Duty to Warn

I had the opportunity to ask war lawyer John Yoo a couple of questions on Friday. The situation was not ideal, with someone else holding the microphone and deferring to the witness, and other people heckling, and other people shouting at the hecklers. Nonetheless . . .

I gave Yoo every opportunity I could to place a limit on presidential power. Can a president shoot missiles in the United States? Can a president drop nukes in the United States? Yoo refused to concede any limits.

Yoo used the example of shooting down one of the airplanes on 9-11 to assert that a president could indeed use drones to shoot missiles at suspected enemies within the United States, assuming of course that the president proclaims it to be "wartime."

So, can a president drop nukes in the United States? Yoo refused to deny a president even that power. He chose to respond by focusing on the example of Hiroshima, arguing for Truman's rightful power to do what he did, but my question had involved dropping nukes in the United States, and Yoo's answer made clear that he acknowledged no limitation on that power. Watch the video below:

Nothing makes us feel more powerless than the corruption of our democracy by money. It undermines progress on every issue we face. If America is ever to deal with our critical problems, we're going to need to sever the links between wealth and politics, a task made more challenging by the recent Supreme Court decision that overturned a hundred years of precedent to increase still further the influence of companies like Exxon, United Health and Goldman Sachs. The Maine Clean Elections model offers a powerful alternative model, one achievable even within the parameters of the ghastly Supreme Court decision. The story of how activist Alison Smith helped it pass also exemplifies how individuals can proceed into social involvement step by step:

---

You can listen to Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman weekly on WCRS-FM in Columbus at 4pm EST. 102.1 or 98.3. Or online at:
March 19 show
This week's show features author of “A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments.”

WASHINGTON, DC: After an extensive audit and investigation of alleged improprieties at the USDA's National Organic Program, the agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG) made public their formal report, dated March 9, substantiating the allegations of prominent organic industry watchdog groups — that under the Bush administration, the USDA did an inadequate job of enforcing federal organic law.

Since 2002, when the USDA adopted the federal organic regulations, the agency has been plagued by underfunding and a number of scandals and complaints about its cozy relationship with agribusiness interests and lobbyists.

"We are satisfied with the thoroughness of the investigation conducted by the USDA's Inspector General," said Mark Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst at The Cornucopia Institute. "And, we are pleased and impressed by the earnest response of the current management at the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), and its National Organic Program, in responding to the report’s critical findings."

America’s charade of change comes complete with national “debate” and a slight readjustment of the center to accommodate the Bush Lite policies of the Obama presidency.

What matters is that any change President Obama proposes be symbolic rather than substantive. A furious battle then ensues over the symbolic change so that, if it does finally come to pass — with the president weathering the endless flow of invective and fear-mongering from the Republican right — it will appear as though something was actually accomplished.

Meanwhile, business as usual holds course. The great swell of hope for a renewal of American society that swept Obama into office — for a real accounting of the crimes of the Bush administration, not to mention a reversal of its most heinous policies and a return to value-based governance — dissipates into the vague, scattered disappointment of millions of supporters, who once again have no focus for their disaffection.

Not long ago, the most prominent supporters of the public option were touting it as essential for healthcare reform. Now, suddenly, it's incidental.

In fact, many who were lauding a public option as the key to a better healthcare future are now condemning just about anyone who insists that the absence of a public option makes the current bill unworthy of support.

Consider this statement: "If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current healthcare bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over healthcare and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real healthcare reform."

That statement is as true today as it was when Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, made it three months ago in a Washington Post op-ed. But now, a concerted political blitz is depicting anyone who takes such a position as a menace to "real healthcare reform."

If the Democrats don't get the youth vote, they're toast. That happened in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, where young Obama voters stayed home in droves. It's an ugly conceivable future portended by a new Harvard poll that shows forty-one percent of young Republicans planning on voting in November, compared to 35 percent of young Democrats and 13 percent of independents. A recent Pew poll showed a similarly disturbing pattern: Young voters still prefer the Democrats, but their margin is slipping and their enthusiasm level is worse.

Some reasons and some solutions:

The nuclear power industry is sending a clear and forceful message to the citizens of Vermont: "Drop Dead."

The greeting applies to Ohio, New York, California and a nation under assault from a "renaissance" so far hyped with more than $640 million in corporate cash.

The Vermont attack includes:

1) A direct threat to ignore the state Senate's 26-4 February vote against renewing the Yankee reactor's operating license. As a condition of buying Yankee, Entergy long-ago ceded to the legislature approval of any extension of an operating license, which expires in 2012. But Entergy now says it will spend all the corporate cash it needs to evict the current Senate and install one more to its liking.

2) Vermont's pro-nuclear Republican Governor Jim Douglas says the Senate's vote is "meaningless." Douglas is not running for re-election but is certain to become a high-priced Yankee arm-twister when he leaves office.

3) Entergy has also implied that if it fails to buy itself a pro-nuke legislature in 2010, it will sue over any denial of the license extension.