Dirty Rat Bastards

I had an interesting morning. I awoke at 7am when it was still dark and watched the sky light up. This is not unusual for anyone with a 9 to 5 but for the ol muser being awake at 7 is unusual unless I have yet to go to bed. It's a surreal experience and I had hoped to talk about it. The world sounds different then and it seemed like a good, non-political free thinking piece. Unfortunately, the news intrudes and the blood is boiling. Two things stand out today, as usual, Republicans and the Bush administration.

On the latter point first. The Bush administration, it seems, has taken its new tactics of squashing any information they don't like from coming out to new judicial levels. Ever since Plamegate the administration has learned that attacking people it doesn't like with leaks is not a good idea. Fortunately for them many of the leaks that have since come out were against them rather than by them. So that is a crime and we, the criticised, get to investigate it, right? Whether it's a crime is the topic for some other, preferably lawyer like, blog. Bush and company long ago decided to use the Democrat's call for an investigation into the Plamegate leaks against its critics in the press. In practice this means taking people to court for leaking documents to the press that embarrass the US govt. This is the tactic the govt is pursuing to find the 'bastard' who leaked documents suggesting that the govt was engaged in questionably legal wiretapping via its electro snoops the NSA and the (probably good) story about US efforts to snoop out suspicious international banking transactions. Now it seems that the govt has decided not just to prosecute (and persecute) the leakers but are now using additional legal means to subpoena the leaked documents and remove all copies from the public domain.

The ACLU recently received an e-mail with some sort of document attached (no one is saying what is in the e-mail other than that it does not present a clear threat to or even deal with national security). Everyone seems to know who the leaker is. So the case ought to be closed and the govt can prosecute its own and the world can find yet another reason to hate the Bush administration (I highly doubt that the document will make Bush look pretty but who knows?), right? Not so much. Bush wants the documents back; all of them. I am not a legal scholar so I have no real idea whether this constitutes prior restraint. But I have heard good arguments that it might (and a pretty poor one that it doesn't but I'm no lawyer- thank the gods). The bigger issue is the use of seemingly legitimate judicial tools (a grand jury subpoena, in this case) to prevent discussion and criticism of US policy. There should not be a black and white approach to leaked documents, if you ask me. Leaking a document on troop movements (or mentioning them a la a gun toting Geraldo) is bad form and publishing it in the press is even worse form. But is leaking a document suggestive of questionably legal practices by the US govt bad? The ability to classify documents, which avoids all form of scrutiny, can easily be used, and is being used, by dangerous idiots or morally vapid officials (ahem, Bush and Cheney) to prevent criticism. I say leak the damn things...

If this were the only thing going on today that would be bad enough. Regrettably, I had to go to bed knowing of the poor health of Senator Johnson from South Dakota. Even if he were Republican I'd wish no harm on him and certainly not death. But his health has led to real questions about his death and a possible replacement. The law says in the event of death or resignation that the governor is to appoint a replacement to fill in until the next general election. Now a decent human being would likely honour the electoral choice of the people and a sane man might recognise the signs blowing in the wind that the people wanted a Democratic Senate and House. I am not so sure that South Dakota Governor, Michael Rounds, is that decent or sane. He is a partisan hack in the best of times. According to the NY Times he replaced a democratic state senator in a heavily Democratic district with a Republican (later roundly defeated). Should Governor Rounds be forced to replace Senator Johnson will he do something similar by appointing a Republican thus giving back the Senate to the Republicans? I don't know. But I do know that if he did it the Republicans would be (rightly) vilified. Unfortunately, with two years left till the next election the electorate would like forget about Republican treachery. So let me end by encouraging the governor to consider replacing a Democrat, if necessary (and let's hope it won't be), with another Democrat.