Response to Mark Thiessen article in the Washington Post (Tuesday, March 09, 2010) defending the attacks on the Justice Department lawyers who previously represented accused prisoners at Guantanamo, “The 'al-Qaeda seven' and selective McCarthyism (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/08/AR2010030801742.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)

jdcolv wrote:

While I deplore the attack on the attorneys, both inside and outside the military, who upheld the finest American jurisprudential values in representing the accused at Guantanamo, I find nothing wrong with Americans knowing the background of any of our public servants. Unfortunately, Mr. Holder handled the request abominably. He should have immediately released the names of the individuals and the information requested as soon as he got the Senate request - along with a vigorous support of their outstanding service to America by undertaking the representation of the accused. By failing to release the names, he allowed the creation of an inference that there was something wrong when there is not.

I would also suggest that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I am, therefore, writing to the Washington Post ombudsman demanding that the descriptive material about Mr. Thiessen at the end of each of his columns include the following:
/>Mr. Thiessen was a spokesman and policy advisor for Senator Jesse Helms;
/>Mr. Thiessen served in the Bush Administration as a speechwriter for Donald Rumsfeld and as chief speechwriter for George W. Bush;
/>Mr. Thiessen's wife is the staff director of the Senate Republican Policy Committee.

Using Mr. Thiessen's own criteria, this information will allow readers to better evaluate the bias from which his columns are written.

Response to Washington Post column by Dana Milbank re: “Why Obama Needs Rham at the Top.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021904298.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 )

If one ascribes to the traditional Washington political mindset of power politics being the name of the game, Mr. Milbank may have some support for his thesis of Mr. Emanuel being an essential part of the Obama Administration. If, on the other hand, you still believe in the opportunity that the Obama candidacy offered Americans to assist in the reinvention of the way government works, Mr. Milbank is stupendously wrong in his analysis.

At the end of the 2008 presidential campaign, there existed tremendous enthusiasm for a change in the way that our government operated. Mr. Obama had created a cadre of millions of activists around the country who were poised to assist in that fundamental change. Those millions of trained activists were poised and eager to be partners with Mr. Obama in bringing about the promised change.

Then Mr. Obama made the fundamental error of failing to trust his better judgment and the millions of supporters ready to act. Instead, Mr. Obama brought in the retread, Rahm Emanuel. Mr. Emanuel was a bitter opponent of Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy which had played an essential part in Mr. Obama’s election and the development of the millions of people ready to actively assist Mr. Obama. Mr. Emanuel proceded to dismantle the window of opportunity for a change in the way government worked that Mr. Obama presented, and turned the Obama presidency into a traditional behind the scenes Washington power struggle of special deals and the primacy of politics over substance.

Whether Mr. Emanuel truly fears an energized electorate which might not be amenable to the kind of control that he craves or whether he was fearful that the energized millions would continue to render less influential the traditional funding sources for the Democratic Party, i.e. the Israeli lobby, Mr. Emanuel proceeded to neuter the activist supporters of Mr. Obama. In so doing, Mr. Emanuel ceded the grass roots playing field to the corporate sponsored right which spawned the so-called “Tea Party” activists who have so bollixed up President Obama’s agenda. When Mr. Obama needed grass roots assistance to convince Congress to pass health care legislation, Mr. Emanuel had rendered the cupboard bare.

The millions of Obama supporters who worked for “change you can believe in” and the tea-party activists have one thing in common – they believe that the government is not working for them and want fundamental changes in the way that government operates. Currently, the conservative grass roots effort is getting most of the publicity and seemingly the greater support. The Obama legions are disoriented and somewhat disillusioned by the tack that the Obama Administration has taken.

Can Mr. Obama re-energize his millions of supporters to assist in bringing about the change that he promised in the campaign? I believe that he can, but to do so will require a fundamental realignment in the direction of the Obama Administration. Such a realignment would be total anathema to Mr. Emanuel and cannot come about with him remaining influential in the administration. Trust in Mr. Obama’s commitment to the realignment would be suspect with Mr. Emanuel still in place. Unfortunately, failure to bring about this fundamental realignment may well result in Mr. Cheney’s claim that the Obama presidency will be one term only – either by a successful Republican resurgence or the successful challenge of Mr. Obama from his own party by someone who can harness the enthusiasm of the millions of disillusioned former Obama supporters who are still yearning for change.

