US Politics: Why "Filibuster Reform" May Be the Big Issue of 2010 (Haddigan)

On Tuesday the Republican minority in the Senate prevented the proposed DISCLOSE Act, a campaign finance reform measure already passed by the House of Representatives, from proceeding to a floor vote. They failed to force an end to discussion of the Bill, losing a vote of cloture. (The Democrats had a majority of 57-41 but 60 votes are required to cut off debate.)

While the DISCLOSE Act is not, as yet, officially dead, Democrats will struggle to convince the lone Republican needed to force cloture before the Senate goes into recess, with implications for the near-future that extend far beyond the issue of campaign finance reform. Democrats, angry at this latest obstructionism in the Senate by Republicans, have begun discussing what changes they can make in Senate rules to prevent similar filibuster tactics. With the Democrats likely to have only a slender majority in the Senate after the mid-term elections, the future course of the Obama Presidencymay well rest on what reforms Democrats can make to Senate rules in the next few months.

The DISCLOSE (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections) Act was introduced on 21 July by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York. Its intention is to restrict some of the electoral influence granted to corporations in the Supreme Court’s historic ruling in January in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case.

In that decision the Court ruled that corporations, like individuals, can fund electoral campaigns under the First Amendment protection of political free speech. Corporations are still prohibited from donating directly to a candidate’s campaign fund or a national party committee, a restriction placed into law by the Tillman Act of 1907, but are now permitted to use "independent spending" to explicitly support a candidate.

"Independent spending" means that corporations and advocacy groups can fund political advertisements with their internal money, as long as they are independent from, or not associated with, the official campaign operations of the candidate. Corporations were formerly banned by the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 from using their general treasury accounts to pay for television and radio advertisements that named the candidate they supported, or opposed, in the weeks before Federal elections for President or Congress.

Critics of Citizens United, largely Democrats, argue that the easing of curbs on corporations' funding of campaigns will lead to a sharp increase in the number of so-called ‘attack ads’ in the days before an election. This, opponents contend, will give a disproportionate influence on the outcome of an election to those wealthy organizations that can flood the airwaves in the critical period prior to the vote.

The DISCLOSE act attempts to weaken that political sway by requiring that all "electioneering communications" (i.e., media advertisements) include a full disclosure of who is funding the message. Democrats hope that this measure will allow the voter the chance to recognise when their vote is being "bought" by special interest groups.

The Act also wants to prevent “persons negotiating for or performing government contracts”, companies that received bail-out funds from TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), and “United States corporations controlled by foreign entities” from exerting undue influence over elections. The Act suggests, “Independent expenditures and electioneering communications that benefit particular candidates or elected officials or disfavor their opponents can lead to apparent and actual ingratiation, access, influence, and quid pro quo arrangements.”

As Citizens United mandates the principle of constitutional protection of political speech for corporations, there is little Congress can do to ban them from "independent expenditures and electioneering communications". But the DISCLOSE Act would limit the ‘apparent and actual ingratiation, access, influence, and quid pro quo arrangements’ of all corporations by limiting the number eligible to legally finance independently an electoral campaign.

I am no business expert, but I’ll warrant the guess that all corporations in America with the financial clout to potentially affect an electoral result could wbe precluded from electioneering communications because they are government contractors/TARP funded/foreign-controlled. The last restriction, regarding foreign corporations, was especially written with the widest possible latitude for the Supreme Court to narrow campaign financing regulations. The Act states that: “As recognized in many areas of the law, foreign ownership interests and influences are exerted in a perceptible way even when the entity is not majority-foreign-owned”, leading to the contention that the “Federal Government has broad constitutional power to protect American interests and sovereignty from foreign interference and intrusion6.”

Republicans oppose the DISCLOSE act. They are, in general, excited at the prospect of corporations and advocacy organizations financing the campaigns of Party candidates. Despite the efforts of Democrats to sway the vote of three wavering senators, and President Obama’s pleas from the Rose Garden on Monday to end the threat of “shadow groups (that) are already forming and building war chests of tens of millions of dollars to influence the fall elections”,  the Republicans managed to stall the Act by unanimously voting against cloture. With similar delaying tactics by Republicans on banking reform and the extension of unemployment insurance payments, Democrats are becoming increasingly frustrated at the use or threat of the silent filibuster by their political adversaries. As a result there is increasing support in Democrat ranks, especially among progressive activist groups, to end the tradition of a Senate filibuster and make redundant the necessity of votes for cloture.

