Edward Lazarus' column on the Mitchell Report had this to say about those who questioned releasing the names of some involved:
Mitchell's report comes with no sanction attached, weakening the claims that criminal-law evidentiary rules and standards should have been used. He did not have the power to punish anyone. In fact, he called on baseball to refrain from handing out punishments, except perhaps in the most egregious cases. In these circumstances, what Mitchell owed to the accused players was an opportunity to confront the allegations leveled against them. And Mitchell offered exactly that: He gave every named athlete the opportunity to confront the evidence against them and to present their own evidence. Virtually to a person, the athletes declined to do so.
No sanction? Sounds like the Bush Administration. To be fair, there was some sanction, including lose of jobs (Gonzo, anyone?) as well as some actual criminal prosecutions (they are starting to add up, actually), and a list will suggest that the "Bush Crime Family" label by the former Air America host Mike Malloy is rather accurate in more ways than one. It just is that breadth of the problem makes relatively minor victories, and pretty late in the day at that, pretty underwhelming. Such is the net feeling after Dodd's threat to filibuster the telecommunications immunity bill (the disfavored bill, Intelligence Committee vs. Judiciary, actually has various other problems) has led to but a postponing of the fight to after the holidays.
Not quite Sen. Durbin saying that giving into the administration on occupation funding will provide a chance to avoid the matter -- while giving you know who a victory (Durbin didn't quite add that) -- to next May or June. Still, a bit lame. Rachel Maddow tonight went down the list of some things, including raising the minimum wage, ethics reform, energy reform and other matters -- even with filibusters -- that the Dems did manage. But, simply put, executive power and the occupation are THE issues of the day. The fact Dems managed to do something is appreciated, but sorry, people have the right to be pissed. One can say why it is happening -- "Democrats" don't control Congress or whatever, but that is just analysis.
[See recent columns of Glenn Greenwald and some of the others linked here to read about the immunity bill, how Dodd's move came from the grassroots and so forth ... the Durbin reference came from an AP story on the Dems giving in to funding without strings that I passed in my local paper today.]
Dodd's move is particularly notable since he has a history of playing by the gentlemen rules of the Senate, even though we are now led by scoundrels. Glenn Greenwald* noted the fact when posting an interview he had with Dodd -- he noted Dodd's heart was in the right place and all, but failed to realize just how inapt old rules of the game were under present conditions. Dodd himself admitted the problem with this path per his failure to filibuster the Military Commissions Act, which very well might have meant something since not too many over a filibuster proof majority voted for the measure. Dodd also has a pedigree here ... his dad was a Nuremberg prosecutor, but did not think the importance of final justice included depriving even them with basic safeguards. This included, apropos, a trial over a summary executive action.
But, still ... victories, especially showing that "we the people" matter, should be honored. See also, the real investigatory work of Rep. Waxman, who has a job to do -- a sort of ombudsman -- and does it so well that even some targets admit that he is fair. It is not his job to punish ... it is not his fault that there has been no credible impeachment efforts or more moves to provide proper consequences for the actions investigated. Waxman, however, puts things on the record. Consider Valerie Plame coming and testifying ... under oath ... what a concept!
The press also has this role, and sometimes actually does its job. For instance, Charles Savage has done yeoman work underlines the abuses of executive power. All those blogs that bash the "MSM" ... and Talking Points Memo et. al. suggests this is only true up to a point ... tend not to do original reporting. And, let us not kid ourselves that there was some golden age of reporting, at least for any long length of time. It's like those who becry the state of politics today in campaign donation laden land, ignoring the nastiness of past campaigns long before the 1980s. In a book on Woodward and Bernstein, we read how Woodward becried members of the press as "stenographers" while working on the Watergate story. Apparently, we have gone in full circle.
[The book is recommended; h/t in part to Feministing for encouraging the read.]
Those days also had a select committee to investigate the President. A perfect storm, however, was necessary -- a Democratic Congress, an unpopular President and a country that -- for various reasons -- was ready for the take-down (including Vietnam suggesting the perfidy of the executive). Cf. Iran Contra, which was quite impeachable, but in effect served as a backhanded pass to executive tyranny. And, we have some of the same clowns involved in the current mess, Congress -- again controlled by "Democrats" -- largely letting them off the hook.
But, the idea in part with that Ron was on his way out and all, and maybe cleaned house a bit as well. Apparently, the whiting out of impeachment from the Constitution as a serious possibility -- outside from the spare federal judge -- also is far from new.
---
* GG is back on his defend Ron Paul kick today, attracting Pauliacs (see also, BTC News' unusually heavy comment stream here). He uses a bit of a strawman and/or easy to attack hyperbole on Paul's anti-abortion legality stance, using "pro-life" (see here for an idea why the quotes are probably advisable to some degree) Sen. Reid (not big friend of many of his readers btw) as evidence of the problems with single issue politics. But, a Senate Majority Leader simply does not compared in many ways -- least being the "first among equals" nature of the role -- than the POTUS.
GG favors Paul because of his anti-executive tyranny views and his own libertarian leanings. He also suggests the MSM does not properly address this anti-establishment candidate, but except for a recent post on Huckabee, is somewhat selective about that angle. And, he should be aware that (1) the fact RP focuses on having states ban abortion is not exactly prime for many people (2) did support various federal moves and his power of appointment [e.g., judges] / bully pulpit matters too and (3) people oppose him for various reasons, making it harder to elide past his pro-life views.
GG appears to have a blindspot here.