Congress appears to be on the verge of reaching agreement on some aspects of the so-called Protect America Act, or the "spying bill," which grants immunity to telecommunication companies accused of turning over private customer records to the National Security Agency. (WaPo)
The legislation which aims to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act such that warrants are now optional with the vehicle will make an appearance before the Senate next week where it is expected to pass. And, this bill is as much about protecting America as the Iraq war is about bringing democracy to the Middle East. The only ones being protected here are those who continue to break the law under the guise of national security. From the presidential veto, it's obvious that this administration isn't interested in granting immunity from prosecution to parents who are unable to pay their children's medical bills. There are more carcinogens trying to pose as laws coming out of Congress, these days, than on any freeway in America.
What's more, when was the last time you've heard of a White House giving an order to any company, let alone a communications company, which has tens of millions of customers, not to testify in court under a state secrets law that has yet to be written. But, what the hell, if one can grant retroactive immunity, why not enforce a law that isn't on the books? Oh, and why not cook the books, too, while we're at it as the Downing Street Memo has shown. The past six years proves that not only does crime pay, but it pays handsomely--for the upper one percentile of the population of this country, that is.
On Monday morning, let your Senators, whose salaries you pay, hear about whether you're willing to have your personal phone calls, and e-mails, intercepted as millions of Americans already have, and whether it's okay with you for those telecommunication behemoths like A T & T, and Verizon, to be granted immunity from prosecution for breaking the law that protects your privacy.
Look at it this way, would you grant immunity unless you thought that a crime was committed? The Constitution isn't the only casualty of the "war on terror;" common sense is, too.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Press On
Congrats to the House for passing, by a landslide, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007. We can only hope that the Senate follows suit. This is crucially important legislation, make no mistake, but this is not the end of the road either. Regardless of where there is a Republican or Democrat at the helm, as long as government is allowed to manipulate which stories editors publish, and can censor that which is less than flattering to them, we place freedom of the press in jeopardy.
Moreover, as long as reporters are concerned about thoroughly investigating, and/or reporting a specific event for fear of editorial reprisals, then freedom of the press is in jeopardy. Too many journalists have been sacrificed at the altar of self-censorship, in recent years, in their coverage of the war in Iraq, as well as another all but inevitable military confrontation with Iran.
It's high time that the newspaper, and media industry stood up to the Redactor-in-Chief, and his Static Department, not only to protect the confidentiality of their sources, but to assert that they are more than propaganda-delivery vehicles for the White House.
A federal shield to insulate members of the press from prosecution for adhering to their professional standards is an important first step, but it is precisely that, the first step, and far from the last one.
The days of rolling over when senior members of any administration pay a visit to editors-in-chief of major newspapers, for the purpose of discussing how best to market an unpopular war, are over; starting now.
We must press on for openness, accountability, and honesty in government.
Moreover, as long as reporters are concerned about thoroughly investigating, and/or reporting a specific event for fear of editorial reprisals, then freedom of the press is in jeopardy. Too many journalists have been sacrificed at the altar of self-censorship, in recent years, in their coverage of the war in Iraq, as well as another all but inevitable military confrontation with Iran.
It's high time that the newspaper, and media industry stood up to the Redactor-in-Chief, and his Static Department, not only to protect the confidentiality of their sources, but to assert that they are more than propaganda-delivery vehicles for the White House.
A federal shield to insulate members of the press from prosecution for adhering to their professional standards is an important first step, but it is precisely that, the first step, and far from the last one.
The days of rolling over when senior members of any administration pay a visit to editors-in-chief of major newspapers, for the purpose of discussing how best to market an unpopular war, are over; starting now.
We must press on for openness, accountability, and honesty in government.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
More on Condi and the Code of Silence
When the House Oversight Committee met today to discuss corruption in Iraq, as well as a formal resolution that objects to the administration's policy of withholding information about Iraqi corruption, and how it affects the so-called insurgency, committee chair Henry Waxman spoke about the State Department's ongoing efforts to hinder any congressional investigation. Rep. Waxman said that "Incredibly Secretary Rice directed these officials not to answer any questions about the extent of corruption in Iraq and its effect on political reconciliation and the insurgency. Her position is that all information that reflects poorly on the Maliki government is classified. The State Department even retroactively classified memos about corruption in Iraq after the Committee requested them."
