Patriotism isn’t about colored ribbons or bumper stickers on your car. It isn’t about waving a flag or chanting “U-S-A” at a sporting event. It certainly is not about wearing an American flag pin on your lapel. These are all pleasing symbolic displays of patriotism, but they are not patriotism in and of itself.

Feeling patriotic is not the same as being patriotic much like having feelings of love is not the same thing as being loving. Saying you support the troops is not the same as doing something to support the troops. Being patriotic is about what you do, not what you feel.

It is patriotic to:

• pay your taxes
• perform jury duty
• vote
• serve in the military
• serve in the Peace Corps
• serve in the government
• volunteer in civic organizations
• engage in peaceful dissent
• correct your country, when it’s wrong
• support and defend the Constitution
• exercise your constitutional rights
• prosecute those who break the law
• defend those accused of breaking the law
• seek justice in the courthouse instead of the street
• immigrate legally into the country

It is unpatriotic to:

• use positions of public trust for personal gain
• engage in rumor and gossip political campaigns, bereft of facts
• place party politics before country
• make political spectacles out of the minor offenses of the opposing party
• block or minimize investigations into the major offenses of your own party
• ignore the spirit of the law while abiding by the letter of it
• suppress voter turnout
• character assassinate those who don’t agree with you
• pardon the legal offenses of those who support you
• question other’s patriotism because they don’t have the same political beliefs
• undermine the Constitution
• deny other’s their constitutional rights
• place profit ahead of national interest
• lie under oath

Both of these lists could be much larger, but I’m sure you get the idea. Symbols of patriotism are important, but acts of patriotism are what really matter. It’s the difference between style and substance. Which one do you care most about?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia University today brought out the best and worst in modern American culture. Columbia University President Lee Bollinger showed courage in inviting such a polarizing and controversial figure to speak. There were calls to cancel the Iranian president’s invitation and now some politicians want to cut funding to Columbia University because he was allowed to speak at all. First I’ll speak about the man before I explain why he should be allowed give his speech and why those who wish to prevent him from doing so are performing a disservice to their country.

Ahmadinejad is without a doubt a smart, though intellectually dishonest, politician. Some may say that I’m being redundant but I want to make clear he’s not an idiot. He knows what he’s saying and why he’s saying it. He’s a talented speaker which only gives credence to the deceptions he bandies about.

But let’s be clear about one thing; he is not the source of power in Iran. He is largely a figurehead president who executes the wishes of the Leadership Council.

Article 113
After the office of Leadership, the President is the highest official in the country. His is the responsibility for implementing the Constitution and acting as the head of the executive, except in matters directly concerned with (the office of) the Leadership.

Ahmadinejad may be elected but that only gives the presidency a veneer of democracy on what is actually an autocratic theocracy. He doesn’t command the armed forces, he doesn’t issue binding decrees except as confirmed by the Leadership Council, and is only responsible for that which the Leadership Council has decided is not important enough for themselves to decide. The real power lies in Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has held that post since Ayatollah Khomeini’s death in 1989 and also appoints the members of the Leadership Council. So let’s put to rest the notion that Ahmadinejad is the source of Iranian foreign or domestic policy. He’s the true-believing, media-savvy puppet of Khamenei and the Islamic revolution.

The American constitution guarantees our right to free speech. Period. No exceptions.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Iranian constitution does not have such a blanket guarantee.

Article 24
Publications and the press have freedom of expression except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public. The details of this exception will be specified by law.

It is those exceptions that set Iran’s form of government apart from America’s. Any time allowance is made for exceptions to a fundamental right, it ceases to be a fundamental right. It is that exception that allows governments to dictate its’ opinions on those who would disagree and thus strip them of their ability to exercise that right.

You want to criticize the the U.S. President? Americans do it everyday without fear of being jailed for it. That is the beauty of the first amendment. You can say the most rancid, vile and moronic things and you’re safe from criminal prosecution.

You want criticize the Iran’s Supreme Leader? You better have a high tolerance for pain. In 2005, the Committee to Protect Journalists reported on how the independent media was faring in the face of the ascendant power of Iranian hard-liners.

Bloggers instantly became a popular source of dissident news and opinion, drawing the ire of Iran’s powerful judiciary, which launched a wave of arrests. All the bloggers detained in a 2004 crackdown were released except for Mojtaba Saminejad, who was sentenced in June 2005 to two years in prison and denied appeal. He was convicted of “insulting the supreme leader.” Many of the released bloggers said they were tortured in jail. Former Iranian president Mohamed Khatami ordered an investigation into the torture claims, but the judiciary threatened those who made the complaints. Since conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in June 2005, little has come of the investigations.

Does this mean Iranians can criticize the Supreme leader as long as they don’t insult him? What’s to criticize? He’s infallible. Just ask him.

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday that his authority is indisputable, apparently rejecting criticism from reformists who say he is not above the law.

