Remembering Danny Pearl

Six years ago, this month, Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl, was brutally murdered in Karachi, Pakistan.

"Remember Guantanamo" is an essay I wrote four years ago, in December, 2003, which no newspaper would publish. It is posted here, in its entirety, for the first time, and in memoriam for the special man who inspired it with his omnipresent smile, curiosity, and quest for truth that serves as a constant reminder that it's the hunger to know that leads us from darkness into light, a light that can never be extinguished.

Courage means going to those places others dare not tread, at all costs, and clearing a path for those who come after and, in this important sense, Danny Pearl was a deeply courageous man...

Remember Guantanamo

“History is a responsibility Americans would rather not face,” Octavio Paz

for Daniel Pearl

After several weeks of detention in a Karachi cell, journalist Daniel Pearl was videotaped before his execution, and given the chance to make a statement. Among the last things he had to say was that he sympathized with those captured, and held, in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.

Most of us would prefer to believe that Danny Pearl’s final expression of solidarity with others detained who are held indefinitely, and arbitrarily, had been forced from him by his captors. It is far more palatable to think that Danny Pearl was coerced to imply that the U.S., too, is guilty of human rights abuses.

Why else would a man facing his maker express empathy for those who look like his captors, and are jailed by the American government far away from that cell in Pakistan where this courageous, first time father-to-be was to face execution?

But, on the other hand, if Danny Pearl meant what he said, then we, as Americans, owe it to ourselves to find out why he said what he did. In order to do so, we have to examine the cycle of righteousness, and vengeance, that makes the actions of our own administration no different than those governments that comprise the so-called “axis of evil.” Maybe Danny Pearl was inviting an inquiry into human rights violations worldwide, maybe even human rights abuses committed by his own government.

Guantanamo Bay has been in the news a lot lately, but what’s lacking is a sense of context. What do we know about this naval base in Cuba, who are these detainees, where are they from, and why are they being held?

If, from 9/11 on, we’re holding so-called “terrorists,” some of whom are American citizens, at a naval base in Cuba, and denying them constitutional rights based on the premise that they’re on foreign soil, then we need to examine Guantanamo Bay, and our relationship to Cuba over the past hundred years, to establish that they’re not on foreign soil. Even if those detained don’t know why they’re being held, we need to know why.

With Richard Nixon, we had a president that attempted to overthrow an election by means of a bungled burglary. With George W. Bush, we have our first president who was appointed, not elected and who, through linguistic sleight of hand, is attempting nothing less than overthrowing the judiciary with respect to his handling of prisoners at Guantanamo.

There is no small irony in the fact that it was the Supreme Court who appointed the president, and it is the president who is now trying to silence the court. By using a phrase like “enemy combatant,” this administration has detained hundreds of people, around 660 to be exact, using “war on terror” as a camouflage for an all out assault on human rights.

If nothing else, history has shown that words can be instruments of liberation, or torture. These detainees, many of whom are Muslims, have been denied access to lawyers, held for two years without being told why they’re being held, or convicted of anything, not allowed to see evidence against them and, in some cases, deprived of the right to see their own families.

Do we think that we can bypass international humanitarian law, and the Geneva Conventions, both of which require specific protocols, and rights, for handling prisoners of war, by using the label “enemy combatants?” The term, “unlawful combatant,” was coined by Donald Rumsfeld, in 2002, to describe those members of Al Qaeda, and the Taliban, who would qualify as in some way illegal, or outside the realm of protection given traditional prisoners of war. To designate these detainees “prisoner of war” would grant them legal protection under Geneva Conventions, hence the innovative terminology.

In less than a year, the word “unlawful” devolves into “enemy” as the corresponding war on terror intensifies.The president has been adamant in not considering those captured prisoners of war, not granting them prisoner of war status, and the corresponding constitutional, and international, protections normally given.

One of the arguments the administration makes to suggest that the detainees aren’t prisoners of war by Geneva Conventions’ standards is that they weren’t wearing clearly marked uniforms. Such specious reasoning doesn’t fly with those we like to think of as our allies abroad. For an administration that has worked hard to earn the reputation of being linguistically-challenged, by a clever manipulation of language, it has managed to sidestep its responsibility to provide those detained with due process, and other rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, as well as international law.

What’s more, the concept of unlawful combatant is, in itself, unlawful; one can either be classified as a “prisoner of war,” or a “protected person” (civilian) according to the Geneva Conventions. This administration has said that anyone captured, and labeled a “terrorist,” can be considered an enemy combatant regardless of where they are captured, or the circumstances surrounding their capture, thus evading what would customarily qualify as unequivocal human rights abuses.

Notably, it was Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who, following Saddam Hussein’s capture, called him among the most wanted war criminals of our times, and then proceeded to say that Saddam will be given those protections afforded a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions. Why is it that such a heinous war criminal, by virtue of being designated “prisoner of war,” will be afforded those same protections denied to those currently detained at Guantanamo Bay?

Does our system of justice afford greater privileges to one who is believed to have committed mass atrocities than to those for whom justice is denied as a result of a hyperactive executive branch?

Human rights groups around the world have taken up the cause of these detainees, as well as some retired military personnel who fear this administration may be setting a bad example in its mistreatment of prisoners at the base.

As this year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner, Shirin Ebadi, suggests our so-called war on terror is being used as an excuse to trample human rights both in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo BayAside from linguistic chicanery, consider the religious fervor that this administration attaches to abstract terms like terrorism.

If this isn’t alarming in itself, then maybe this is: on November 21, an organization called “Human Rights Watch” wrote an extraordinary expose about human rights abuses committed by the current regime in Washington. The piece was published in The Times of London, and was written by none other than the executive director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, who asserts that at Guantanamo “hundreds have been held without charge for two years, abandoned in a legal black hole.”

Roth goes on to say that even a consummate diplomat like Tony Blair can’t find a way to justify their detention, and that by calling them “bad people,” and “the worst of the worst,” aside from showing that he has a way with words, our president has virtually condemned them. Even Law Lord Steyn, one of England’s most senior judges, recently called holding prisoners at the base a “monstrous failure of justice,” insisting they are being held illegally.

Where is our outrage, as a nation, when an organization like Human Rights Watch is compelled to investigate our practices with respect to protocol for ethical, and legal, treatment of those we incarcerate under the banner of a “war on terror.”

While George W. is off fighting his holy war, his jihad against the jihad, why isn’t anyone in Congress challenging the chief executive officer, and the executive branch, in its total desecration of due process, and jurisprudence, that has been in progress for nearly a thousand years? We have a Congressional Human Rights Caucus that is doing outstanding work examining, and exposing, reprehensible human rights violations around the world. Why aren’t they investigating, and exposing, human rights abuses going on in our own backyard? Funny, isn’t it, how history works.

Presidents Carter and Reagan both supported fundamentalist Moujahedeen, who we now call the Taliban and Al Qaeda, in Afghanistan. Indeed, they were once called “freedom fighters,” under Reagan, and equipped with shoulder-fired rockets. A quarter of a century later, these same Taliban, or suspected Taliban, are labeled “terrorists,” several thousand are thrown in Afghanistan prisons while several hundred are shipped off to Guantanamo, Cuba.

Just last month, one of the authors of the “Patriot Act,” Viet Dinh, shocked everyone by expressing his concerns about the detention of U.S. citizen, Jose Padilla, the “dirty bomb” suspect as an enemy combatant.

Dinh’s suggestion that the administration’s case against Mr. Padilla was “unsustainable” is stunning. That a former member of the Defense Department, and author of the “Patriot Act,” would challenge this administration in its handling of cases surrounding 9/11 is likewise extraordinary. Just today, a New York federal appeals court overruled Bush by saying that his administration cannot hold Padilla in a military brig, by labeling him an enemy combatant, without the prior authorization of Congress.

The court ruled that the government needs congressional authorization before it can lock up American citizens on U.S. soil. Rumsfeld was ordered to release Padilla from military confinement in Charleston, S.C. within 30 days, saying that he may be transferred to civilian authorities to face criminal charges. While this ruling applies only to American citizens on our soil, and not to those picked up in Afghanistan, it is the first step in addressing the legal tightrope this administration has walked with the catch phrase “enemy combatant.”

In the past two years, much has come to light. We now know that we’re not only holding American citizens at Guantanamo, but citizens of Australia, and the U.K. as they continue not to be told why they’re picked up, what evidence there is against them, or to have representation. According to Philip Heyman, a Harvard law school professor and former attorney general under Clinton, denying these rights amounts to “overthrowing 800 years of democratic tradition,” including habeas corpus and the Magna Carta.

The former Muslim chaplain at the base, Captain James Yee, is among the few who has been afforded the privilege of counsel, and a trial. At least he’s been charged with something, however dubious, transporting classified material, and an attempt at prosecution has been made which is more than one can say for those prisoners to whom he has ministered. A recent New York Times editorial was kind in characterizing the military’s prosecution of Yee as “misguided.”

The prosecution centers around which pornographic Web sites the chaplain has allegedly visited, and with whom he has allegedly committed adultery.With Yee’s trial, we have a modern day version of Arthur Miller’s play “The Crucible” in the making, and a “war on terrorism” as an alibi for yet another Salem Bay witch hunt. To look on the bright side, Captain Yee has not been detained, he was on payroll, and he hasn’t been branded with the scarlet letter “E,” for “enemy combatant.” That said, his trial could prove to be a trailer for even more ludicrous trials to come.

In future, the Bush administration may even argue that detaining enemy combatants is another application of “Operation Iron Hammer,” the military strategy by which attacks are launched against insurgents before they strike. It follows then that Guantanamo Bay becomes a model for our government’s preemptive strike against its own citizens --- what better way to deter dissidence, and terrorism, than lock up & detention. It works for Castro---why not for George W.

Speaking of Castro, Iraq is not the first instance in which the U.S. has engaged in the noble task of reconstruction following a war. There was, of course, Cuba. Remember when the CIA overthrew democratic secularist Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran and, in 1976, trained anti-Castro activist Luis Carrilles to bomb a Cuban airliner killing 73 people? When we train them, they don’t qualify as terrorists.

You may recall, too, that Carrilles claimed to have been funded by CANF (Cuban-American National Foundation), a Miami-based non profit organization, and powerful anti-Castro lobby in Washington that appears to have been involved in other acts that may justifiably be called acts of terror.

In his zeal for this war, George W. Bush may have forgotten the bombings, and other terrorist acts, that were carried out by anti-Castro Cubans living in the U.S. who were funded, and trained, by our very own Central Intelligence Agency.

Ironic, isn’t it, that the U.S. locked up “terrorists,” 30 years later, on the same soil as a government it attempted to overthrow via the CIA- backed downing of a Cuban jet liner by a member of a prominent Miami based anti-Castro organization. Were these acts any less “terrorist” acts because they received the blessing of the CIA in the name of bringing democracy to Cuba?

Can we, as citizens, sanction a White House jihad against a Taliban it once called “freedom fighters?” Is one jihad better than another, or are all jihads created equally? Will our war on terror someday be called a “jihad to end all jihads?” Must we bring our own popcorn to watch our government’s great crusade to bring liberty to the Middle East, and anywhere else in the world we deem worthy of conquering?