Reportedly, Secretary of State Rice offered to answer the committee's questions only on the condition that they agree to keep the information they receive "secret."
As Henry Waxman says, "these efforts to stifle debate are an embarrassment," but are they legal? When the State Department, the Justice Department, and the executive branch decide that they're not answerable to Congress, and the American people, there is nothing left but the illusion of a representative government. Clearly, the President isn't the only one who takes his orders from a higher authority; Condi Rice does, too, only her "higher authority" happens to be sitting in the Oval Office.
Apart from confirming what we already know, namely that this administration has turned driving in reverse into an art form, granting retroactive immunity from prosecution to telecommunication companies that break established privacy laws, and retroactive classification to a State Department are little more than thinly veiled attempts to cover the tracks of a government gripped with fear of discovery of its own complicity, and carpetbagging in an increasingly broken war.
Any pledge of secrecy, and coterie of silence, is an insult to every taxpayer, and should be front page news!
Reportedly, Secretary of State Rice offered to answer the committee's questions only on the condition that they agree to keep the information they receive "secret."
As Henry Waxman says, "these efforts to stifle debate are an embarrassment," but are they legal? When the State Department, the Justice Department, and the executive branch decide that they're not answerable to Congress, and the American people, there is nothing left but the illusion of a representative government. Clearly, the President isn't the only one who takes his orders from a higher authority; Condi Rice does, too, only her "higher authority" happens to be sitting in the Oval Office.
Apart from confirming what we already know, namely that this administration has turned driving in reverse into an art form, granting retroactive immunity from prosecution to telecommunication companies that break established privacy laws, and retroactive classification to a State Department are little more than thinly veiled attempts to cover the tracks of a government gripped with fear of discovery of its own complicity, and carpetbagging in an increasingly broken war.
Any pledge of secrecy, and coterie of silence, is an insult to every taxpayer, and should be front page news!
Monday, October 15, 2007
Horsepower
I miss the good old days when people were more concerned about horsepower than fire power.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
What Condi Needs to Worry About...
Some breaking news for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Instead of worrying about Vladimir Putin's "broad powers," she should read the headlines of her own nation's newspapers, be concerned about those "broad powers" her boss has borrowed instead. Condi told reporters, at a news conference yesterday, "In any country, if you don't have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development." (AP) A big, heartfelt amen to that.
And, during that same exchange with members of the press, Rice also observed " I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin. I have told the Russians that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma." If nothing else, this administration appears to have masterd the fine art of projection. Feel free to substitute the words "White House" for Kremlin, and "Congress" for Duma, and you'll see, a perfect fit!
Condi's concerns for a tamper-free Russian presidential election, in the coming months, is also ironic inasmuch as her close colleague, and our last attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, was forced to step down due to lingering questions as to whether he lied, in sworn testimony, about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys many of whom reportedly refused to play ball and prosecute voter fraud cases as part of a white collar effort to steal yet another U.S. election.
So, in light of her concern for what she calls "creeping authoritarianism," I thought it might be worthwhile to compile a laundry list of things, closer to her own backyard, that the secretary of state ought to worry about:
1) For openers, how is it that fully six months before terrorists bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the government met with head honchos of telecommunications companies like Qwest Communications and attempted to elicit their cooperation in intercepting, and recording the private telephone conversations of "tens of millions of Americans" in defiance of the Telecommunications Act? (WaPo)
2) How is it that the National Security Agency later claimed that bypassing FISA, and ordering warantless electronic monitoring of ordinary U.S. citizens, had anything to do with 9/11 when the infrastructure for this illicit program was being put in place months before before 9/ll?