For the above reasons, I fundamentally disagree with Mr. Milbank’s conclusion that Mr. Emanuel is essential to Mr. Obama’s success, and advocate that the elimination of Mr. Emanuel’s influence in the Obama Administration is essential to success.

Ken Starr

Re: Kenneth Starr:

I would suggest that Mr. Starr is an individual who has deluded himself into thinking that he was ethical in his prosecution of Mr. Clinton, but who really lost his way because of an overpowering desire to be a Supreme Court Justice.

You will recall that Mr. Starr was appointed Special Prosecutor by the judicial panel headed by Judge David Sentelle who had removed Robert B. Fiske as Special Prosecutor after Mr. Fiske had not come up with anything on Mr. Clinton after several months of investigation. Mr. Starr's appointment came soon after a luncheon of Judge Sentelle with Republican senators Lauch Faircloth and Jesse Helms (about which Mr. Helms ridiculously later claimed they spent the entire time talking about his prostate.) You will also recall that Mr. Starr's investigation began during Mr. Clinton's first term.

I would suggest that the deal was that if Mr. Starr could tarnish Mr. Clinton badly enough that he would resign or lose the 1996 election, Mr. Starr would get the first Supreme Court appointment of the next Republican president. Unfortunately, when Mr. Starr’s efforts proved unsuccessful, Mr. Clinton was re-elected, and Mr. Starr became such a lightning rod that he realized that he would never be either nominated nor confirmed to the Supreme Court, Mr. Starr became bitter and vindictive, lost all sense of perspective, and expanded his investigation far beyond the original charge of Whitewater. The investigation proved so repugnant that the Congress did not renew the Special Prosecutor statute.

The closest Mr. Starr ever got to the Supreme Court was to write a book about it.

Captains' lawyers speak out - News

Captains' lawyers speak out - News The article quotes one of the attorneys for the lacrosse team players saying that "The boys are being tried in the media before there was any charge or any specific defendant in the case. And that's just not fair." Of course, if it turns out that the lawyer's client is accused, we can rest assured that the victim will be pilloried and victimized again and again by the attorney in any forum where he can get an audience, be it the media or the court - and the attorney will claim that such is fair and just!

Eminent Domain - Good or Bad Decision?

The following appeared as a guest column in the Rochester, Minnesota Post Bulletin, August 11, 2005

The recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. New London, confirmed the power of governments to use eminent domain to force the involuntary sale by landowners for economic development purposes. Critics have charged that the Supreme Court decision is an egregious abuse of our property rights, and there is much foment in Congress and some state capitols to restrict the purported stretch of the opinion. These efforts may be ill advised in light of the facts of the case and the actual holding of the opinion.

In 2000, the City of New London, Connecticut approved an economic development plan that was intended to create an estimated 1000 new jobs, increase tax revenues to the city, and revitalize an economically distressed waterfront area. The plan included a public park, a marina, various office and commercial buildings, and residential housing.

The City, through its development arm, purchased numerous sites in the redevelopment area and attempted to acquire the remaining sites through negotiation. When several of the owners refused to sell, the City proceeded to acquire the property through eminent domain. Without the acquisition of all of the property the redevelopment plan could not be accomplished.

Several land owners sued to block the eminent domain proceedings on the basis that the taking of their property was not for a “public purpose” as required by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States because part of the redevelopment would include selling the property acquired back to private individuals or businesses. They argued that the forced relinquishing of property from one private party to another private party cannot constitute a public purpose.

The majority, in ruling for the city, emphasized that the taking was in accordance with a detailed development plan, which would potentially enhance the value of the area to the City and create much needed jobs. They held that the economic development which would result was sufficient “public purpose” to meet the requirements of the 5th Amendment even though some of the property would be turned back to other private interests.

The dissenting Justices concluded that taking property for economic development purposes provides only a tangential value to the public; and, therefore, does not meet the 5th Amendment standard for a “public purpose.” With the exception of the park, much of the redeveloped area would not be available to the general public. The dissent also made the point that the position of the majority would potentially put the property of every citizen at risk if a governmental body concluded that it could get a “higher” use from the property. The majority’s emphasis on the existence of a detailed development plan was an attempt to mitigate this argument.