If somebody strikes oil in Havana, or we experience a massive sugar shortage, will we, once again, invade Cuba as we did following the Spanish-American War?Among the many differences between Iraq and Cuba is that we destroyed Iraq in order to rebuild it, and that we fought the Iraqi people, not Spain, to make it a colony. Cuba, on the other hand, worked with American forces to win its independence from Spain. Curiously, as a consequence of the Spanish-American War, Cuba didn’t win its independence, but merely its independence from Spain.

Instead of being codependent on Spain, it merely transferred its codependency onto America, then onto the U.S.S.R. In 1903, the naval base was leased from Cuba, by the U.S. for only $2,000 a year, the average rent for a studio apartment in Manhattan nowadays, until the 1980’s when we acquired rights in perpetuity.

Many Cubans believed then, as they do today, that the main purpose for the naval base was to control, police, and spy on Cuba. American attempts to colonize, and control, events in Cuba, following the Spanish-American War with the Platt Amendment until Castro became prime minister in 1959 closely parallel American efforts to “rebuild” Iraq.

Our attempts at controlling Iraq, and keeping the Middle East as a sphere of influence, must also include the installation of leadership that is fundamentally user-friendly to American interests in much the same way as Batista’s puppet regime. If the Bush administration has its way, we will see something like the Platt Amendment coming soon to a theatre near Baghdad.

While our efforts both in Cuba and Iraq are about colonization, we invaded Cuba under the pretext of “Spanish American War,” and Iraq, as an extension of the Gulf War, but in Iraq, we’re fighting the Iraqi people who we call “insurgents,” whereas in Cuba, we fought Spain, thus our mission in Iraq is not dissimilar to our mission in Vietnam, and Korea. The fundamental problem with fighting a people for control of its government is that those who live in the land under siege will ultimately demand and devise an end to occupation not unlike the French resistance to occupying German forces during World War II.

While our current administration, like that of Spain’s at the outset of the Spanish American War, may perceive itself as fighting a holy war, it is all but inevitable that the outcome, for this administration, will be not unlike the outcome was for Spain, and later Germany.

For all his bible thumping, one wonders if George W. ever made it past the Old Testament given the eye-for-an-eye mentality memorably captured on network television as the slain sons of Saddam Hussein were displayed which, by the way, was yet another violation of the Geneva Conventions.

While kudos are being handed out generously for Saddam’s arrest, it’s disconcerting to think that George W.’s foreign policy amounts to little more than the exercise of testosterone over reason. This president appears to suffer a bit of confusion between being middle aged and living in the Middle Ages either that or the great crusades are now in syndication.

By labeling detainees “enemy combatants,” not only are they stripped of any constitutional rights, but they also become our adversaries in this holy war of the president’s making which may just cost future generations the Bill of Rights for which those “insurgents,” of the revolutionary war, fought so hard to obtain. What’s more, this president appears intent on leading us back to the days of the crusades with phrases like “axis of evil.”

Bush has invoked the almighty more than any other president in modern times, which is curious in that, if nothing else, the Patriot Act demonstrates that the “author of freedom,” and the author of the Constitution are not one and the same. When Castro called for the removal of U.S. military bases from Guantanamo Bay, in 1978, the Soviet mission was bombed by anti-Castro Cuban exiles living in the U.S.

A few years later, Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada, and established a provisional government there. After the invasion, Reagan’s Department of Defense spent $43 million to refurbish the naval base at Guantanamo. This renovation sure came in handy under Bush senior’s administration when open migration was allowed, and 32,000 Cubans were picked up by the Coast Guard, and taken there. It was obvious by then that naval base had another purpose besides being a foot in the door of a former colony.

Of nearly 7,000 detainees held by anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan, only about 10% were sent to Cuba. It’s curious why it is that no one talks about the detainees who are still in Afghanistan.
The number of those kept at the naval base went from 50 in January, 2002 to 660 by November, 2003. Only recently has U.S. government agreed to release nearly a hundred of those detained, and little, if any, specific detail has been given as to their demographics. By releasing these detainees, the U.S. is trying to deflect attention away from the real issue, which is its own hubris in holding prisoners in violation of those rights customarily afforded them.

When interviewed recently about the Pentagon’s disclosure of the incarceration of children aged 13 to 15 at the naval base in Cuba, Rumsfeld acknowledges their detention, and then goes on to call these youngsters “very, very dangerous people” suggesting that while there isn’t a formal process for adjudicating the charges they face, “we’re keeping them down there to keep them off the street.”

Using the same logic, why not round up all the members of the 18th Street Gang, and others, in Los Angeles, and ship them off to Guantanamo Bay-----heck, at least we’d be keeping them off the streets? Is it possible that Rumsfeld regards the detention of teenagers, at the Bay, as a kind of after school program? Does the Pentagon suggest creating a military equivalent of “Juvey Hall” to try these youngsters?

Importantly, detainees only get a lawyer when they agree to plead guilty. Any counsel to which they are entitled would have to be appointed by the Pentagon, or approved by the Pentagon, and would be unable to discuss what evidence, or discovery, there is with his client.

How can one be expected to get a fair trial when he’s denied access to the evidence against him? While George W. reportedly would consider appointing civilians to an appeal panel of judges, he could remove these judges, thus they operate solely at the pleasure of the president. Earlier this month, a German judge freed one of the Al Qaeda suspects, from the World Trade Center bombings, citing U.S. secrecy, and a policy of concealment that ironically worked against U.S. interests in that it helped obtain the release of so-called terrorists by international courts.

By not making a captured Al Qaeda operative available for questioning, a Moroccan Al Qaeda suspect in Germany, who was an alleged member of the Hamburg cell that orchestrated the World Trade Center bombing, went free.In a letter to Donald Rumsfeld , Kenneth Roth urged him to release, from Guantanamo, all members of the Taliban as well as any civilians who had no “meaningful” connection to Al Qaeda.

One wonders if the term “meaningful” should read “provable” as, after all, isn’t that which sets us apart from the cell, in Pakistan, where Danny Pearl’s throat was savagely slit, that our system of law requires proof. The burden of proof, as always, lies with the prosecution, not with the defense.Reportedly, at least 59 detainees are being held at the base who can be said to have no meaningful ties with the Taliban or Al Qaeda whatsoever.

How can anyone argue that detention is necessary for national security when some of the civilians held have no ties to any so-called terrorist organization? Does the pervasive fear among security officials that someone has the potential to commit a terrorist act, pending his release, justify detaining someone with no history whatsoever of committing a crime let alone an act of terrorism? Civilians typically qualify as “protected persons,” according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which clearly states that all combatants captured must be treated as prisoners of war, and are entitled to appear before a tribunal.

Importantly, civilians, and those who cannot be directly linked with either Al Qaeda or the Taliban, have not only been detained in Afghanistan, but were transferred to Guantanamo.The Geneva Conventions does allow the U.S. to detain prisoners of war without charging them for the duration of the war that prompted their confinement, but since the war with Afghanistan is over, these detainees must either be criminally prosecuted, or released. To do otherwise is in violation of the Conventions.

To comply with the Geneva Conventions means that one must charge a detainee with a crime formally, inform him of his rights, and permit him access to counsel. There is no legal basis for circumventing these protections. By an attempt at linguistic evasion, our government is setting a grave precedent.

If, as has been suggested, release of these enemy combatants, who comprise a special class, “terrorists,” would be predicated on a victory in the war on terror, such a victory against terrorism might never come. What mandate do we have, or do we wish to set, that entitles us to hold detainees indefinitely? More importantly, what kind of example are we setting to other nations when we ourselves refuse to take the moral high ground, defy international law, and hold soldiers from a now defunct, and as yet undeclared war, without due process?

The Supreme Court now faces appeals from those being held at the base. Two appeals the court has accepted were filed on behalf of 16 detainees – from the U.K. and Australia. The underlying, and fundamental, issue behind these cases is whether the judiciary should be subordinate to the executive branch of government.

The attempt to subjugate the judicial branch to the executive branch is an ominous foreshadowing of the kind of totalitarianism we decry in countries like Cuba, and Russia. Solicitor General Olson, whose wife was killed during the 9/11 attacks, urges the courts not to hear detainees’ appeals citing a 53 year old Supreme Court ruling which posits that aliens under military detention abroad are answerable, and have privileges afforded them only by the executive branch, and the military, and not by the courts.

So, the real question then is---do we consider Guantanamo Bay foreign or domestic? As we’ve seen, the base exists as an American stronghold “in perpetuity,” so those held there are being held in a territory that is considered jurisdictionally as part of U.S. If it helps one to sleep better at night to think that those being stripped of what are commonly considered human rights are “aliens,” and foreigners, be advised that many at the base are U.S. citizens. One case in particular concerns Yasser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen of Saudi descent, who, by being labeled an enemy combatant, has been robbed of constitutional protection.

Would it be appropriate for a Russian citizen of American descent to be held indefinitely in a base created to confine so-called terrorists in Chechnya? Think of the rage that would ensue, and threats against the Russian government made by the current regime in Washington should this Russian-American prisoner be denied his civil, and human, rights.

Indeed, this administration’s response to terrorists is not unlike Putin’s response to Chechnyan rebels which leads one to wonder---is Russia moving closer to democracy, or is the U.S. moving closer to totalitarianism? There are always going to be those among us who will be content to point out----well, at least we’re moving. They confuse movement with progress.

It’s not enough to console ourselves with the knowledge that we’re moving------we have to ask whether we’re moving backwards or forwards. This administration is taking us backwards-- back to the days when leaders were appointed not elected, when due process, and survival itself, was a matter of privilege.If we, as a nation, accept acting illegally, and in open violation of existing laws and treaties, how can we expect those who captured Danny Pearl, and who may yet capture others, to behave any better than we have? Has any empire that preceded us ever considered itself above the law without being a victim of its own arrogance?

Is any power that omnipotent that it can afford to act in opposition to the world community? Maybe this is what Danny Pearl meant when he expressed sympathy for others in captivity. Maybe he was suggesting that being righteous and being right isn’t the same thing, and that injustice is no more justifiable when committed on a naval base operated by the U.S. than it is on a remote stretch of land, in a deserted cell, in Pakistan.

While one can hardly romanticize groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, on the other hand, to engage in the rhetoric of retaliation, and retribution, to operate under the misguided and dangerous notion that our efforts are divinely inspired and driven, is an affront to those generations of Americans who have given their lives to protect our civil liberties.

If words can be agents of torture, as well as liberation, then Danny Pearl’s final words in support of those held in Afghanistan and Guantanamo may have been meant to shed light on the travesties being committed by our own government in the name of democracy; maybe his final hope was that the truth will make a guest appearance between gunshots.


By: Jayne Lyn Stahl

copyright --December 18, 2003

St. Veto's Day?

A week from now, on February 15th, one day after a holiday traditionally reserved for lovers and named for a martyred Roman saint, the newfangled prescription for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Protect America Act, is set to expire.