The use of a cloture vote to end a filibuster is not a constitutional issue. Congress is granted by the Constitution the right to determine for itself the procedural rules that organize the operations of the House and Senate. Cloture was introduced in 1917, in Senate Rule XXII, to end the delaying tactics of a small number of isolationist senators who opposed the arming of merchant ships in World War I. These tactics traditionally take the form of a senator, or group of senators, commenting on issues relating (however incidentally) to the proposed Act for as long as possible, ending in no vote taking place as time has run out.

Traditionally there is no limit on the time a Senator may hold the floor to debate a law, unlike the House which introduced cut-off points in 1842. This has led to the splendid fictional spectacle of Jimmy Stewart’s filibuster in the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and the rather less edifying real-life performance of Senator Strom Thurmond talking for more than 24 hours in a vain attempt to filibuster the 1957 Civil Rights Act (although he did succeed in watering down the Act’s provisions).

Senate Rule XXII of 1917 required a two-thirds majority to force a cloture vote. That number proved almost impossible to achieve, and in 1975 the majority number was reduced to 60. But, as the Democrats have found, obtaining a three-fifths majority to end a threatened filibuster is also a formidable obstacle to overcome. Hence, with an eye to the reduced majority they will command after November, Democrats are considering changing the rules of Senate procedure so that a simple majority (or a 50-50 tie broken by the vote of the Vice President) can bring debate on a proposed law to an end.

Democrats are mulling over the chances of using the constitutional option, or colloquially the "nuclear" option, for changing Senate procedures. This method of changing Senate rules was first given substance in 1979, when Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia was posed with the threat of filibuster on a rule change he had proposed. Invoking the example of the first Senate meeting of 1789, Senator Byrd argued that when each new Senate gathers for the first time, it is permitted to decide what rules will govern their operations for the next two years.  Just as Congress should not oppose the right of the majority of members to decide what laws are passed, Byrd maintained, the Senate cannot prevent the will of the majority of senators from becoming the operating rules for that particular congressional session. Under this procedure, on the opening of the new Senate, using tabling motions, a simple majority can change  rules to nullify the filibuster.

Immediately after the cloture vote on the DISCLOSE Act failed, Max Baucus, a Democrat senator from Montana backed by liberal advocacy group People For the American Way, announced he would present to Congress a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. There is little likelihood, despite PFAW’s claims that a June poll shows 77% support, that the amendment will get serious consideration.

More ominously for Republican supporters of Citizens United, last weekend Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared, to huge applause, that he would consider filibuster reform at the opening of the next Senate session. Vice President Joe Biden, who is also President of the Senate, has also spoken out against the filibuster, and if these two influential Democrats back the rule changes, it will be a brave Democrat senator who balks the party leadership and votes to continue the three-fifths majority currently needed for a vote on cloture.

The topic of filibuster reform, even if the DISCLOSE Act is eventually passed into law, is certain to provide one of the most acrimonious subjects of debate in the mid-term elections. Any electoral reform proposal that makes the American democratic system more open and participatory is sure to meet with joyous approval from the "progressive" Left. Filibuster reform would energize a constituency who are disillusioned at the lack of real change the current administration has achieved.

Conversely, Republicans will be apoplectic --- furious does not adequately convey the sense of outrage in this instance --- at any proposed rule changes. They will object not only because the measures will seriously hamper their immediate efforts to halt Democratic policy proposals, but also because filibuster reform strikes at one of the central principles of conservative belief. Conservatives argue that the Constitution explicitly, through the system of checks and balances, adopts the idea that a simple majority is not by itself an adequate recommendation for political change.

There is a long way to go, and many scenarios that may be played out, before a new Senate gathers in January. It is more than possible that Democrats will step back from making such a radical change. But considering the current resurgence in the principles of traditional conservatism, and the progressives' need to find a ‘populist’ issue to boost the interest and commitment of the electorate in November, a bitter fight over filibuster reform looms large in the coming months.

US Politics: Why Supporters of Arizona's Immigration Law Can Be Optimistic (Haddigan)

Lee Haddigan, one of EA's analysts on US politics, writes:

On Wednesday, 28 July, a day before Arizona's immigration legislation, SB 1070, was due to become law, District Judge Susan R. Bolton issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily prohibited the state from applying certain provisions of the statute. Her decision has provoked widespread comment, not just within the US but also in other countries, with both the BBC and Sky in Britain featuring the story prominently.