3) Why is it that the government "withdrew" a contract worth "hundreds of millions of dollars" when a former head of Qwest Communications, Joseph P. Nacchio, refused to submit to pressure, and join the chorus of telecommunications companies, like A T & T, who cooperated with the NSA's program to data mine personal records? Is there a link between Nacchio's stepping forward, talking now, refusing to be redacted, and the current charges of insider trading being levelled against him? (NSA) This is more like the relatiatory measures we most often associate with organized crime, not government. Moreover, where were the attorney general, secretary of state,and the Justice Department when the head of a major telecommunications company expressed his own worries about the legality of a program to secretly spy on millions of Americans. Could they all have been out to lunch at the time? If so, when are they due to come back?
4) Yes, indeed, as Rice rightly asserts "everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary" --- not just the Russian judiciary; the American judiciary, too! When is the last time you can recall an attorney general not merely stepping down, but hiring a defense attorney? How convenient, too, that the lawyer Mr. Gonzales recently retained to represent him was deputy attorney general under his good friend, and the president's father, George H.W. Bush. What an incestuous lot!
Putting incest aside, for a moment, and looking at how quickly Congress rolls over for this unitary executive whose broad powers guaranteed passage, and finalization, of the USA Patriot Act, and virtually guarantee passage of "Protect America Act" legislation which radically revises FISA, and legalizes warrantless surveillance of Americans, many of whom seem to be more preoccupied with whether Britney Spears is wearing underwear or not.
Yes,, Dorothy, we're not in Kansas anymore, especially when every major Internet provider has been asked to turn over Web habits of its customers with promises of immunity from future prosecution. We're not in Kansas anymore when the same Supreme Court that handed this president his White House, back in 2000, has been neutralized, and made to tow the line like every other branch of government.
And, finally, while she's in worrying mode, it seems only right that Condi look into why it is that "innocent people have been killed" (NYT) in Iraq by Blackwater guards. When our so-called allies, the Kurds, themselves say that convoys were not being fired on when they shot Iraqi citizens in the back while they were running from their cars.
Given that Blackwater was reportedly founded by a mega-wealthy evangelical Christian, who'd have thought that they'd serve as an auxiliary volunteer bunch of thugs whose numbers aren't factored into the numbers of those openly killing Iraqi "insurgents" for their own soil Can it be that, not only are the numbers of Iraqis sacrificed at the altar of the almighty buck manipulated, but, factoring in the role of Blackwater and other military contractors in adding to the carnage, that Rice and the Bush administration underestimate the number of forces in Iraq by about 50%? If you hold a gun, and aim it at "the enemy," what are you if not a soldier?
But, what Condi needs to worry about most is how military mercenaries can be engaged in shootings that can only be called entropic criminal events, as well as how it is that her buddy, the president, has managed to get away with unprecedented, and unparalleled wartime privatization. George W. Bush has done, with private military contractors in Iraq, what he was unable to accomplish with social security. He has, in essence, made a business out of putting world stability in peril in the name of maximizing corporate profit.
So, while she's in the neighborhood of human rights, and busy lambasting Russia's president for torture, and dubious interrogation tactics in Chechnya, Condoleezza Rice might want to pay a visit to Guantanamo Bay, as well as take a long, hard look at "extraordinary rendition."
It would be really extraordinary if the secretary of state would explain how a country that claims to hold the moral high ground has all but shredded the Magna Carta, and may well be remembered as much for Abu Ghraib as the Statue of Liberty.
And, during that same exchange with members of the press, Rice also observed " I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin. I have told the Russians that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma." If nothing else, this administration appears to have masterd the fine art of projection. Feel free to substitute the words "White House" for Kremlin, and "Congress" for Duma, and you'll see, a perfect fit!
Condi's concerns for a tamper-free Russian presidential election, in the coming months, is also ironic inasmuch as her close colleague, and our last attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, was forced to step down due to lingering questions as to whether he lied, in sworn testimony, about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys many of whom reportedly refused to play ball and prosecute voter fraud cases as part of a white collar effort to steal yet another U.S. election.