This case involves competing values, both of which have validity. The city wanted to create an attractive area for its citizens and visitors, create additional jobs, and increase revenues to the city. Without the power of eminent domain, the redevelopment plan could not be put into place. The property owners wanted the continued right to enjoy their homes and businesses without interference from the government.

In Minnesota, city governments have the power to exercise eminent domain so long as the taking is for a public purpose, the taking is necessary to achieve the public purpose, and fair value is paid for the property. The City of Rochester has the kind of power the Supreme Court ratified in the Velo Case, but has used it very sparingly. In almost all cases, the City has been able to negotiate satisfactory solutions with landowners.

Rochester is currently engaged in an economic redevelopment planning effort for the downtown area. If its efforts to negotiate the purchase of properties to make the plan work are not successful, should the City of Rochester use its powers of eminent domain to accomplish the objective of a revitalized downtown area? Should Rochester exercise its power to force the sale of the property of a landowner so that it can resell the property for a “higher” use to another private owner to make the development plan a reality?

These are questions which may come before the Rochester City Council in the weeks and months ahead. Let us hope that the council has the wisdom of Solomon in deciding these difficult questions, if presented. The answers are not nearly so clear-cut as the rhetoric regarding the Supreme Court’s decision would indicate.

Mr. Cheney - Will He Last?

Six months ago, I suggested to a friend that Dick Cheney might be replaced as Vice-President before the end of Bush’s second term. We discussed the possibility that Cheney’s health might be used as the reason for leaving the Administration. Recently, we have heard that Mr. Cheney has visited the hospital on a couple of occasions with a health issue related to his heart. Is this real or is it feigned? Only time will tell.

Why would the President’s handlers want to ease Mr. Cheney out? Several possible reasons come to mind. Except with regard to the hard right, Mr. Cheney is seen as the dark image of the administration. His well-publicized support of an exception for the CIA to the ban on torture and inhumane treatment has received very negative publicity. The indictment of Scooter Libby out of Mr. Cheney’s office in the CIA/Valerie Plame affair will also continue to result in negative publicity for the Vice-President with possible increased disclosures about Mr. Cheney’s participation in the vindictive activity of outing Ms. Plame. Mr. Cheney could well be considered a negative in the perception of the President by the general populace.

Perhaps, the most important reason for easing Mr. Cheney out might be the presidential election of 2008. The most logical candidate to succeed a term-limited President is the Vice-President. While there have been some feelers about backing off his statements that he would not be a candidate in 2008, it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Cheney would not be the GOP candidate, particularly with his high negatives. The rise in stature of Senator McCain, who has been a thorn in the side of the Bush Administration, particularly on the conduct of the Iraq invasion, and who has been increasingly mentioned as the GOP candidate for president in 2008, may also be a consideration.

Easing Mr. Cheney out and appointing someone to the Vice-Presidency who would be given some highly visible responsibilities would provide that person a leg up for the GOP nomination for President in 2008. That would allow the Bush supporters to maintain control of the Republican Party, if not the entire country if the GOP candidate wins. On, the other hand, a nomination by the Republicans of McCain or someone from the more moderate wing of the GOP would probably mean the demise of the influence of the Bush supporters, even if the GOP candidate won the election.

For these reasons, easing Mr. Cheney out would make good political sense. However, it would be politically dangerous if it is perceived by the Republican right that it is being done. Hence, it is necessary to cover the exorcism with a reasonable basis to keep the Republican right in check. Poor health would be a politically defensible basis for the resignation of the Vice-President.

The next few months and the fate of Mr. Cheney as Vice-President will be fascinating to watch. If he leaves the office, the selection of a successor will be very interesting. If he remains in office, his continuing role will also be very interesting. Let us wait and see.

Withdrawal of Miers Nomination - Republican Hypocrisy

The withdrawal of the nomination of Harriet Miers to be a Supreme Court Justice certainly puts the lie to the Republican mantra that all they want is an "up or down vote" on President Bush's nominations. The radical right wing Republicans never even gave her an opportunity for a hearing, let alone an up or down vote. Let us never again be lulled by the Republican hypocrisy of affording a nominee "an up or down vote."