Most discussion, national and international, has portrayed the ruling as a victory for the Obama Administration and a defeat of the intent of Arizona’s law. However, study of the 36 pages of Judge Bolton’s reasoning and an evaluation of what the law actually intends to do reveal that Arizona legislators who supported SB 1070 can still celebrate. There are those provisions that did become law on Thursday, and the judge’s review offers grounds for optimism that, with some minor alterations, the sections that did not become law could survive a challenge in the future by the Department of Justice.

Judge Bolton granted the right of Arizona, in theory, to pass legislation dealing with illegal aliens. To sum up the implied message, "This is where you went wrong, now go fix it if you can."

The review of SB 1070 began with the observation that the law was enacted against “a backdrop of rampant illegal immigration, escalating drug and human trafficking crimes, and serious public safety concerns.” So Judge Bolton started with the recognition that Arizona does suffer from problems that need addressing. And in her conclusion, she asserted that the Court “by no means disregards Arizona’s interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime".

Often overlooked in discussion of SB 1070 is what the law is actually meant to achieve. It is not the mass detention and deportation of illegal aliens. Instead, it intends to force illegal immigrants to leave the state of their own accord, deny illegal immigrants the economic means to live in Arizona and negating the assumption that their presence is tolerated. Section 1 of SB 1070 referred to this strategy as "attrition by enforcement".

The Federal Government attempted to enjoin the whole law because this “overall statutory scheme” was an attempt to “set immigration policy at the state level and interferes and conflicts with federal immigration law". Thus, the motion argued, SB 1070 is unconstitutional because of the Supremacy Clause (see the earlier post on EA).

Judge Bolton refused the Federal Government’s argument, stating that the intent of the Act does not “create a single and unified statutory scheme incapable of provision by provision analysis”. In essence, she conceded that Arizona has the right to pursue the policy of "attrition through enforcement" when the provisions of the law do not infringe upon the federal right to regulate immigration.

Bolton allowed that the Supreme Court “has consistently ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration". But she followed this assertion of the broad powers of Congress on immigration by quoting a Supreme Court decision, De Canas v. Bica (1976), that narrowed the field where the federal government possessed exclusive authority. While the Court held that the “[p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power”, it also concluded that not all state laws “which in any way deals with aliens is a regulation of immigration and thus per se preempted by this constitutional power”.

Judge Bolton also specifically used the De Canas precedent to uphold a section of SB 1070 that the government challenged as a preemption of the federal right to regulate immigration. Part of Section 5 makes it “illegal for a person in violation of a criminal offense" to induce a person to come to Arizona, or hide them when they are in the state, if they know that the person is an unauthorized alien. The government asked for this section to be enjoined because it preempted federal laws on immigration.

De Canas, the Judge declared, defined the regulation of immigration as deciding “who should or should not be admitted into the country, and the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain”. A state law with illegal aliens as its subjects does not “render it a regulation of immigration”. As long as the state does not try to decide who should or should not be allowed to enter the United States, and does not stipulate the requirements for a legal entrant to remain in the country, then it can pass laws to deter illegal aliens from residing in their state.

Where Judge Bolton did prohibit sections of SB 1070 from becoming law on Thursday, she also at times indicated the grounds on which it could be amended to counter the enjoinment. She granted the Federal Government’s motion to prohibit a sentence which, she said, could only be read as making it mandatory for police to check the residency status of every person, including citizens, that they arrested.

Arizona, the Judge remarked, had explained at the hearing should be read as “that only where a reasonable suspicion exists that a person arrested is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States must the person’s immigration status be determined”. This inclusion of Arizona’s explanation of the meaning of the sentence, which Judge Bolton did not have to give, was footnoted by her with the wry comment that “Arizona acknowledges that this sentence of Section 2(B) ‘might well have been more artfully worded’”. To my eyes that means "Go away and write that sentence as you explained it at the court hearing."

In another footnote, Bolton politely reminds the reader that many Arizona law enforcement officers do not need a new law to check the immigration status of a person who they have encountered in the course of a “lawful stop, detention or arrest,” as they “already have the discretion to verify immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion”.

In simple words, supporters SB 1070 argue that they are not surpassing federal law but to overcome resistance within the state to the full implementation of federal law. Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona appeared on Fox News on Wednesday night to emphasise “that police officers can do their job, they can enforce federal laws and their supervisors are not able to tell them not to enforce them”.