So, in light of her concern for what she calls "creeping authoritarianism," I thought it might be worthwhile to compile a laundry list of things, closer to her own backyard, that the secretary of state ought to worry about:
1) For openers, how is it that fully six months before terrorists bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the government met with head honchos of telecommunications companies like Qwest Communications and attempted to elicit their cooperation in intercepting, and recording the private telephone conversations of "tens of millions of Americans" in defiance of the Telecommunications Act? (WaPo)
2) How is it that the National Security Agency later claimed that bypassing FISA, and ordering warantless electronic monitoring of ordinary U.S. citizens, had anything to do with 9/11 when the infrastructure for this illicit program was being put in place months before before 9/ll?
3) Why is it that the government "withdrew" a contract worth "hundreds of millions of dollars" when a former head of Qwest Communications, Joseph P. Nacchio, refused to submit to pressure, and join the chorus of telecommunications companies, like A T & T, who cooperated with the NSA's program to data mine personal records? Is there a link between Nacchio's stepping forward, talking now, refusing to be redacted, and the current charges of insider trading being levelled against him? (NSA) This is more like the relatiatory measures we most often associate with organized crime, not government. Moreover, where were the attorney general, secretary of state,and the Justice Department when the head of a major telecommunications company expressed his own worries about the legality of a program to secretly spy on millions of Americans. Could they all have been out to lunch at the time? If so, when are they due to come back?
4) Yes, indeed, as Rice rightly asserts "everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary" --- not just the Russian judiciary; the American judiciary, too! When is the last time you can recall an attorney general not merely stepping down, but hiring a defense attorney? How convenient, too, that the lawyer Mr. Gonzales recently retained to represent him was deputy attorney general under his good friend, and the president's father, George H.W. Bush. What an incestuous lot!
Putting incest aside, for a moment, and looking at how quickly Congress rolls over for this unitary executive whose broad powers guaranteed passage, and finalization, of the USA Patriot Act, and virtually guarantee passage of "Protect America Act" legislation which radically revises FISA, and legalizes warrantless surveillance of Americans, many of whom seem to be more preoccupied with whether Britney Spears is wearing underwear or not.
Yes,, Dorothy, we're not in Kansas anymore, especially when every major Internet provider has been asked to turn over Web habits of its customers with promises of immunity from future prosecution. We're not in Kansas anymore when the same Supreme Court that handed this president his White House, back in 2000, has been neutralized, and made to tow the line like every other branch of government.
And, finally, while she's in worrying mode, it seems only right that Condi look into why it is that "innocent people have been killed" (NYT) in Iraq by Blackwater guards. When our so-called allies, the Kurds, themselves say that convoys were not being fired on when they shot Iraqi citizens in the back while they were running from their cars.
Given that Blackwater was reportedly founded by a mega-wealthy evangelical Christian, who'd have thought that they'd serve as an auxiliary volunteer bunch of thugs whose numbers aren't factored into the numbers of those openly killing Iraqi "insurgents" for their own soil Can it be that, not only are the numbers of Iraqis sacrificed at the altar of the almighty buck manipulated, but, factoring in the role of Blackwater and other military contractors in adding to the carnage, that Rice and the Bush administration underestimate the number of forces in Iraq by about 50%? If you hold a gun, and aim it at "the enemy," what are you if not a soldier?
But, what Condi needs to worry about most is how military mercenaries can be engaged in shootings that can only be called entropic criminal events, as well as how it is that her buddy, the president, has managed to get away with unprecedented, and unparalleled wartime privatization. George W. Bush has done, with private military contractors in Iraq, what he was unable to accomplish with social security. He has, in essence, made a business out of putting world stability in peril in the name of maximizing corporate profit.
So, while she's in the neighborhood of human rights, and busy lambasting Russia's president for torture, and dubious interrogation tactics in Chechnya, Condoleezza Rice might want to pay a visit to Guantanamo Bay, as well as take a long, hard look at "extraordinary rendition."
It would be really extraordinary if the secretary of state would explain how a country that claims to hold the moral high ground has all but shredded the Magna Carta, and may well be remembered as much for Abu Ghraib as the Statue of Liberty.
