your rights? Do you think the White House or the Department of Justice believe in the Constitution? Really? May I interest you in some investment opportunities in Tooth Fairy, Inc.?

How about this bit from tag team at Daily Kos?

Recently I listened to Mike Malloy who was subbing in for Randi Rhodes during her vacation. In the course of one of his rants, Malloy went off on how U.S. policies during the 80s and 90s decimated the Iraq middle class. Without a middle class, he suggested, Saddam was free to run amok, terrorizing his people. Malloy noted that only a middle class could rise up and slaughter Hussein. The poor, so consumed with day to day survival, can't think about or plan a revolt against a dictator. The upper class, so comfortable and, often, so connected or beholden to the dictator, won't free themselves from the velvet trap. But the middle class, educated and informed, with a full belly and a roof over their heads, has time and ability to dream about how things can be better. They can and do plan and execute revolts.


That got me thinking.....is the same thing going on in our country right now? Are we seeing a winnowing of the middle class? A strapping of the middle class? An exhausting of the middle class so that we'll have a time when we don't have anyone who can stand up to a dictator and a ruling corporate class?

Oh, and there were 13 car bombs in Iraq on New Year's Day.
Today's post by Juan Cole has this double headline:
36 Dead in Baghdad Bombing;
23,000 Civilians Killed in 07

Devilstower was speculating about how Jim Baker might be feeling:

Those of us who have protested the idiocy in Iraq from even before the first hint of "Shock" or the first glimpse of "Awe" know what it is to have the spittle of the Bush administration running down our faces. We know how it feels to be told we're on the side of Saddam and Osama. We know how it feels to be told our view doesn't count, that we're not real Americans.

But for the guy who dragged Bush's lazy ass from Florida to the White House, that big loogie right between the eyes has to be a surprise.

Less than a month ago, the Iraq Study Group issued its report calling for, among other things, a phased reduction of US troops with emphasis on training Iraqis, substantive talks with Iraq's neighbors, and diversion of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to help save an increasingly difficult situation in that country. Since then, the decider has had a tough time making, you know, a decision. But after talking to his buds and cutting a few cords of brush, he's come to a decision.

The decision, Jimmy, is that you're as stupid as the rest of us. In talks with the BBC a Bush administration official has indicated that not only will there be no serious talks with Syria and Iran, and not only will Bush be calling for an escalation of the war in Iraq, but he's not intending to devote any additional troops to training. Rather than take the one step that might eventually lend some modicum of progress, Bush is going to deliver a half hour address "explaining in detail" how another 20 or 30 thousand troops, doing the same thing that they're doing now, is the way to go.

The Euro surpassed the dollar.

John Edwards announced his candidacy. Note the setting as reported through scanman1722:

In announcing his candidacy from the rubble of the Ninth Ward of New Orleans, Edwards has sent a tremendous and seemingly unprecedented signal to not only Democrats, but also Americans in general. Unlike other candidates in past who have announced in news conference friendly settings or in front on cheering supporters waving political signs, Edwards announced wearing jeans and blue collared shirt in front of a house he had spent the previous day helping rebuild and with community members (almost all of whom were African American) who had been the victims of not only a natural disaster of an amazing scale, but also the victims of yet another failure of the administration and policies of George W. Bush.

Was that "the rubble of the Ninth Ward of New Orleans"? Over a year after Katrina? Oh, that's right! They are still cleaning up.

So, how are we doing?
--the BB