Just about every president, since George Washington, has been remembered for something. Abraham Lincoln, of course, for signing the Emancipation Proclamation. Whatever his reasons, it was a good thing. For Franklin D. Roosevelt, it's the New Deal. For John F. Kennedy, it's the peace corps. And, President George W. Bush's legacy may well be empowerment by veto, as well as passage of this first of its kind legislation which will legitimize warrantless, and mostly arbitrary, governmental surveillance of telephone and Internet communications of U.S. citizens.

"Protect America," passed on August 5, was intended to be this Justice Department's remedy for what it views as an archaic FISA law. It not only authorizes intelligence agencies to snoop, collect data, and compromise consumer privacy, but it also contains a provision which grants "protection" from lawsuits that arise as a result of any assistance telecommunication companies give to the National Security Agency in defiance of consumer privacy laws. There are more than four dozen such lawsuits pending now.

The Act is set to expire on February 15th and, for the past six months, the House and the Senate have been working on amendments to the measure which will bar retroactive immunity from prosecution for telecoms that cooperated with the government after 9/11. On Tuesday, the president again engaged his preemptive war on Congress by threatening to use the veto on any version of FISA reform that doesn't include what the administration regards as a legal shield for those companies that broke the law by turning over confidential customer records to the government.

Curious, don't you think, how much concern the White House has about providing a legal shield for telecoms that violate consumer confidentiality laws, but not for journalists, like James Risen of the New York Times, who face subpoena, and possible incarceration, for their efforts to protect, the identity of their sources?

Curious, too, how hard this administration tries to cover its own covert tracks while, at the same time, providing no shield for its undercover intelligence agents when, as in the case of Valerie Plame Wilson, outing that agent poses a palpable, implicit threat to anyone who, in future, dares to call into question a bold-faced governmental lie as did her husband, Joseph Wilson.

Over the past seven years, Mr. Bush opted to exercise his presidential veto at least six times on everything from the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act to legislation, in November, that would have provided more funding for education, job training, and health programs. At the same time, he signed a bill which allocated more than $450 billion for the Pentagon, for fiscal year beginning in October, 2007, an incease of roughly $40 billion over 2006.

Apart from the obvious, this administration seems to think it has divine right of veto, this president's concept of the veto is not unlike Ronald Reagan's notion of detente, i.e. the threat is more potent than the thing itself.

And, to show you just how potent threats are, the White House called upon newly ordained Attorney General Michael Mukasey and National Intelligence director Mike McConnell to lobby Senate leaders, in a twelve page letter whose contents were disclosed this week, to ensure that "U.S. intelligence agencies (have) the tools they need to protect the nation." (AP)

Clearly, the First Amendment wasn't the only casualty of this administration's "war on terror," checks and balances have fallen by the wayside, too. Is it called autonomy when an attorney general joins forces with the director of an intelligence agency to strongarm the legislative branch of government into cooperating, perhaps in much the same manner as some telecommunications were bullied into data mining, and eavesdropping on their customers?

The House has already stood firm, and opposed granting immunity, retroactive or otherwise, to lawbreakers. The partisan demographics of the Senate, however, make for a bigger fight, as well as for more fertile ground for Bush-appointee lobbyists.

"It is for Congress, not the courts, to make the public policy decision whether to grant liability protection to telecommunication companies who are being sued simply because they are alleged to have assisted the government in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks," quoth Mukasay and the head of the National Intelligence Agency, Mike McConnell.

Surely the attorney general doesn't think the American people are stupid enough to believe that the telecoms are being sued for anything other than breaking privacy laws, and violating their customers' trust? Mr. Mukasay's statement is, quite simply, an insult to the kind of intelligence we will need, as a country, if we are to survive the Bush jihad on our constitutional rights.

A vote, in the Senate, on the "reformed" surveillance bill, which still allows for warrantless eavesdropping, but which is amended to bar immunity, is imminent, and may be expected before the measure expires next Friday. The time has come, maybe, to make our voices heard.

If the president prevails, by power of veto, not only will a dangerous precedent be set in terms of granting corporate America a get out of jail free card, but centuries from now, February 15th may come to be known as St. Veto's Day, a time of moral pollution, and institutional narcolepsy, a time when our civil liberties became martyrs for presidential power.

birthday...

Happy birthday, Mike Farrell, dedicated human rights activist and
mensch; here's to many more!

Making Change: the Election of 2008

We all look to others as transformers, and to make change when, in fact, the only kind of lasting change that will happen must start with us.

from Sandymount Strand...

"Ineluctable modality of the visible"

Happy Birthday

James Joyce

Feb. 2, 1882

the invisible still roar in the zurich you left behind, and in your dear dirty dublin, there is not a single, not one, that has forgotten to bloom in your absence.

Beebe Memorial Cathedral: to Senator Ted Kennedy

Dear Senator Kennedy,

Heartfelt thanks for an exuberant, and inspirational appearance, and speech today at Beebe Memorial Cathedral in Oakland. You and Rep. Barbara Lee were both terrific!

As you stood on the podium, and reminded us of a movement, forty-odd years ago, one that embraced the aspirations of all Americans such that their reach exceed their grasp, a time when public service wasn't viewed as a pejorative but a matter of principle, I saw the fire and electricity of a bygone era.

It is not by accident that you have chosen to endorse Senator Barack Obama. Obama reminds us not so much of Camelot, but of a time when words had substance, and when candidates worked to raise the discourse from the merely personal to the visionary.

Senator Obama's presence also reminds us of how important it is to recognize, and seek, a change of course, and to admit that even the president of the United States can make a mistake. One cannot help but recall President Kennedy's last press conference in which he said that he was beginning to rethink his commitment of 15,000 troops to Vietnam, as well as his meeting with a French journalist, days before his assassination, to discuss his thoughts on the need to lift the trade embargo on Cuba, and accept the fact that we are in a global economy. This was 45 years ago, and the 43rd president of the United States has yet to accept, and honor that fact.

You are so right to remind us of your brother, and our former president, and the need to revive the spirit of the Peace Corps, to engage an otherwise disenfranchised youth, and to work for the principle of economic justice, a vision shared by Martin Luther King. It is only through our youth that we may reshape this country, and restore those civil liberties and protections which have been compromised by the Bush administration's kamakaze mission on the Constitution

From the laughter, and applause, of the feisty eighty year old African-American woman seated beside me, who worked on the campaign of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to the contagious chorus of Latinos for Obama "si, se puede, si , se puede," one couldn't help but feel a desperation,to the starry-eyed gaze of a UC Berkeley undergraduate waiting at the door, a palpable hunger came from that cathedral-- a passion for substantive, and meaningful change.

Senator, you are so right about the importance of Barack Obama's appeal to a new, emerging generations of Americans, and I hope that you will stand by your promise that Obama provide the same skillful leadership as President Kennedy did, leadership that took risks in the interest of the greater good, not the greater God.

One would expect Senator Obama, too, to show deference for the First and Fourth Amendments inasmuch as he taught constitutional law, and will thus be less inclined to treat the Constitution like a vestigial organ, or an archaism, like his predecessor. One would hope that Barack Obama would respect the Magna Carta, and Geneva Conventions, as well as show good judgment in choosing an Attorney General who will honor human rights and civil liberties.

Maybe, as some are suggesting, if elected, Senator Obama might even consider a superlative litigator with a quicksilver mind like John Edwards for that position in his cabinet. Interestingly, during the Kodak debate, in Los Angeles, it was Obama who suggested that Edwards' voice will be heard for a "long time to come, not Hillary Clinton. One hopes he will remember saying this in a year from now and, if not, will be reminded.

Personally, I don't trust anyone who isn't willing to admit they made a mistake, and I admire John Edwards ability to admit he was wrong in voting to authorize sending troops to Iraq. In the end, this election will not come down to personality, and likability, after all, but to character and judgment. The inability to acknowledge acting in error, or change course, demonstrates a fissure in character that is not unlike the one that has kept us on a collision course in the Middle East for nearly a decade. You are right to point out that Senator Obama's focus is on what's ahead, and not what's behind us.

We need a return to statesmanship, and far-sightedness. We need to affirm the future not as an escape from the past, but as validation that the present can be transformed in ways that enhance the participation of the least, as well as the greatest, among us.

While he doesn't magically combine the eye of a dreamer with the hard edge of a pragmatist like your brother, and our former president, once did, most importantly, Obama's vision, grace, and hopefulness can only improve a tattered moral landscape.

Senator, your lifetime of devotion to those principles for which both of your brothers died will never be forgotten by all those who value courage, and basic human decency.

An Open Letter to John Edwards

Dear John,

The news that you have decided to drop your candidacy for president turned an otherwise sunny day into a dark one for me, but we must all respect your decision. How unfortunate, for our country, that an honest campaign has degenerated into a horse race, and that focus has been placed on that which has allure, novelty, and is, in the end, of little consequence instead of on issues that will reverberate for generations to come, such as future appointments to the Supreme Court.

In your insistence on articulating specifics, and not succumbing to the generality fatigue of campaign rhetoric, you have infused day-to-day politics with a dynamism, intelligence, and integrity that will not soon be forgotten, and shown inspired leadership.

I, for one, hope that, like Senator Kennedy, you will continue to speak up for those causes that mean the most to this country, and make your voice heard. We need to stay focused on economic justice, voter nullification, and socioeconomic disenfranchisement. We cannot afford to drop the ball on corporate greed, and the insidiousness of special interest lobbies. We need empowerment by wisdom, not weapon, and leadership that isn't afraid to admit that they've made a mistake.

Your presence will continue to be felt by all those who admire courage, sincerity, and who think the working man and woman of this great country deserve a fair shake.

State of the Bully Address...

Stay tuned as the president mounts his bully pulpit tomorrow in time for his last State of the Union Address, and keep in mind that, behind the scenes, he is strong arming Congress to include immunity, from future litigation, for telecoms that handed over their customers' personal phone records to the NSA.

In his eleventh hour, 43 is working hard to ensure that any legislation passed on his watch is not merely waterproof, but tamper-proof, as well, and he will open the flood gates of hell rather than allow for any margin of error. Implicit in these incipient histrionic trailers of legacy is malpractice insurance for the executive branch.

George W. Bush who has brazenly, and unabashedly, threatened any global health facility that endorses the use of condoms as a means of protection against the spread of HIV/AIDS is now bullying Congress to pass a measure that provides a ubiquitous corporate condom to protect future Fortune 500s.

Make no mistake, the so-called "Protect America Act" was not designed to protect this country, but instead those corporate cronies whose ongoing sodomy of the First Amendment President Bush enthusiastically endorses.

Any White House that threatens to use the veto this much clearly mistakes it for Viagra.

Happy Birthday...

Paul Newman, state of the art actor, philanthropist, and gentleman fighter for those causes that most advance humankind.

Forty years ago, when embracing presidential candidate George McGovern, Mr. Newman came in as #19 on Richard Nixon's enemies list which he reportedly considers among his greatest accomplishments.

Those who value freedom of expression, and human rights, know that the planet is much saner thanks to his efforts.