Iranian radio quoted Khamenei as saying that the “true meaning” of the Iranian concept of “velayat-e-faqih,” or the authority of the leader, is that “the person in charge of the Islamic government does not make mistakes and if he does he will not be the supreme leader from that moment.”

“This is an obvious point that must be understood well and spelled out properly,” the broadcast quoted Khamenei as saying.

Free speech is a constitutionally protected right in America and that protection is what sets us apart from Ahmadinejad and the tyrannical regime he represents. This is one of the very things our troops fight and die for everyday. So when Congressman and presidential candidate Duncan Hunter to threatens to cut off all federal funding to Columbia University for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak, he does a disservice to this country and the very troops he claims to be standing up for. The same goes for the New York state and city legislatures who are beating their chests in indignation that the Iranian president was allowed to speak. They are claiming that the university is legitimizing what he has to say and are therefore threatening to cut state and municipal funding. Allowing him to speak doesn’t legitimize what he has to say but it does reinforce the legitimacy of the first amendment. As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words.

It is painfully simple; you can’t protect free speech by restricting it. It is important for Ahmadinejad to be able to give his speech not because what he has to say is important, but rather that he can say it all. If you don’t like what he has to say- protest, write, yell, or get yourself invited to a university to share your view of the world, no matter how ridiculous it may be. If you want to restrict free speech, move somewhere that endorses that principle- like Iran.

Monday, July 23rd
Attorney General Gonzales:

I could walk away or I could devote my time, effort and energy to fix the problems. Since I have never been one to quit, I decided that the best course of action was to remain here and fix the problems. That is exactly what I am doing.

Senator Whitehouse:

I don’t know how you can say you can solve the problem when it appears that you are in fact the problem.

Tuesday, July 24th
US News & World Report:

Senators pledged to get to the bottom of discrepancies in his congressional testimony about the classified terrorist surveillance program— which directly contradicts earlier testimony from former Deputy Attorney General James Comey. They would, (Senator) Specter told Gonzales, ‘see if your credibility has been breached to a point of being actionable.’

Wednesday July 25th,
USA Today:

Documents indicate eight congressional leaders were briefed about the Bush administration’s terrorist surveillance program on the eve of its expiration in 2004, contradicting sworn Senate testimony this week by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Gonzales doesn’t know how many attorneys he fired, won’t say who asked him to visit former AG Ashcroft in the hospital, and is again either committing perjury or just plain doesn’t know a damn thing about the meetings he’s been in or the job he does.

Back in April, I’d described when this whole thing began to break that the facts can only lead to one of three conclusions. Alberto Gonzales is either:

• incompetent
• competent but asleep at the wheel
• competent but a political lapdog for the White House

I had left out one other option because I didn’t think the facts warranted its’ consideration until now; Alberto Gonzales, U.S Attorney General, is lying under oath and therefore is a disgrace to his position, his profession, and most importantly to the Constitution he swore an oath to protect.

It is time for Gonzales to resign before he destroys what remaining trust and faith the American people have in the Department of Justice.

Crooks and Liars has posted an excerpt from a PBS broadcast of Bill Moyers’ roundtable discussion of impeachment with a conservative guest and a liberal guest. While they may not agree on a lot of issues, they do agree on one thing.

I strongly recommend taking six minutes to view the video.

Sara Taylor, White House Political Director from 2005-2007, serves as a prime example of the cancer that has taken hold within the Bush administration. I wrote previously about President Bush’s placing political loyalty over his loyalty to his constitutional oath. That attitude seems to have permeated the senior White House staff also. Ms. Taylor, in an astonishing display of political reasoning, demonstrated that she doesn’t understand what taking an oath to the Constitution means. From the Boston Herald:

Loyal to Bush even outside the White House, Taylor at first refused to answer questions that might violate Bush’s claim of executive privilege and at one point reminded the committee that as a commissioned officer, “I took an oath and I take that oath to the president very seriously.

Senator Patrick Leahy had a clear, direct, and correct response to her assertion.

This is the actual oath taken by all officers of the executive branch.

I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

The stunning part of this is not so much her bumbling response but that this was Bush’s political director until just a couple weeks ago. She was in charge of the political machinery at the White House and yet seems to be unable to grasp allegiance to country over politics. This has been displayed by the Bush administration before but I’ve always believed that they knew what they were doing. Sara Taylor’s answers were like those of Republican political zombie that Karl Rove grew in some remote corner of Area 51. Now I understand why President Bush’s staff remain so loyal. The real question is- who is the Zombie Master?

Those of you who read my July 2nd post knows that the Libby commutation was the final straw in my sincere, perhaps naive, hope that President Bush would rise above politics and bring something -anything- that I consider of value to his Presidency in the second term. I have also laid out where the President has placed his loyalty in spite of vowing to be loyal to the Constitution.