Those who see Wednesday’s decision by Judge Bolton as a defeat of SB 1070 are being a little premature. In fact, her ruling established the right of Arizona to legislate on its intent to force illegal aliens out of the state by "at4trition through enforcement" (an attempt that, according to some news channels, is already achieving the desired result). Where the Judge did enjoin provisions of the law, she also hinted at the means whereby Arizona could amend SB 1070 to fix the problem. And she allowed the right of the citizens of Arizona to sue recalcitrant state officials who do not enforce the federal laws on the books.

Of course, this is only the first hurdle for SB 1070 to overcome, and legal rulings on the civil rights issues in the law have yet to be heard. But for supporters of the Arizonan law, I would suggest that there is cause to be optimistic.

Afghanistan & US Politics: National Interests and Ending the War (Mull)

Josh Mull is the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. He also writes at Rethink Afghanistan:

By now, the full implications of the data contained in the 91,000 Wikileaks files are starting to sink in. Americans have been questioning the war for some time now, and they're finally putting their foot down and demanding an end. Thousands of calls are pouring in to Congress from around the country, all demanding a NO vote on today's war funding vote, and thousands more are signing a petition declaring "the Wikileaks ‘War Logs’ are further evidence of a brutal war that’s not worth the cost. I vote, and I demand my elected officials end this war by Dec. 2011."

Afghanistan: At Least 45 Civilians Killed in Rocket Attack

Sure, war supporters gave it the old college try. The White House and other political leadership stressed that the leaks contained no new information, incidentally clearing up once and for all the confusion we had over whether they were ignorant or merely incompetent and negligent prosecutors of US foreign policy. Some even tried to deflect the argument on to Wikileaks operator Julian Assange, as if the leak coming from him --- or Paris Hilton or Spider-Man --- has anything to do with the information it contained.

But their arguments are for naught, the war is now simply indefensible. These leaks confirm and validate the criticism so far levied against the war in Afghanistan. The headline in an article by Gareth Porter, "Leaked Reports Make Afghan War Policy More Vulnerable", seems like the understatement of the century:

Among the themes that are documented, sometimes dramatically but often through bland military reports, are the seemingly casual killing of civilians away from combat situations, night raids by special forces that are often based on bad intelligence, the absence of legal constraints on the abuses of Afghan police, and the deeply rooted character of corruption among Afghan officials.

The most politically salient issue highlighted by the new documents, however, is Pakistan's political and material support for the Taliban insurgency, despite its ostensible support for U.S. policy in Afghanistan.

You could pick just one of those things Porter mentions and it could spell catastrophe for the war. Instead we have all of them. It does more than make the war policy more vulnerable, it puts any war supporting politician in Washington in serious electoral peril.

Left to their own devices, the mainstream media will craft their own stupid and obnoxious narratives about "lefty insurgencies" or "anti-incumbent fever," and this will poison the eventual policy outcome. However, if we understand the facts now, and see this as not only a US political dilemma but as part of a global anti-war movement finally winding up at President Obama's doorstep, then the US can begin to accelerate its withdrawal more responsibly than the standard media narratives might allow (Get out now! No, stay forever!).

This is not simply a reaction to a failed policy, it is an articulation of an independent vision of selfish foreign and domestic policy interests. Americans, our NATO allies, and even our progressive allies in Pakistan are all working to end the war. Domestically, political candidates who are putting ,members of Congress in electoral peril are doing so as a response to outcry from their constituents.

Elaine Marshall, candidate for Senate in North Carolina, has been a strong opponent of the President's escalation in Afghanistan. She says that, throughout her campaign she has been approached by supporters who tell her, "‘I appreciate your stance, I appreciate you talking about it, I appreciate that you’re looking at more than just the headlines." She explained in an interview with the Seminal:

I live in North Carolina, a strong military state. When you talk to people who’ve been [to war], and you understand the sacrifices folks are making, and then you look at the reason why they are stepping up to make that sacrifice, or those maybe joined before the actual situation came up and they now, because they’re good soldiers, become involved in it. In our prior engagements for the most part, we had a goal. We knew who the enemy was, we knew why we were there, we had a line drawn that we knew would be success, achievement, victory. We don’t have any of that in the war in Afghanistan.