Happy Birthday, Mr. Newman, and many, many more.

Gitmo in Iraq?

At a time when there is widespread agreement, even among the president's men, to shut down the pernicious detention camp at the southeast end of Cuba at Guantanamo Bay, an accord is in the works by Bush & Co. to do in Iraq what the Platt Amendment did in Cuba a century ago at the close of the Spanish-American War.

It is, you'll recall, largely thanks to the Platt Amendment that the U.S. was given entitlement to send troops to Cuba, meddle in that country's internal affairs, and establish a permanent U.S. protectorate, and naval base, at Gitmo.

Reportedly, the U.S. is exploring the prospect of an agreement with the Iraqi government for "establishment of a legal basis for U.S. military operations in Iraq," (Bloomberg News) and the very real possibility that, a hundred years from now, we may witness yet another Gitmo, only this time within shooting range of Baghdad. And, it is also reported that this plan will have built in protection for any service members who face misconduct charges for their treatment of prisoners down the road. So, as a bonus legacy, the president is setting in motion an Abu Ghraib clone, and one that also bears the Good Housekeeping stamp of approval.

These preliminary discussions of a longterm relationship between the U.S. and Iraq focus on making the connection between the countries president-proof, and permanent, not unlike our presence in Cuba. Just last week, in a campaign ad, Hillary Clinton alluded to the president's objective of ensuring indefinite occupation of that country.

If Mrs. Clinton secures the nomination, and wins the election, in November, she must be reminded of her vehement campaign objections to this plan. She must not be allowed the same wiggle room she got with respect to her position on health care. Moreover, all presidential candidates must be reminded that any such agreement must be submitted to Congress for its approval as, while Congress voted to authorize funding for the war, it never approved a resolution to go to war in the first place. It is egregious, and unacceptable, for our tax dollars to be held hostage by this president and his perennial war games.

While Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is skeptical that an accord between Washington and Baghdad will lead to permanent military bases, the odds are good that any agreement that allows for the right to hold prisoners in Iraq will result in the presence of at least one base, such as the one established in southern Cuba, in 1898, that granted the U.S. permission for an indefinite foothold in the region.

But, even more ominously, this proposed agreement, as Bloomberg reports, provides for the guarantee of protection from future prosecution, on war crimes charges, for U.S. troops, as well as executives, thus promising to legitimize not only the dubious relationship between the two countries, but the quick spread, and contagion, of immunity. In this important respect, this prospective accord may be seen as a sibling of the Military Commissions Act.

If, as insiders in the administration contend, their underlying purpose is to "protect Iraq from external and internal threats to its security" by establishing yet another U.S. protectorate, the Iraqis must ask themselves who it is, principally, they require protection from, who poses the gravest threat to their security and, indeed, as another presidential campaign asked -- are they better off today than they were seven years ago before the U.S. invaded and occupied their country?

If the voice of the people of Iraq in response to this question may be heard, uncensored and unadulterated by their puppet leaders and the mainstream American media, then they may never have to worry about a naval base, like Gitmo, in Baghdad, and neither will we.

An Open Letter...

to Senator Barack Obama's campaign office in California...

Many thanks for the reminder to register to vote. I'd completely forgotten with my recent move from Southern to Northern California in July.

Please let the Senator know that I'm heartened by his recent speeches, and willingness to share his vision for national unity, as well as speak on the issues that are meaningful to us all. This is a wounded country, and we need leaders with vision not just strategy.

It would be wonderful if Senator Obama could hook up with John Edwards--that would be an unbeatable combination. One can think of no time in our history when politicians need to leave their egos in the backseat, and let their concern for the course of our country be their driving force. It is in this spirit that those who wish to defeat the purveyors of war and injustice must work together, and on the same ticket, to ensure victory.

Just Say "No" to Immunity

What better time than today to honor the life of Martin Luther King, and by remembering something he once said: "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." Yes, and think about this: everything President George W. Bush is doing today will someday be legal if members of Congress don't act, and act quickly, to ensure that doesn't happen.

Dr. King's words especially resonate in light of the fact that the Senate will take up the contentious issue of how to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act when they reconvene this week.

When an insidious measure which allows for warrantless eavesdropping on citizens' phonecalls and emails, legislation ironically called the Protect America Act was scheduled to sunset, this fall, the Senate Intelligence Committee passed a measure which would require court review whenever an American citizen is targeted for surveillance anywhere in the world. The amended measure passed the Senate Intelligence Committee by a wide margin.

Importantly, though, the issue of immunity from prosecution for telecommunication behemoths, like AT & T, who broke privacy laws by turning over consumer information to the government was not addressed by the Senate Judiciary Committtee. And, before any new FISA measure passes the Senate, we call upon Senate Majority Leader Reid to stand up to President Bush, and refuse to allow immunity to be written into any amendment to the Protect America Act.

More and more, lately, we hear of government officials insisting upon immunity before they appear before congressional committees investigating wrongdoing. Just last week, Jose Rodriguez, Jr., was scheduled to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, and agreed to do so only on condition that he be granted immunity.

Mr. Rodriguez, former head of the CIA "clandestine service" unit, is alleged to have given the command to destroy hundreds of hours of videotape which might prove that this government, and his bosses, engage in interrogation practices that amount to torture.

You'll recall, too, that the president and vice president have invoked immunity from war crimes charges by passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and now the Justice Department wants retroactive immunity from prosecution granted to telecommunication companies who agreed to break privacy laws, and eavesdrop on millions of consumers personal phone conversations, and emails.

To allow any communication carrier to systematically monitor the conversations of ordinary citizens without a warrant with immunity, and impunity is an insult to the Bill of Rights and national security. Clearly, the framers didn't have selective prosecution in mind when they drafted the Declaration of Independence. Any administration for whom fact is a four letter word must be held accountable, and cannot be allowed to rewrite the law such that their crimes may no longer be prosecuted.

Only a bunch of hardcore mobsters would demand immunity before they testify. Is this what public service has become, just another euphemism for organized crime?

When senators return to work on Tuesday, they need to be reminded of something else Dr. King also said, "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who perpetrates it." And, by extension, he who thinks he can redefine evil such that it can pass itself off as good may delude his peers, but he will never fool history.

Quote of the Day

"Women who seek to be equal to men lack ambition."

Timothy Leary

You heard it here ...

It's not often I go on record with predictions, but I predict that the Republican presidential ticket, in 2008, will be:

John McCain -- (President)

Rudy Giuliani -- (Vice President)


(if not, Giuliani in second place, then Joe Lieberman, and, of course, I've been predicting McCain would be the nominee for months!)

Question of the Day

from Ed Naha:

"I wonder who O.J. will endorse?"

John Edwards: Too soon for Political Obituary

So, maybe the media has timed out on John Edwards. Maybe the pay for view press has decided to shrink the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination to two candidates, but this would be premature evacuation.

Every contender with the stomach for it has the right to remain in the race for as long as he or she wants without the benefit of primetime postmortems. Isn't it bad enough that we try, and convict, those who are only suspected of committing a crime on our TV newscasts? Is this any way to run a democracy? Yes, into the ground.

If we, in this country, weren't so insistent upon novelty, and looked instead to competency, John Edwards would be, by far, the clear leader as the nominee of the Democratic Party. Yet, in keeping with their time-honored tradition, the Democrats will instead show their uncanny ability to foul it up all just when a victory is most needed, and instead of delivering an end to a war which has lasted longer than Vietnam, we will, yet again, deliver a nominee who is guaranteed to pull an LBJ and keep fanning the flames of battle in the name of bringing the boys home. The lies are the same; the only thing that changed is the calendar.

While it's true that any Democrat nominated must secure as many crossover Republican votes as possible, if we think of government as a large ship, what happens when all the weight is in the center? As long as any candidate places his, or her tonnage solely in the middle, the ship of state must sink. That was John Kerry's problem; not willing to go out on a limb, sticking with the tried and true---is this what it means to be experienced? But, even more daunting for him, Kerry wasn't a fighter. If Kerry were a fighter, he'd have fought for every last vote to be counted in Ohio, and we would not have had a second term of George W. Bush who didn't even deserve a first term.

Still, it would be ingenuous to think, even for a minute, that only the experienced stick with the tried and true. No one who is unprepared, or unwilling, to take a risk belongs in the Oval Office, in the first place. George Washington took risks, John Adams, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy---even Richard Nixon took risks; not all risks are created equal, after all.

Make no mistake, whether one likes Hillary Clinton is beside the point just as whether one likes Barack Obama is also beside the point, the only candidate who has stated emphatically that he will withdraw all troops from Iraq is John Edwards. The only candidate not beating the war drums with respect to Iran or Pakistan is John Edwards. Moreover, the only Democratic contender not luxuriating in generalities and abstractions is John Edwards.

And, ultimately, the candidate, besides Dennis Kucinich, who poses the greatest risk to the corporate lobbies, and big business in Washington, is John Edwards. Edwards is a fighter which is what we need if the Democrats are to regain the White House in 2008. Edwards is a fighter which is what we need if we are to wrestle with economic inequality, and restore equity and a middle class. He will fight for the working man and woman at the expense of the corporate elite. With Edwards, we will see more of our children in college than on the front lines of battle.

Yes, and go figure, John Edwards just happens to be the guy the corporate-owned media is squeezing out of the race as they try to figure out how to siphon off his votes while racheting up John McCain. Well, guess what, winning one or two primaries doesn't make a presidential candidate any more than losing one or two breaks one.

For remembering this, one needs to thank former President Clinton who, throughout his wife's campaign, has often reminded us how he lost the first five primaries, and still won the presidency to go on to become one of the most accomplished presidents in recent history until Gingrich and Co. got their teeth into him. No doubt, Romney and Huckabee are sharpening their fangs, and salivating at the thought of a Clinton redux. What makes anyone naive enough to think Hillary has a chance when she comes up against the same evangelical lobby that brought down Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush before him?

Well, then, as the mainstream media would have us believe---that leaves Barack Obama. Senator Obama needs to learn a lot more from John Edwards about articulating a clear, and straightforward position on domestic and foreign policy before anyone can take him seriously enough to vote for him behind closed doors.

We've already had seven years of abstractions like "war on terror," and "axis of evil." If Obama doesn't step forward in real time, and with plain talk, tell us his position, in vivid detail, on all the contentious issues like gun control, and health insurance, you can bet your bottom dollar his Republican counterpart will. Further, were Obama to get the nomination, by the time the Republican spin masters got through with him, he'd make Noam Chomsky look like Mike Huckabee.

As for Hillary Clinton, I think this country has had enough of political dynasties, with the possible exception of the Kennedys, and apart from an important thumbs up from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. ,the Kennedy clan has been conspicuously silent.

Ultimately, Edwards and Obama have one thing in common: they both need to broaden their base. Edwards has to appeal to those who drive a Lexus, as well as the middle class; Obama has to appeal to everyone over 40.

But, more importantly, it's time for the pundits, and the press, to hold off on the eulogies, divvying up any candidate's estate, or declaring anyone down for the count until many more voices are heard, and votes counted.