Apparently I’m not the only one who’s reached the end of their patience with the President.

A visibly angry Keith Olbermann, anchor of MSNBC’s Countdown news program, came right out and demanded President Bush and Vice-President Cheney resign after the President’s commutation of the Vice-President’s former Chief of Staff. In a ten minute special commentary on his show, Olbermann used clear and direct language to accuse President Bush of “subverting the Constitution” among a number of other things.

Actually, Olbermann insisted on calling him “Mr. Bush” throughout his commentary. That may seem small, but it’s a damning detail of disrespect for the man who occupies the oval office. Some may say it’s disrespectful to the Office of the President as well but I think his point is clear.

Olbermann also illustrated a parallel between President Bush’s commutation and President Nixon’s firing of the Watergate Special Prosecutor as the defining moment in a failed presidency where they crossed the point of no return and crystallized America against them.

It’s a ten minute video but I strongly urge you to take the time and view it. Whether you agree with him or not, his impassioned argument is worth a listen. The text can be found here.

The only positive aspect of the commutation I can see for the President is that he passed (sort of) the Republican Loyalty Test. The especially sad part is his actions demonstrate that he considered that to be more important.

I’ll admit it. I never understood how someone who is legally living in the U.S. can suddenly become an “enemy combatant” and held without charge in a U.S. Navy Brig. Isn’t there supposed to be due process? The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals thinks so.

Thanks to The Blog of Legal Times for highlighting this recent legal opinion on Kahlah al-Marri, a Qatari man who was legally in the U.S. on a student visa. In a 2-1 decision, Judge Diana Motz wrote the majority opinion parsing some of the convoluted legal reasoning the Bush administration uses in declaring enemy combatant status.

We recognize the understandable instincts of those who wish to treat domestic terrorists as ‘combatants’ in a ‘global war on terror’. Allegations of criminal activity in association with a terrorist organization, however, do no permit the Government to transform a civilian into an enemy combatant subject to indefinite military detention, any more than allegations of murder in association with others while in military service permit the government to transform a civilian into a soldier subject to trial by court martial.

Judge Motz eventually tied the majority decision to the notion that upholding presidential power to order the military to seize and detain civilians indefinitely would “render lifeless the Suspension Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the rights to criminal process in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments.”

In writing the minority opinion, Judge Hudson dissented largely based on the Supreme Court precedent set in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. I’m not troubled that he dissented based on recent precedent but rather that he undermines his own argument when he notes that

Given the unconventional nature of the conflict that the United States is engaged in with al Qaeda, the exact definitions of ‘enemy combatants’ and ‘enemy belligerents’ are difficult to conceptualize and apply with precision.

How are detainees to prove that they are not an enemy combatant? Since the government can declare someone an enemy combatant by fiat, I would imagine it’s nearly impossible to prove that you are not an enemy combatant when being one is “difficult to conceptualize and apply precisely.”

Whether loyalty is a virtue or a vice depends on what a person is loyal to and at what expense. George W. Bush, the man, is well known for being a loyal friend and confidant. That is something we all want in a friend. As a leader, he’s also demonstrated strong loyalty to his staff which is something we all want in a boss and a leader. But loyalty to friends and staff is not why we elect a President.

The Presidential Oath of Office is defined and required by Article II, Section I, Clause 8 of the Constitution. It makes clear that a President’s loyalty is to reside with the Constitution above all else. It appears that President Bush’s personal loyalty takes precedence over his professional loyalty.

President Bush’s personal loyalty is so strong that he has demonstrated time and again that he’s willing to sacrifice the focus of his administration, the effectiveness of his governance, and the confidence of the nation. It must be very reassuring to those in the administration that no matter their level of ethical fortitude, professional performance, or strength of memory they can count on having the full confidence of President Bush. This has been demonstrated most notably by the tortuously long reign of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, Michael Brown as FEMA Director, and Attorney General Gonzalez just to name a few. Only after someone has become a political rotting corpse will the President take action.

It makes me wonder by what measure does his staff lose the President’s confidence? I imagine it begins and ends with personal loyalty to President Bush. This would explain why this administration places a premium on having “loyal Bushies” in appointed positions rather than loyal Americans. This also explains why one of President Bush’s favorite appointees, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, argues for appointing only those who share the President’s viewpoint.

President Bush’s loyalty to the Constitution has even been called into question by the relatively conservative think tank, CATO Institute. They published a white paper concluding that “President Bush’s constitutional vision is sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution.” The institute goes further to state that President Bush’s record overwhelmingly displays “contempt for constitutional limits,” and that he has “weakened the constitutional order on which the American way of life depends.”

Loyal Bushies receive far more vigorous protection than the Constitution under this President. George W. Bush is a very loyal man. That is why it is especially disheartening to see that the President has chosen to be more loyal to his friends and sycophants than the Constitution he swore an oath to defend.