The same is true for candidate Tommy Sowers, running for Missouri's 8th congressional district. He recently published an opinion piece questioning the President's strategy of bolstering Afghan security forces, and asking whether or not such a massive, long-term financial commitment was feasible in the economic environment. He has received high praise for his essay, as well as for his position on the war itself, as he conducted town halls across the state. He explained what he was hearing from his constituents in an interview with me and Jason Rosenbaum last week:

First, across the country, districts like this carry the burden of the war in a visceral way. When I’m in a room, I ask folks if they are veterans or if they’re related to people currently serving – it’s almost the entire room. So, on a very personal level, these people are asking, "What are we accomplishing over there?" A lot of families ask their own family members that are over there this question.

Second, on a fiscal level, this district has suffered under Republican incumbent rule in terms of infrastructure. There’s great concern about the debt, and people ask, "Why are we spending so much money over there?"

Sowers served in combat during the Iraq war, and many in Marshall's family chose to serve their country in the military, so it's clear where their personal convictions are rooted. And the overflow of public outcry and support from their constituents gives them the momentum to go from average anti-war candidates to populist juggernauts.

Did you catch Sowers' comment about "suffering under incumbent rule"? The electoral peril is not a hypothetical, it's very real. Sowers is coming directly at his opponent on this issue. He told us:

My opponent sits on the NATO parliamentary assembly, so you’d think she’d have an interest in the issue, but I’m not certain she’s even visited Afghanistan. The only thing I’ve heard from her is we need to do everything over there – more troops, more money. That’s what you get with a former lobbyists trying to influence military policy.

His opponent doesn't even have much chance to reverse her position, her hands are already all over this war. Now she's staring down the barrel of Tommy Sowers, all because she couldn't even hedge her bets on an exit timetable. She had to do the lobbyist thing and give it all away, "more troops, more money". Marshall's opponent in North Carolina is no better, refusing to fund a $32 billion one-year extension for teachers on one hand while on the other having plenty of freebie money for Wall Street and the war-makers.

It's too late to change positions or blow this off as some kind of far-left anomaly in the primaries. These folks have had their resumes scrutinized, they've won their nominations, and now they've moved on to delivering a spirited beating to their opponents.

But what happens when they do get to Washington? That's where we truly see the selfish national interests laid out. They will not simply block the war and call it a day. Marshall has talked about expanding international cooperation in terms of developing Afghanistan, as well as reforming our port/border security with an eye on counter-terrorism. Sowers also has a definite objective in mind when it comes to securing US interests in Afghanistan.

I’m a secure our nation sort of guy, an ass-kicking Democrat. I think we should pursue and kill and capture terrorists where they are. That’s the problem in Afghanistan, we’re pursuing them where they were. For every special forces team tied up training an Afghan police force that one day won’t be paid is a special forces team that can’t operate in Yemen, Pakistan or Somalia. [...]

My strategy is informed by history. We are fighting an ideology. I’ve seen first hand when I had price on my head in Iraq. But there’s ways to fight this war much more intelligently.

Look back to the history of the cold war, how did we combat that? We contained, we deterred, we used trade, aid, proxies. And we occasionally sent guys like me to kill and capture the real bad folks. Overall, we let the system collapse in on itself.

Sowers is putting forward his own strategy for fighting terrorism. I've made my reservations about that strategy clear, but these candidates are not mirror images of activist bloggers; they are independent political actors. Sowers and Marshall are not conforming to any ideological constraints. They are putting forward their own, selfish national security strategies and are backed by popular momentum.

Pakistan is where we see those same selfish interests replicated. Just as our candidates look out for the United States, Pakistanis are looking out only for their country. Take, for example, their reaction to the Wikileaks' "War Diary" confirmation of the involvement of Pakistani army and intelligence services with the insurgency. Mosharraf Zaidi writes:

Virtually no serious commentator or analyst anywhere, even those embedded deep in the armpit of the Pakistani establishment, claims that the Pakistani state was not instrumental in the creation, training and sustenance of the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. Given the nature of the relationship between the Pakistani state and the Afghan Taliban, one that goes right to the genetic core of the Taliban, it is hard to imagine that all ties can ever be severed. Again, for serious people, this is an issue that is done and dusted. Pakistan's state, and indeed, its society, had, has and will continue to have linkages with the Afghan Taliban. Moral judgments about these linkages are external to this fact.