"but ideas live on..."

from President John Fitzgerald Kennedy:

"A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but ideas live on."

and, this, too...

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."

Coming Soon: A 12 Step Program for Bloggers

My name is Jayne Lyn Stahl
and I'm a blogaholic.

The omnipotent "they" often say that the first step in recovery is acknowledging that there is a problem. When, seven plus years ago, I quit smoking, it occurred to me I could transfer my hand to mouth addiction to the keyboard, so I went out, and bought my first SONY laptop. As for any other rapacious residual cravings, there wasn't a gentleman in my life, at the time, who was ready, willing, and able to sacrifice at the altar of my constant urgings.

As for the laptop, it was love at first sight. The Vaio was a perfect fit in the corner of the desk, inconspicuous as a corn flake on a beige rug, and awe-inspiring as the sun shining through a chorus of clouds. This innocuous piece of scrap metal contained a parallel universe for me, and one which would transport me away from the rapid pulse high of nicotine and to a portable planet.

From the first, when I most missed that early morning cigarette, which I enjoyed for more than thirty years (smoking as much as three packs of cigarettes a day, at one point), I sat glued to the magical, often dusty, screen, hoping that even the muse would learn to conform to Microsoft Word formatting.

A few years later, when a friend mentioned blogging, I thought about it a bit, and then said "What, write for free? Would James Joyce do that? William Butler Yeats? How about Arthur Rimbaud, or Hemingway? Would Ernest Hemingway write for free?" Walt Whitman would; in fact, Whitman would probably have, on average, three to five posts a day on every opinion site on the Internet. He'd be, arguably, more of a netslave than me. Oscar Wilde, too, I suspect, though Oscar was, after all, more down to earth --that was his fall; read "De Profundis," if you haven't already.

But, apart from Whitman and, maybe, Allen Ginsberg, what serious writer would work for free, I wondered. Well, as a largely ignored, and hugely underpublished poet, the immediate gratification, knowledge that hundreds read me, ego stroke out of seeing my face on a Web page all comes to be seen as a kind of payment, even if it's not cash. And, more importantly, one likes to think that what one has to say may even turn a head or two besides, of course, one's own.

Who'd have thought that I'd become addicted, several years later, not merely to the keyboard, but to writing not for one blog, but for every conceivable Web site that would have me.

The conundrum: I haven't been able to focus on serious writing and, more to the point, I sit and watch as a mountain of unpaid bills collect on my kitchen table where, each day, I awake with the honorable intention of paying them, and instead rush off to the desk, and dusk, to do what I'm doing now. What is infinitely more vexing is the fact that virtually every blog for whom I write is making tons of money in advertising revenue, all except, of course, my own.

Since childhood, my new year's resolution has been never to make new year resolutions, but this year is an exception. My resolution, this year, is to devise a 12 step program for me, and other fellow blogaholics who want to either return to serious writing, get paid for soapbox writing, or both.

Stay tuned, am in the process of formulating one, so you'll see a 12 step program posted here soon enough. But, in the meantime, think about this: Karl Marx didn't live long enough to see the technological revolution, and the professional blogosphere, which rewards publishers, not writers, with advertising revenue, or he'd agree that exploitation of labor is a collaborative effort.

Campaign 2008: Will Torture Be on the Menu?

If nothing else, the outcome of last night's New Hampshire primary, and Huckabee's loss, shows that the God brokers may have an uphill battle making the world safe for Armageddon. But, given that we've seen the stock market crash twice in the past century, will we see the God market crash, too?

Now that Comeback McCain has emerged as a force to be reckoned with, again, and a "Christian" one at that, will this former prisoner of war ensure that the Eighth Amendment injunction against "cruel and unusual punishment" be observed, and what of his Democratic counterparts? More importantly, will torture, or physical abuse, of those in captivity, whether it be in a secret holding cell in Afghanistan or in state prisons in Georgia, be exposed, prohibited, and legally actionable?

Essentially, the question is, will the presidential candidates, of both parties, be made to account not only for their position on waterboarding, specifically, but on torture, in general, as well as capital punishment, extraordinary rendition, and domestic prisoner abuse?

When, earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard arguments about whether execution by lethal injection is constitutional, Justice Antonin Scalia observed that "There is no painless requirement in the Constitution." Indeed, there is no requirement for execution in the Constitution at all. The Fifth Amendment refers to a "capital, or otherwise infamous crime," but not capital punishment.

Importantly, the Supreme Court case has been brought by inmates who aren't asking to be spared execution, only to be spared pain. Justice Scalia's chief concern is for a "national cessation of executions that could last for years." We wouldn't want that to happen, he adds, even at the risk of acknowledging that there is constitutional acceptance of pain, and the kind that the framers couldn't imagine in their wildest dreams: a three drug cocktail that renders the victim unconscious, paralyzes him, and then kills him. In Kentucky, it is illegal to euthanize an animal in this manner.

You'll recall that, in 1972, most death penalty cases were thrown out, only to be restored four years later. But, the issue of torture, cruel and unusual punishment, is greater than the death penalty, and includes kill orders given by military officers in Iraq, and elsewhere, that cross the line from justifiable wartime self-defense into legally prosecutable homicide.

Witness the case of Marine Staff Sgt, Frank Wuterich who faces arraignment on charges of voluntary manslaughter for the massacre, two years ago, of more than 20 innocent Iraqi civilians in Haditha. Wuterich is charged with taking nine lives "in the heat of sudden passion." (WaPo) Charges against his Marine subordinates have been dropped with the exception of two enlisted men, and another Marine officer.

While it is heartening to see that there is an attempt at justice, on the part of this administration, in the Haditha matter, keep in mind that Sgt. Wuterich took orders from someone, too, ,and the person who gave the thumbs-up to fire on two dozen innocent civilians must be held to account for the Marine staff sergeant's actions in much the same way that charges are brought to bear on Wuterich instead of his subordinates.

Consider, too, that the process of arraignment itself in which a person appears before a court, is apprised of pending charges, the right to counsel, and the right to trial by jury, already places the staff sergeant several paces ahead of any of the folks we currently hold in Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere.

Not coincidentally, it was then sitting Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, who coined the phrase "unlawful enemy combatant," and who, arguably, should be facing arraignment on charges of war crimes or, at the very least, called upon to testify as to who gave the command to preemptively slaughter dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians.

After all, if the House Intelligence Committee can subpoena the former chief of the "clandestine service" of the Central Intelligence Agency, Jose Rodriguez, Jr., to talk about how hours of interrogation videotapes disappeared, why can't a court in California subpoena another retiree, Donald Rumsfeld, to testify about who knew about the massacre at Haditha, and when, as well as who gave the order to try and cover it up?

Of course, we all know that state-sanctioned killing on the battlefield is quite different from state-sanctioned killing in an execution chamber, say, in Texas, the most prolific death penalty state in the nation. Similarly, we all know that the widely published horrific photos of humiliation, taunting, physical, and psychological abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib show only how we treat wartime enemies, right? Not so.

On Tuesday, a class action lawsuit was filed by seven inmates at Valdosta State Prison, in Georgia, that names twenty-four prison guards who allegedly engaged in "routine beatings and torture of restrained inmates" that resulted in the deaths of two prisoners. (AP) Further, according to the pending lawsuit, correction officers attempted to cover up their "cruel and unusual" punishments by beating up those who filed complaints against them. That a court of law, anywhere in the United States, should demand an "immediate end" to beatings in a state prison is an outrage of seismic proportions.

Clearly, the lines may have been blurred between who we detain as "enemy combatants" and those we hold in our nation's jails, when Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, which blurred the lines between law enforcement and "homeland security."

Given that virtually all of the presidential candidates profess to be religious to one degree or another, and conveniently blur the line between church and state for their own political gain, by doing so, they have also agreed to factor God into the already overcrowded marketplace, thus they must also acknowledge having converted the Almighty into a merchant of war, as well.

In the end, perhaps Justice Scalia is right. Maybe it's time to write "painless" into the Constitution. Surely, if the Supreme Court can consider, and hear arguments about what constitutes "cruel and inhuman punishment," so can those running for President of the United States. Indeed, it might also be time to take up the increasingly important issue of what constitutes torture, and the need for a constitutional injunction against inflicting pain, whether physical or psychological, as well as capital punishment.

At the very least, there needs to be discourse about an amendment to the Constitution that will reverse the ravages of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and ensure that no executive branch can ever again legally claim immunity from war crime charges.

Timed Release

Remember all the media buzz before the USA Patriot Act went before Congress where it was overwhelmingly passed? That's because there was none. In fact, the mainstream media slept through the Patriot Act just as it is napping through HR 1955. Remember, too, that less than a handful of elected representatives reportedly read the Patriot Act before signing it into legislation?

Remember how many of us, back in 2004, thought the war was the major campaign issue? Well, guess what, the Patriot Act, and subsequent legislation inhibiting the First Amendment, and stifling dissent, will be what our grandchildren's grandchildren will talk about in American History 101 long after we're gone, and they will ask---how did they let this happen to our country? How did we, and are we going to allow it to happen again?

Over the past decade, it seems like the mainstream media has treated the flow of information the way the pharmaceutical companies do most over-the-counter medications, that is with timed release. Our civil liberties will soon join the endangered species list. The federal policies of the past seven years have imperiled our intellectual environment as much as our natural environment, and the time speak up is long overdue.

H.R. 1955, aka the "Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act," has already passed the House, overwhelmingly, and is in clear and present danger of passing the Senate, too. I urge you to watch the video link below, pay special attention to definition of the word "force," forward this on, and stop the proposed criminalization of dissent, and independent thought, before it becomes law.

Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJsovPRTEM

- Brasscheck

"the rightful course..."

"Impeachment (of the president and vice president) is unlikely, of course. But we must still urge Congress to act. Impeachment, quite simply, is the procedure written into the Constitution to deal with presidents who violate the Constitution and the laws of the land. It is also a way to signal to the American people and the world that some of us feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray. This, I believe, is the rightful course for an American patriot."

Senator George McGovern

Washington Post editorial -- 1/6/08

Calling Scotland Yard

Okay, so the whole world seems to be on the same page when it comes to investigating the assassination, last week, of former Pakistani prime minister Benadir Bhutto, but will there be the same demand for an independent inquiry into who gave the command to destroy hundreds of hours of videotapes, back in 2005, which may prove that we do, in fact, torture people?

Attorney General Michael Mukasay today agreed that there needs to be an investigation, but is putting it in the hands of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yes, that's right, Mukasay wants the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate the Central Intelligence Agency.

It's reassuring that the attorney general has come a long way, baby, and far enough to acknowledge that there is "a basis for initiating a criminal investigation" into what laws were broken in giving the command to destroy tapes. (Reuters) It is equally comforting that the CIA has agreed to cooperate fully with the investigation, but one wonders just how cooperative the attorney general will be with respect to prosecuting those responsible once the chips fall where they may.

Mukasay has fingered the FBI to turn the investigation over to yet another federal prosecutor, John Durham. One can only hope he will have better luck than his predecessor, Patrick Fitzgerald, had in getting past the fall guys Scooter Libby, and Karl Rove, to reveal exactly whose handiwork was behind both the outing of a covert CIA operative, and is also behind the destruction of incriminating videotapes.

On January 16, Congress is scheduled to meet with designated fall guy, retired head of the CIA's "clandestine service," Jose Rodriguez, Jr. Mr. Rodriguez was subpoenaed to testify and, after some lawyering, agreed to do so under the condition that he be immune from prosecution. There is little doubt that when he is through talking, feathers will be flying in the Oval Office.

But, the question is, what will the attorney general do when the FBI points to the CIA, and congressional investigations point to the executive branch? Or, better still, what will Mukasey do if both the FBI and Congress point to the executive branch? If nothing else, the firing of nine U.S. attorneys shows what happens to those who refuse to play ball with this administration.

Haven't we been through enough congressional investigations, over the past few years, to know that, in the end, we'll get more stonewalling, artful dodging, and retreat from responsibility. The odds of getting an impartial investigation into who orchestrated the disappeared interrogation tapes are about as good as getting the Pakistani government to come clean about who killed Mrs. Bhutto.

In light of how closely Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair worked together to frame our current foreign policy, it seems poetic justice to look to Scotland Yard, not the FBI, to find out who is behind this egregious obstruction of justice.

A Message from Mike Farrell

The below article comes courtesy of actor Mike Farrell, President of Death Penalty Focus:

"Fyodor Dostoyevsky once said, 'The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.' Try it, I dare you.

Working to abolish the death penalty over the past 30 years has created deep frustration. Don't get me wrong: we're winning. State killing is on the ropes today. The frustration I'm talking about now comes from continued exposure to the sickening, demeaning human corruption suffusing our so-called criminal justice system. It's so awful I've begun telling audiences to think of capital punishment as the lid on the garbage can. Once it's gone, Americans will be forced to look into the rotten, stinking, maggot-infested stew that is our prison system today.

Though it should come as no surprise, the United States incarcerates more of its citizens than any nation in the world, a fact that should make us hide our heads in shame. The once hopeful notion of rehabilitation has long since been discarded in favor of punishment and revenge, despite the occasional posturing of a governor like Arnord Schwarzenegger who, in a fit of political legerdemain worthy of George Orwell, resuscitated the word but not the practice in what he now calls California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Children tried as adults are housed with adults, suffering every indignity nightmares can conjure up. We're one of the few nations that sentences kids to life in prison without the possibility of parole, with over two thousand of them serving a sentence that eliminates their future. And California has ten percent of these kids, almost three times the number in all other countries combined.

The mentally ill behind bars, per a Human Rights Watch investigation, outnumber those in our mental institutions. Non-violent drug offenders, who any rational society would treat as a public health concern, fill prisons to overflowing, causing gaseous politicians, eager to show how tough they are, to bleat for more money for more prisons.

Ill and infirm inmates languish in misery and die in despair. California's prison health-care system is such a wretched failure the feds are threatening to take it over. Violent, dehumanizing, crowded, corrupt, with ill-educated guards earning more than our children's teachers, our prison-industrial complex gets more of your tax dollars than our universities, a threat to everyone's future.

Again, per Dostoyevsky, 'A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.'

We must do better. Eliminating the death penalty is the first step on a long road."


Amen.

Some words on the upcoming Iowa caucus...

Those entrusted with our votes, and confidence, need to look to the people, and not the Lord, for guidance.

New Year's Eve Arrests at Huckabee Headquarters

With only days to go before the Iowa caucuses, one Republican candidate is showing his stripes, Mike Huckabee. Yes, this former Baptist minister, and Arkansas governor, boy next door, Huckleberry Finn, who looks like a cross between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Stewart, as innocuous as a barfly, waited in his campaign bus across the street while three demonstrators, all in their 50's, were arrested for "criminal trespass" at his Iowa headquarters.
According to a press release from the Catholic Peace Ministry, the protesters bore signs reading "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" called for an end to the war in Iraq, any other planned military adventure, as well as read from the Bible to bolster their argument for peace while they were carted off.

As they were transported to Polk County Jail, where they were charged, and later released, cheers rippled through the crowd of onlookers. Those apprehended by Des Moines finest were members of a group called SODaPOP (Seasons of Discontent: A Presidential Campaign) who, a few months ago, reportedly delivered a letter to Mr. Huckabee in which they requested his pledge to withdraw all troops from Iraq within three months of his presidency, as well as halt any plans for military action against Iran. Addditionally, they called for tax dollars currently being spent on combat to instead bolster the "infrastructure of the United States."

The three SODaPOP members gathered in the Huckabee campaign office, in Des Moines, merely to await a response to their letter to the presidential candidate, two months ago, which went unanswered. If it all ounds surreal, or like something out of Saturday Night Live, guaranteed you won't feel that way in November, 2008, if Huckabee wins the election. And, while that's not likely to happen, the fact that his campaign has made it as far as it has is something that would scare the hell out of anyone who considers themselves rational, let alone progressive.
What a sad day it is, in America, when a presidential candidate has a tiny group of middle-aged protestors arrested, and charged, with criminally trespassing on his property.

One wonders, too, if, upon election, Mr. Huckabee would consider the White House his "property," too. While the First Amendment guarantees "freedom of assembly," one hardly thinks that the framers conceived of things like You Tube, campaign headquarters, or the Grey Panthers, either, for that matter.

More than thirty members of the press witnessed the protest which was only the first stop scheduled as SODaPOP has reportedly made the same demands of eight other candidates. Curiously, the candidate who has surged to the head of the polls with his rugged Ronnie Reagan, boy next door, good looks increasingly proves himself to be a formidable shill for neo-Conservative revivalists.

One whose motto is "Faith, Family, and Freedom," as well as boasts that: "My faith is my life--it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them" sat patiently waiting, in his campaign bus, across the street, as the three SODaPOP boomers were handcuffed, and driven out of his Iowa headquarters. One can think of no better way to illustrate what a quintessential farce the former minister's call to protect the "sanctity of life" is. Yes, friends, just when we thought we'd seen the last of "compassionate conservatism," along comes Mike Huckabee.

The pundits, political commentators, and all those who like to lump things in a neat little box that answers only to gravity score a huge victory when referring to platforms like "conservative," or "neo-conservative," without deviating from jargon to take a candid look at what those terms mean. With Huckabee, specifically, conservative means a declared intention to overturn Roe v. Wade, a new constitutional amendment stating that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, blurring the lines between church and state, more jihads at the taxpayers expense, and jihads against the First and Fourth Amendments, too, building a fence with "interlocking surveillance cameras," as well as preventing immigrant amnesty.

With Huckabee, too, "illegal" immigrant families will be broken apart by agents of the Immigration and Custom Enforcement Agency, and mothers deported while children stand helplessly by. And, with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, dissenters will be rounded up, or tasered, even those who read from scriptures, for daring to demand accountability from a future president.

This is what Mike Huckabee means when he talks about "Faith, Family, and Freedom;" make no mistake, it runs counter to everything this country represents, and has represented for more than two centuries.John Edwards is right to suggest that if we go to the polls in November, 2008, and vote for a Republican, we will be voting for George W. Bush on steroids. According to the last exit poll, in Iowa, taken 5 hours ago, Mike Huckabee is ahead of the pack of other Republicans. While the war in Iraq, as well as the military industrial complex created by the current regime, loom as the signature issue of the 2008 presidential race, national security, in the long run, depends upon an informed, and mindful, electorate.

Conservatives are backing Huckabee who is, without question, the most conservative of the group. And, if we are ever to see regime change, in Washington, then there has to be an information blitz, and a campaign to make voters aware of every position Huckabee, and other gentleman snakes, take on important issues.When the focus of the Democratic Party becomes more on raising cash than on raising consciousness, and picking each other apart like a pack of hungry tomcats on some fallen birds, we can only witness yet another conservative presidential victory.

Those who argue that the contender who is better prepared to tackle a future terror attack is the candidate to back are right, but the threat, this time, will not be about bin Laden, or Al Qaeda, any more than it was back in 2001, but will come instead from those we elect to lead us who sabotage the Bill of Rights, break the law, and pervert our trust for their own monetary gain.

Oscar Wilde once said "Only the superficial don't judge by appearances." If the actions of his Iowa staff, as well as what may, at best, be seen as his passive acquiescence to these unnecessary and absurd arrests are any indication of a Huckabee presidency, then his campaign must end in Iowa.

Another Oscar worth having...

Oscar Wilde:

"To love oneself is the beginning of a lifelong romance."

Moral Downsizing

This morning's announcement, by Pakistani officials, that former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto died from a skull fracture when falling against the wall of her sports utility vehicle, during yesterday's rally, and not from bullets from a gun that was aimed directly at her, or schrapnal from a suicide bomb, is yet another example of what a fine role model we, in the U.S., are for the rest of the world in how to cover up an assassination.

It might not come as a shock if one were to find out that a surviving member of the Warren Commission flew to Islamabad to coach them on how to pull off yet another coup d'etat, and keep the monied interests in place, while trying to appear transparent. That said, even the greatest ingenue would be hard pressed to believe that anything but gunfire killed Mrs. Bhutto, with bullets provided courtesy of the U.S. government.

And, as if to add insult to injury, comes the report that it was a phone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who, two months ago, persuaded Bhutto to fulfill her destiny, and return from London to her homeland. According to an article in today's Washington Post, the State Department had a plan for the January elections in Pakistan which was to have Bhutto join forces with Musharraf as prime minister to his presidency, thereby providing "a democratic facade" to Musharraf's government.

The issue isn't whether by playing puppet master, and meddling in the domestic affairs of sovereign states, the U.S. cost Benazir Bhutto her life. Even if Mrs. Bhutto had magically survived this attack as the last one, and went on to join forces with Musharraf, as planned, after next month's election, what right does any state have to control the internal operations of another. Isn't this what Woodrow Wilson warned against when he formed the League of Nations back in 1918---keeping the Germans, or any other rogue state from running amok, and consuming other nations? President Wilson would be stunned if he were to suddenly awake, in the year 2007, to find America has become the country about which he warned so vigorously.

Since the Nixon years, we have gone from moral ambiguity to moral lethargy, and are now in moral quicksand. Those who brought us the "Contract for America," the Dan Quayles, Oliver Norths, Newt Gingriches, whose family values have translated into congressional page scandals, the rapes of Blackwater, have ruptured the body politic in the name of Rapture, and ransacked the American dream like an abandoned house of worship. When reality is reduced to good and evil, black and white, we no longer have to worry about little things like moral ambiguity.

This assassination, like others before it, has shown us how quickly hypocrisy reproduces. It's never only a gun, or a bomb, that claims the life of one whose presence has changed the course of history. It's the calculated illusion that making substantive change is ever only an individual thing, or that the spectator to tragedy is not himself a part of the social , and moral pathology from which it evolved.