These linkages do, however, deserve the scrutiny of the Pakistani parliament. If somehow, Pakistanis are involved in supporting any kind of violence against anyone, that kind of support had better be couched in a clear national security framework that articulates why it is okay for Pakistanis to underwrite such violence. Absent such a framework, the violence is illegal, and the space for speculation and innuendo about Pakistan is virtually infinite. It is that space that Pakistan's fiercest critics exploit when they generate massive headlines out of small nuggets of insignificant and stale information that implicates Pakistan in anti-US violence in Afghanistan (among other things).

Zaidi is representative of a broader progressive movement in Pakistan, the closest parallel and ally that Americans have there, and yet what is his response? It is not a call for an immediate end to Pakistan's "Strategic Depth", its support of militants, and there is no mourning the loss of American lives because of that policy. There is only acknowledgement that the relationship with militants --- specifically the Afghan Taliban ---  is deeply embedded in Pakistani society, as well as a call for the government to better articulate this relationship in a "national security framework".

Zaidi is not looking out for our best interests --- refraining from support to militants who kill American soldiers --- he's looking out for Pakistan's best interests, and that includes their historic ties to militancy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jammu & Kashmir, etc. Seems harsh, but it is a parallel to the US. When was the last time an American pundit, even a liberal one, shed a tear for the thousands of Pakistani soldiers and policemen killed doing our selfish American bidding? The answer would be never.

But there's also the actual Pakistani anti-war movement. Appealing directly to the principles of the "American Founding Fathers", the group calling itself the Coalition of Conscience put forward this list of demands:

1. The foreign presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan is part of problem rather than the solution; > The coalition Governments must immediately order a cessation of all military and sting operations in the region and allow peace to be negotiated.


2. Al-Qaeda is a convenient tool to blanket all opposition to US policies in the region and impose unilateral policies; > All efforts to use this pretext to prolong the presence in the region and to pursue an international agenda other than peace must cease.


3. On going coalition operations have a fragmenting effect on both Pakistan and Afghanistan; > All coalition operations with divisive effects must be stopped.


4. The entire spectrum of violence and instability in Pakistan is a backwash from Afghanistan created by the presence of foreign forces. Support to insurgent and terrorist groups in FATA and Balochistan originate from Afghanistan. If this is not stopped, the instability will spread to other regions as well; > We demand the Government of Pakistan to make its own independent policies to ensure peace and development in the region; the mother of all civilizations.


5. Afghan movement is led by leaders who are indigenous to Afghanistan and legitimate representatives of resistance to foreign occupation; > These leaders must be treated as party to peace and brought into a comprehensive dialogue process as reflected in Pak-Afghan Jirga of 2007.


6. Failing a clear timetable from the coalition for the cessation of war; > The Government of Pakistan will be urged to exercise this nation’s legitimate right to secure its interests against all hostile bases inside Afghanistan, supporting and funding terrorism and insurgency in Pakistan.


7. In order to ensure long term stability and prosperity in the region; > The Government of Pakistan must carry forward the inconclusive negotiations of 1996 and assist all Afghans (Resistance and Northern Alliance) to mediate peace. We welcome support from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and China with no covert agendas.


8. It is not Pakistan’s responsibility to ensure logistics for coalition forces in Afghanistan knowing well that much of it is used to destabilize and terrorize Pakistanis; > This support must stop unless approved by UN and conducted under transparent international safeguards and inspections.


9. Gross violations and exercise of human rights on selective bases are widely documented; > All Pakistani prisoners kept by coalition countries, Pakistan, and Afghanistan in illegal detention centers must be brought back immediately and subjected to Pakistani courts.


10. Rendition centers, trials under duress and extra judicial killings including drones and blanket air strikes violate basic human rights; > War reparations and criminal trials of coalition leaders who have knowingly falsified evidence in support of war before their own people; their Parliaments; and before the UN Security Council must be brought before Law. All Pakistani leaders guilty of same must be tried under Pakistan laws.

The "coalition Governments" they refer to are the US and NATO allies. They are demanding "independent policies" from the Pakistani government, a reference to American interference. Most of the rest is pretty mundane, nothing you haven't seen from almost any other peace movement, Pakistani or otherwise. But make a special note of Number Six:

Failing a clear timetable from the coalition for the cessation of war; > The Government of Pakistan will be urged to exercise this nation’s legitimate right to secure its interests against all hostile bases inside Afghanistan, supporting and funding terrorism and insurgency in Pakistan.