But, what right does a citizen of a country that makes stealth agreements to fly suspects to secret holding cells over international airspace have to talk about moral high ground? Moral high ground easily gives way to a seizmic avalance of rationalizations like those that led our latest attorney general to say he needs to do research on whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture. While he's at it, Mr. Mukasay might also wish to look into whether or not the destruction of videotapes, which were ordered preserved as part of an investigation, constitutes obstruction of justice.

In the end, what happened in Pakistan yesterday was no more just about Pakistan than the assassination of Martin Luther King was about the civil rights movement. Advances in technology affirm that the planet is one vast community. The brutal killing of a leader 9,000 miles away is now as close as if it were right next door. We need a new contract for America, one that restores dignity to working men and women, that provides opportunity for the disenfranchised; one that ensures that telecommunication giants and sitting presidents are no more immune from criminal prosecution than ordinary citizens, and that no executive ever again gets to subordinate other branches of government, as we have seen over the past several years, in defiance of the Constitution.

When any world power gets to detain people, whether they be their own citizens or not, indefinitely without charge, and without access to evidence against them, then try them before kangaroo military courts, they insult the integrity not just of their nation, but of civilization as a whole, and they may claim the moral high ground only if they suffer from positional vertigo.

In the past thirty years, the concept of downsizing has taken off. Ronald Reagan ushered in the era of economic downsizing from which we're still reeling, and with George W. Bush comes moral downsizing for which there can be only one remedy, the same remedy Woodrow Wilson sought---collective action on the part of all nations to combat abuse of power, the proliferation of lies, and an end to war profiteering in the name of democratization.

The best way to honor Benazir Bhutto's life, and the lives of all those world leaders who have been assassinated, is to reclaim the moral high ground by getting at the truth, no matter where it leads, and not hiding behind the "facade of democracy."

Who's Packing in Washington?

The cold-blooded, ruthless assassination of former Pakistani prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, today will long outlive any of us. It is wrenching to think no sooner did the prime minister request that the windows of her bulletproof vehicle be opened, so she could bid farewell to the crowds, than bullets were fired into her face and neck. Generations from now, Bhutto's murder will be seen as the single most important assassination in modern world history, and one that will forever change its course.

Even more horrifying than the murder itself is the thought of an assassin lying in wait for just the right moment to strike. By not providing the former prime minister with the security she required, especially in light of the last suicide bombing, General Musharraf is, at best, guilty of criminal negligence. Just as President Bush may be viewed as being responsible for the events of 9/11 inasmuch as members of his administration ignored credible, and mounting, evidence that a bombing was imminent in the months beforehand.

Not only was this one murder which was wholly preventable, it speaks to the extraordinary lengths to which the Bush regime has gone to avoid recognizing the time bomb that is contemporary Pakistan. In their blood lust for oil, this administration's inactions will, in future, be viewed as nothing less than collaboration with the General's assault on his constitution, imposition of martial law, and now slaughter of a chief rival.

Whether one thought of Bhutto as a Western shill, or a populist folk hero, her barbaric murder can only send shockwaves up and down the spine of even the most Machiavellian as it was an egregiously politically expedient move, especially in light of Pakistani elections which are less than two weeks away.

Not coincidentally, President Musharraf's other nemesis Nawaz Sharif's return to Islamabad was quickly interrupted, in September, by money laundering charges, and Sharif was shipped off to Saudi Arabia. Musharraf has figured out the most effective way to end a state of emergency: kill off one's opponents, or drive them back into exile.

One thing is crystal clear, the Party, and leaders, who framed the foreign policy that brought Pakistan to the brink of chaos today will be the one sent packing in January, 2009 if, and when, the truth about where the billions of dollars in American aid ended up.

While, as President Kennedy once rightly observed, it is impossible to stand in the way of someone who is willing to pay the ultimate price to kill, those who provide him with bullets are essentially inseparable from the killer, and equally responsible.

Ultimately, it is you and I, the American taxpayer, who have Mrs. Bhutto's blood on our hands as we have been financing that thug in Pakistan whose handiwork is all over this assassination. Among the many insidious legacies of this gnomic White House will be the instability, and carnage that will result from a foreign policy that reeks of greed, irreverence for human life. and gaping irrelevancy.

It's time to give marching orders to the same thugs who have held Washington, D.C. in a state of emergency since 9/11, send Pervez Musharraf packing, and Mr. Bush with him.

Not only does Congress need to investigate the mysterious disappearance of 5 million White House emails, as well as the wanton, and criminal destruction of interrogation videotapes, back in 2005, in defiance of a court order, but now, more than ever, there needs to be a thorough, independent examination into where $11 billion of our money went, and who, here in the States, is also profiting from this Pakistani thug who boasts of being in bed with the Taliban, and whose fingerprints are all over this morning's shocking, but not surprising, assassination. Anything less than a thorough investigation will be viewed, by posterity, as complicity in Bhutto's murder.

After this tragic event, the question now becomes not who's packing in Pakistan, but who will soon be packing in Washington.D.C.

bombing the North Pole

"I was glad to get your letter about trying to stop the Russians from bombing the North Pole and risking the life of Santa Claus...You must not worry about Santa Claus. I talked with him yesterday, and he is fine.”

By then president John F. Kennedy who, in his inimitable way, responded to a note sent to him by a child concerned about the arms race, and its potential impact on Christmases to come. (NYT)

We would be one step closer to disarmament, and world peace, now were JFK to walk among us.

Not quite an endorsement, but...

Christ died for our sins not Hillary Clinton!

"Potentially Dangerous"

Back in 1950, J. Edgar Hoover, FBI director for nearly half a century, had a plan for the "permanent detention" of 12,000 Americans at military bases, and domestic prisons, according to a document declassified on Friday and reported by The New York Times. His goal was to have then President Truman suspend habeas corpus, and arrest any person deemed "potentially dangerous."

So, you might find yourself unfortunate enough to be on J. Edgar's list only because you're thought to have the potential for being dangerous. One wonders what Mr. Hoover's definition of the word "dangerous" was, and how that might be instructive in light of today's political climate. Can it be said that danger, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder?

It was also Hoover's idea to construct a behemoth, all-encompassing arrest warrant, not unlike the ubiquitous National Security Agency spy program, which could be issued to facilitate the massive arrests stemming from years of investigations by the bureau. Evidently, "Hoover's list" took some time to prepare.

Should the plan to incarcerate more than ten thousand Americans have panned out, it would not have been the first time a debacle of this nature had occurred on native soil. In 1920, Hoover organized the Palmer Raids, in which thousands of people were rounded up, and labelled pinkos and radicals, providing precedent, if not impetus, for the Korean War game plan.

The Palmer Raids were the precursor to the Great Purge of Josef Stalin which has, interestingly, also come to be known as the "Great Terror." War sure comes in handy, not just for those fat, juicy war contracts, making the rich even richer, but for classifying those who don't get with the program as "potentially" risky, hence worthy of taxpayer expense to sweep them up, hole them up somewhere, divest them of their First Amendment rights, and disenfranchise them.

Hoover sent his proposal to Truman in July, 1950, in the first two weeks after combat began in Korea, and two months later, the president approved a measure which allowed for detaining "dangerous radicals." It is unknown what Truman's response to Hoover's plan was inasmuch as the plan itself was never implemented, even when the Chinese entered the Korean War, and the president felt compelled to declare a state of emergency. Wouldn't you just love to be a fly on that wall? No, not the Berlin wall, but the wall separating President Truman and J. Edgar Hoover!

It would be fascinating if a future document were to be discovered showing a debate between the president and director of what was the signature intelligence agency of the day. There could be no controversy when it came to Hoover's unilateral vision of those who posed the most egregious risk to national security, as well as his goal of protecting the country "against treason, espionage, and sabotage." By his own admission, 97% of those he deemed "potentially dangerous" were U.S. citizens, so his call to suspend habeas corpus was as unconstitutional then as it is now. Hoover's plan granted the right to a hearing, but the nuance of evidence was nowhere to be found.

We may not know much, but we can make an educated guess that J. Edgar would be a big fan of military tribunals, and having to enter a guilty plea before seeing counsel, as well as granting immunity to commanders-in-chief from war crime charges. Overall, one can imagine that Mr. Hoover would be a huge proponent of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and would tip the scales in favor of expanded surveillance powers for the N.S.A. . In fact, he'd probably have pedicures with Vladimir Putin, then go back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and blitz the server containing millions of "deleted" White House emails, some of which may even prove that the president conferred with counsel before ordering the destruction of "enhanced interrogation" videotapes. Not only does presidente 43 allow for indefinite detention of prisoners without redress, or access to counsel, but he rubber stamps methods of interrogation which wouldn't even pass J. Edgar Hoover's smell test.

One can only hope that Congress doesn't roll over for President Bush again, in this investigation, as it did a year ago September, when it allowed the president to suspend habeas corpus for anyone classified as an "unlawful enemy combatant," a phrase coined by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Ostensibly, Mr. Rumsfeld never read the Constitution any more than his colleagues, in Congress, as the Constitution clearly states that habeas corpus may only be suspended when public safety is jeopardized by "rebellion or invasion."

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the habeas corpus right of U.S. citizens, but is only now hearing arguments about whether non-citizens, at Guantanamo Bay, should be entitled to the same rights as were granted by the Magna Carta some five hundred years ago, but who's counting? So, here we are, fifty years later, in the midst of a "war on terror," and only now coming to learn that the intelligence arm of our own government was about to perpetrate a "Great Terror" on 12,000 of its own citizens.

What is the purpose of the past if not to be instructive? We must never again allow canibalist abstractions like "potentially dangerous," and war on terror, to infect us with the kind of arrogance, and self-righteousness which, in trying to pass itself off as patriotism, is little more than thinly disguised abuse of power.

Forced Detox for Fox

It's time to give Fox the same treatment as Paris Hilton got, and suspend their license for broadcasting "under the influence." Given his supernatural luck, this week, Rupert Murdoch has, no doubt, been mixing it up, and partying hearty, but this is no excuse for waging a media war of "lies to end all lies."

Admittedly, these are the days when egg nog, spiked punch, and bubbly take the blame for the inevitable faux pas, but faux news is in a class by itself, so given this week's FCC ruling in favor of more media monopolies, it's time to send Fox to detox--maybe even jam their phone lines like the Republicans did to Democratic Headquarters,in New Hampshire, back in 2002. Why not start raining emails to our friends at the FCC, and demand gargantuan indecency fines for Fox TV! After all, isn't lying obscene, especially when one does so under the rubric of fact?

Last night, Fox News reported that 65% of Californians plan to vote for Gov. Schwarzenegger's so-called "universal health care" bill which forces families who can barely afford to fill their tanks, or pay their car insurance premiums, to now take on health care costs, as well.

Look for a pink signature Mercedes under your tree this year before you'll see free "universal" health insurance for Californians, or any Americans, based on legislation under review. What Fox didn't report is that the reason 65% of those polled support the measure is because media outlets like Fox are so adept at their misinformation campaigns, they make this summer's wildfires look like a family picnic.