That means war with the United States. All of our troops operating supply lines in Pakistan, all of our troops stationed in Afghanistan, all of our intelligence centers and facilities for launching drone and special forces raids --- these are what they are referring to by "all hostile bases." When I warned about the collapse of Pakistan, and our troops getting caught in the middle of it, this what I meant. From their perspective, our war is the root of their terrorism and insurgencies, and they will react to secure themselves.

This is the state of the present anti-war movement, in the United States and in Pakistan. In the US, Americans are putting forward their own policies, an end to the war, revamped port security, as well over-the-horizon counter-terrorism. In Pakistan, they are demanding an end to the war, our war, which is so destabilizing for their country.

None of this is remotely ideological or partisan, nor is it merely reactionary to the existing policy of war. It is an independent calculation of interests.

Ending the war is firmly in our national interests, and any politician who doesn't start supporting the United States will be put in serious danger of losing their seat. How long until our war supporting representatives come to be seen as puppets for Hamid Karzai and General Kayani, much the same as some Pakistani politicians are viewed as puppets of the United States?

With the leaks confirming so much of the criticism about the war, every action the supporters take is automatically drenched in blood. Every time they are voting for more war funding, they are voting for American soldiers to be killed by InterServices Inteligence and Pakistan Army operatives. Every time they vote against an exit timetable, they are voting against the economic interests of the United States.

This is what's happening as we watch the war disintegrate in front of us. The facts show that the war is destroying our economy, it is making us less safe, and continuing it will lead to even further disaster. There is no angry far left, no hippies, no anti-incumbent fever, no bleeding-heart liberals, and no wobbly pacifists. There are only Americans stepping up and taking their country back, back from the catastrophe of war, and setting it on a better path toward securing our interests at home and in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Anyone who still supports the war, after all of our facts have been confirmed by the Wikileaks release, now stands firmly against American national interests, both domestic and foreign. The consequences will be hellish come November.

US Politics: An Alternative Tea Party --- "Your Animosity Hurts the Country"

Amidst a US political scene dominated by bitterness and invective --- latest episodes include the row over the proposed mosque near the site of the 11 September 2001 attacks and the dismissal of an Obama Administration official for "racism" after the distribution of a misleading video by a high-profile right-wing website --- "the Chamomile Tea Party" has put up a set of posters for a way forward. We offer three examples:

US Politics: How Governors and Redistricting Could Shape Obama's Fate (Haddigan)

Lee Haddigan writes for EA:

November's Congressional elections will have an important effect on the immediate future of US politics. They will determine, by the number of Republican gains in Washington, which policies President Obama can hope to implement in the final two years of his first term. Alongside these elections, however, another set of contests may help decide the course of the Federal Government beyond 2012. An unprecedent 37 races for State Governor will take place in the states, and the outcome of these will shape a process which could shift the balance of power in Washington: "redistricting".

US Politics: Why is Obama’s Popularity Dipping?

Redistricting is a complex subject that differs from state to state over time. At its heart, however, is this battle as defined by Nick Ayers, the Republican Governors Association's executive director: “The association and its Democratic counterpart will be engaged in ‘a $100 million-plus chess match' for control of the foundation of American politics for the next 10 years.’" Ayers believes that control of the state political machinery, for which a Republican Governor is essential, could see his party gain 15 to 26 members in the 435-seat House of Representatives.

Under the Constitution, seats in the House of Representatives, the "lower" house of the US Congress, are shared out to each state according to its total population. The number of seats in the House never varies from 435, so as the number of people living in each state changes so does their representation. In simple numbers: if the population of the US as counted by the ten-yearly census is 435 million, and a state has a population of 10 million, that state will get 10 members in the House. If ten years later population remains at 435 million, but our imaginary state’s population has declined to 9 million, then that state will now only have nine members. This is known as reapportionment.

Because it now has nine representatives the state must redraw the boundaries of the former 10 congressional voting areas, in effect creating nine new voting districts. This is where the real fun for an observer, or controversy for the participants, begins. It can lead, and often does, to the political or racial "gerrymandering" of a district.

Gerrymandering refers to the practice where boundaries are drawn to give a particular party or ethnic group an advantage at the next elections. In 1812 Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts signed into law a redistricting proposal that helped Jeffersonian Republicans. A Federalist opponent allegedly looked at a map of the new districts, and commenting on the physical appearance of one of them stated: "Salamander! Call it a Gerrymander."

This cartoon-map first appeared in the Boston Gazette of 26 March 1812:



Again in simple numbers, if our state of ten million voters has 6 million Republican voters, and 4 million Democrat supporters, then that state should return 6 Republican and 4 Democrat Representatives. If, however, you draw the boundaries for each district of one million people so it is composed of 600,000 Republicans and 400,000k Democrats, then the state will have 10 Republican members of the House and no Democrats.

The same procedure can be used to limit the impact of minority ethnic votes in a state. For instance, if in a southwestern state Hispanic voters are concentrated in an urban area, their influence can be diluted by redistricting. A congressional district with one million Hispanic voters can be redrawn amongst four districts which each absorb 250,000 urban Hispanic voters into a larger area of white suburbanites.The formerly ethnic majority becomes a minority.

This process of racial gerrymandering is illegal under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. Before the Act, states in the South drew their boundaries so black majorities were effectively nullified. The VRA declared that this racial gerrymandering violated the 14th Amendment equal practice provision and set new regulations for redistricting that protected the idea of "one person, one vote".

Now states must divide their districts into as equal a number of voters as possible, and they must respect the right of ethnic minorities to gain representation in the House of Representatives equal to their numerical strength in the state. In theory, a state with a 10% black minority should draw its boundaries so black voters can be represented in one of ten seats. This principle is protected in the VRA by the requirement that states with a discriminatory history apply to the Department of Justice for a "preclearance" of any proposed redistricting.
.
The illegality of partisan gerrymandering, however, is not as certain. In 2003 Tom DeLay, then Republican majority leader of the House of Representatives, helped push through the Texas legislature a redistricting plan that favored his party. As a result, and after much scandal, the Congressional elections of 2004 in Texas returned 21 Republican members to the House vs. 11 Democrats, compared to 15 Republicans v. 17 Democrats in 2002.

The Supreme Court reviewed the redistricting and invalidated one of the districts for violating the VRA, requiring a new set of boundaries to be mapped in Texas. But on the question of the unconstitutionality of partisan gerrymanderin,g the Court adopted a confusing and inconclusive opinion.

This sets the stage for this year's gubernatorial elections and the redistricting plans that will be implemented in time for the 2012 elections. Each state has different requirements for the drawing of new boundaries that begins when the 2010 census figures are made available to them by 1 April 2011. In most states the Governor, as the leading political figure, plays a pivotal role in determining how the state is redistricted. (For those interested in how their state redistricts the Rose Institute in California publis has recentlyhed a report with the latest information on all 50 states.) Available at

Despite efforts by many organizations to take the redistricting process out of political hands, little will have changed by 2011. The next decade will see changes in the House directly resulting from redistricting and reapportionment; the outcome will indicate which party was most effective in gerrymandering the states they controlled.

The gubernatorial races this fall also have a significance beyond the redistricting wars. Traditionally, the election contests allow ambitious politicians the chance to present their credentials for a possible Presidential run. With no consensus on the Right as to who will oppose President Obama in 2012, the opportunity is there for a governor to challenge the current frontrunners --- Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney --- for the Republican nomination.

The immediate political interest in this particular cycle of gubernatorial elections will be provided by how much and how fa, Democratic candidates are prepared to distance themselves from the administration in Washington. Voters are angry that the stimulus package has not brought significant increases in jobs in their states, and Democratic governors will answer these concerns by calling for greater funding for employment assistance from a reluctant Congress. One sign of how far discontent with President Obama’s agenda has infiltrated the Democratic Party will be revealed by the extent to which governors and candidates criticise the federal administration’s record on jobs.

A governor is interested primarily in pleasing the voters of his state (or, more accurately in the current political climate, of placating them), not the party bosses in Washington. And those bosses will be worried for their prospects come 2012 if a significant number of Democrat governors lose their posts. President Obama’s first two years in office have seen historical changes in health care and banking reform. But his chances for re-election rest on how the nation rates his effectiveness in dealing with the Great Recession.

Quite simply, if Obama retains the support of all those who voted for him in 2008 then he wins in 2012, and if he loses their backing he loses in 2012. And the first indication of how Democrat voters view the success or failure of his stimulus package will come in the gubernatorial elections.

*For those interested in the campaign to end political control of redistricting see the website of the film Gerrymandering
for a list of organizations involved.