Who knows what's behind Schwarzenneger's latest starring role as Macy's Santa? Maybe Ah-nold is warming up for a 2012 veep run with Hillary or Romney, or both Hillary and Romney the way things are going. Why would we let a little thing like the Constitution stop him from running? After all, it hasn't stopped us from suspending habeas corpus, has it?

Cripes, and we're still almost a year away from the election. Think about how much time this gives Fox, and other spin vendors, to manufacture even more weapons of mass delusion.

The Fox is out of the hen house, and the wolves of winter lie in wait.

Quote of the Day

(regarding Senate confirmation hearings for deputy attorney general reporting to Attorney General Michael Artful Dodger Mukasey..)

"I hope that Mark Filip reassures us that he understands that the duty of the deputy attorney general is to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law — not work to circumvent it,"

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

"Open Minds"

There was an email in my inbox, this morning, from Senator Dianne Feinstein thanking me for writing to her about administration efforts at legislation that would give what both the Senator and the President call "liability relief" for those telecoms, after 9/11, that cooperated with the National Security Agency's request, and participated in clandestine surveillance of their customers' telephone conversations, without a warrant, in violation of FISA, as well as privacy laws. The way this government has attempted to rewrite not merely the Cnstitution, history, but the English language is a continuous source of amazement to me. Liability relief, indeed!

Why didn't anyone think of liability relief for Richard Nixon when he authorized the break-in of Democratic headquarters at Watergate? From now on, when they take the oath of office, we ought to require that all future presidents have liability insurance in place so that they don't waste taxpayer money, tie up both houses of Congress with interminable investigations, and may be held harmless from charges of war crimes, destruction of White House emails in violation of the Presidential Records Act, as well as any other misdeeds, and misconduct.

Indeed, why not require future presidents to carry immunity from prosecution insurance the way Governor Schwarzenneger is working to require all Californians to carry health insurance. Moreover, why restrict immunity from criminal prosecution to those who carry out the surveillance, and not those who give the commands to surveil?

In her letter, Senator Feinstein also asserts that it was the Executive branch who demanded that electronic communication service providers turn over records, and that requests for N.S.A. assistance were generated by the President himself. She insists that these demands for information are legal. What's more, the Senator says that she herself voted for the FISA bill, in October, which included the provision to grant immunity to companies that cooperate with governmental requests for information.

Yesterday, the Senate Intelligence Committee, upon which Ms. Feinstein serves, not surprisingly, voted to approve the controversial FISA overhaul measure with the retroactive immunity clause in there, by an impressive margin of 76-10. (Reuters) We'd all like to know the names of all those on the committee, besides Feinstein, who voted in favor of this legislation. esp. those who are up for reelection.

The good news is that, thanks to the efforts of Senator Reid, a final vote by the full Senate has been delayed until after the congressional recess. Unlike the Intelligence Committee, both the House and the Senate Judiciary Committee looked less favorably on legislation that would grant so-called liability relief to those who violate ordinary citizens' privacy rights. In fact, the House bill doesn't mention immunity at all.

But, what many in Congress neglect to consider in their discussion of FISA reform, and immunity to telecoms who cooperate with NSA, is is that this legislation is designed not merely to ward off prosecution from past surveillance, but to open the door to "wider spying" in future, as well as "a wide range of secret surveillance operations in fighting terrorism and crime." (WaPo) Yes, America, while the Senate debates whether Big Brother has the right to eavesdrop on your cell phone conversations, Big Brother continues to do so, and with the collusion of an alarming number of your elected representatives. And, from the looks of things, we can count on yet another preemptive strike against privacy by N.S.A.

Notably, much of the campaign to monitor our personal communications in the name of a so-called war on terror has been kept conspicuously private by an administration which has enhanced the ability to classify information, as well as deter declassification. Clearly, too, the destruction of evidentiary videotapes is another means by which the Executive branch controls the flow of information, especially when there is concern that there might be leakage to the press.

As first reported in this morning's Washington Post, the National Security Agency tried unsuccessfully to gain access to domestic calls through a Denver telecom, Qwest, access that would have allowed them "neighborhood-by-neighborhood surveillance of phone traffic without a court order." Qwest refused to cooperate with the N.S.A. request. If many in Congress get their way, when the temporary FISA reform bill, scheduled to sunset on February 1st, is finalized, it will contain a provision that prohibits legal action against communication companies who intercept your emails, phone conversations if they claim that they were directed to do so by the government.

Both the House and Senate must reach agreement on whether or not to include immunity in the new FISA reform bill before it can pass. We who pay their salaries, as well as those presidential candidates, of both parties, who hunger for our votes, must make our position known on violating privacy laws, and obtaining our personal information without a warrant. President Bush has already made his position known; he says that he will veto any measure that doesn't provide for immunity to telecoms.

As important as privacy is, there is an even larger question. How can any legislative branch make laws then grant immunity from breaking laws on the grounds of national security? After all, what is "national security" if not law enforcement? Clearly, the concept of "liability relief" means writing an escape clause into the law. But, who gets to escape prosecution--the telecommunication companies who act as hit men, or the Executive branch who gives the command?

Another representative, from New York, Senator Charles Schumer, suggests that those who oppose retroactive immunity "really don't want to punish the phone companies as much as hold the government accountable;" We agree. He's also right when he says that "it's very hard to do that." (WaPo) It may be easier to climb Mt. Everest in an ice storm than to hold the Bush White House accountable for anything.

In her missive, Senator Feinstein insists that she is "keeping an open mind to whether some other legislative approach besides immunity would be best." There is much to be said for keeping an open mind, but there are times when an "open mind" simply isn't enough. To legislate immunity, past, present, or future, for those who obediently acquiesce to the will of those who obey the rule of law selectively is nothing less than complicity in high crimes and misdemeanors.

A more workable "legislative approach," and one that would get an enthusiastic thumbs-up from the framers, might be for the House to begin reviewing articles of impeachment when they reconvene after the holidays. It's never too late for love, or impeachment. Failing this, then any FISA reform that Congress passes which grants "liability relief" to private companies must agree instead to prosecute the Executive branch, or governmental agency, that issues the orders.

Question of the Day

In a statement on state run television, in Cuba, the other day, Fidel Castro hinted that he may be willing to step down, and hand the reins of government over to a member of the younger generation. Quick to jump on the story, the mainstream media, in the U.S., announced what they called Castro's "retirement."

But, there is one vexing question. How is it that the Cuban leader who, for nearly half a century, has been portrayed as a dictator is now said to be approaching "retirement?" Do dictators get to retire? Retirement is a dignified term for being put out to pasture. It seems the American press is as acclimated to euphemism as those who have framed our foreign policy in recent years.

Or, is it just possible that after seven years of the Bush administration even Fidel Castro is starting to look good?

The way things are going, there are those who would have given Mussolini a gold watch, too.

I Remember Christmas...

The other evening, when taking a break from political coverage on C-Span, my mind wandered back to early childhood when, in the days before Christmas, my father would tuck me in. Invariably, I would ask what he got me for Christmas, and if I could see the presents.

For a seven year old, a dream deferred means having to wait 12 hours. "They're under the tree," he'd tell me. "Can I see them now?" I'd ask feverishly. "Wait until morning; they'll be there in the morning;" he patiently tried to explain that, more often than not, good things are worth the wait. I marvelled at his powers of persuasion which prevailed, and first thing in the morning, I'd race down, hungrily strip the gift wrap, and delight in the surprises. Though, for the life of me, I'm not able to recall the contents of any.

As fate would have it, in yesterday's mail came a letter from one of my father's oldest friends containing a eulogy delivered, nearly twenty years ago, at my father's funeral, by another dear friend of his, a retired officer in the military. Seldom do we have the pleasure of seeing those we love through the eyes of another.

Arguably, there are no coincidences in life. While a copy of the eulogy is with my special papers, and has been for years, for some reason, maybe having to do with Christmas, I was meant to read it again, now.

My father was an unpublished writer who told my mother, who he met at a dance, that he was a poet. A poet, indeed, and with a sense of style! He had taken all his pay as a master sergeant, in the army, and bought himself a Jaguar and, while he may have had holes in his socks, he made a point of driving the most magnificent cars.

The day my father came to meet my grandmother for the first time, Grandma Rose pulled my mother aside and asked what kind of work he does. My mother's response was unambiguous: "He's a poet!" Grandma shrieked "A poet! They don't make any money!" My mother, the youngest of seven children, and the daughter of immigrants, grew up, in poverty, on the lower east side. Back then, especially in her neighborhood, dreams were optional with the vehicle.

The depression, as well as demands of feeding a family, beat the poetry out of my father, but nothing could touch his soul, or his infallible sense of humor, so while I have no gift wrap, or tree, I am posting this eulogy as my present to him:

"I have the special privilege and honor of speaking with you about my friend--David Stahl.

David was many things to many people over more than 70 years: son, brother, husband, father, uncle, nephew, cousin, acquaintance and friend.

I have known David only 5 years, a very short time compared to most relationships, but long enough to know and value his friendship. Long enough to trust his judgment. Long enough to know I could depend on him. Long enough to feel the warmth and comfort of his concern.

Being with David was so enlightening. We shared many activities: walking, dining, movies, tennis, conversation, and all of them were good times.

And from these shared experiences, you appreciate the uniqueness of David Stahl; an erudite, sharp and wordly mind, cheerful but subtle humor, a multi-faceted person whose work experiences knew no boundaries. A man of great self-confidence...was there anything David couldn't do?

The only thing I can think of was that David could not swim. And now we know why he went into the army where he claims to have existed on bananas because the food was so bad.

Yes, David Stahl had the strength of his convictions, and you knew how David felt on an issue. And once his analytical mind explored the alternatives, he took decisive action and stayed the course. David was tough when he had to be. A man of quiet solid strengths...a man of principle.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said --"who so would be a man must be a non-conformist." Was that not David? A bit of a non-conformist, on one hand, and the man it takes to be one on the other.

And equal to these strengths was David's warmth, softness, and modesty. While David may have been somewhat reserved in his display of affection, he was a sensitive and caring person, a gentleman, a friend who shared with me his concerns and love for his wife and daughters.

A person's character is the core and mainstem of one's life. If what he has been to me for 5 short years is an indication of the total person we know as David Stahl, then I am most fortunate to have enjoyed his friendship. And, while I would have treasured a lengthier relationship, it would not have made it any better--longer, yes, but not better.

I shall miss you, David... I am so thankful to have walked with you David Stahl."

And I am thankful for this moving tribute to one who succumbed to mortality, and anonymity, too soon.

In what was to be my father's first letter in more than 30 years, he wrote: "Silence is the refuge of emotion." Until now, in deference to his respect for silence, and my own, I have not written much about him as he might cringe were he to know that I am writing, and posting this. My father thought of himself as "an ordinary man," but it is in the ordinary that we find that which is timeless. It is in the ordinary, too, that we find that which is heroic. And, for now, there is one less unsung hero.

For the life of me, I still can't recall any of the surprises left under that tree. That may be because what there is of my father in me is his greatest gift of all.


David Darwin Stahl -- (born: Darwin David Stahl)
January 31, 1918 - April 25, 1989

Quote of the Day

"If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal."

Emma Goldman