Friday, October 12, 2007
An Open Letter to Al Gore
Dear Vice President Gore:
Heartfelt congratulations on a well-deserved award, and reward, for your efforts not merely on behalf of the environment, but all those who will clean up the mess we make for generations to come. Bravo!
As one who was honored, and delighted to be at Senator Barbara Boxer's rally yesterday in San Francisco, I express my personal gratitude for your inspired remarks on the need for a moral imperative, historical perspective, as well as to "reclaim our democracy" from those who have now succeeded in demonizing the process that has been, for centuries, synonymous with human rights, and equal representation under the law.
On the train ride home, I sat next to a gentleman who was also at the Barbara Boxer rally. We talked about politics, and whether you would throw your hat into the ring. I said that some things transcend politics, and world peace is among them. This is something that you have always known, and is now being acknowledged.
It turns out that my new friend, on the train, happens to be an Episcopal priest. We both agree that your devotion to global warming, and the threat to our survival as a planet, is how you have chosen to serve not merely a mystical godhead, but humankind.
Life isn't always fair. It isn't fair that you "lost" the election, in 2000, even though you won the popular vote. It isn't fair not only for you, but for the country, as well. But, justice was served today. It is judicious, and right, for you to have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as you are one whose service will continue as long as you share the same air as the rest of us on the planet. We may rest assured, too, that the air will be a whole lot cleaner now as a result of all your hard work..
Thanks from me, and those as yet unable to form that word.
Heartfelt congratulations on a well-deserved award, and reward, for your efforts not merely on behalf of the environment, but all those who will clean up the mess we make for generations to come. Bravo!
As one who was honored, and delighted to be at Senator Barbara Boxer's rally yesterday in San Francisco, I express my personal gratitude for your inspired remarks on the need for a moral imperative, historical perspective, as well as to "reclaim our democracy" from those who have now succeeded in demonizing the process that has been, for centuries, synonymous with human rights, and equal representation under the law.
On the train ride home, I sat next to a gentleman who was also at the Barbara Boxer rally. We talked about politics, and whether you would throw your hat into the ring. I said that some things transcend politics, and world peace is among them. This is something that you have always known, and is now being acknowledged.
It turns out that my new friend, on the train, happens to be an Episcopal priest. We both agree that your devotion to global warming, and the threat to our survival as a planet, is how you have chosen to serve not merely a mystical godhead, but humankind.
Life isn't always fair. It isn't fair that you "lost" the election, in 2000, even though you won the popular vote. It isn't fair not only for you, but for the country, as well. But, justice was served today. It is judicious, and right, for you to have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as you are one whose service will continue as long as you share the same air as the rest of us on the planet. We may rest assured, too, that the air will be a whole lot cleaner now as a result of all your hard work..
Thanks from me, and those as yet unable to form that word.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Letter to a Young NRA Member
(the below e-mail was sent to a gentleman who happens to be a member of the NRA who wrote to me to protest my characterization of the NRA in a piece I wrote, "Another Poster Child for the NRA," which appeared on this blog, and elsewhere, earlier this week...)
Dear Stu,
Thank you for your thoughtful note. I think my article was misunderstood entirely. I never intended to attack the NRA, or its members; that would be like attacking AAA because someone got killed by a drunk driver. To the contrary, I attacked any attempt to legitimize the culture of violence, and try to make assault rifles respectable.
As today's shooting by a 14 year old in a Cleveland school clearly demonstrates, access to handguns is flat out too widespread. After all, the officer who went bezerk in Wisconsin, on Sunday, and shot 7 people was 20 years old, not much older than the Cleveland teenager. As a society, and as human beings (whether members of the NRA or the AARP), we need to think about what message we're sending to our young people by mystifying guns, and fanning the flames of violence both here and in Iraq.
The shooting of those two Christian Iraqi women by western convoys, near Baghdad, yesterday was reprehensible. We are role models not just to our children, but for the whole world. I'd rather teach my son how to use a dictionary than a gun, but I respect your mother's decision. She obviously raised a man she can be proud of. Alas, you are increasingly in the minority. The incidence of accidental shootings, in homes with guns, is far greater than in homes where there are no guns, obviously. Phil Specter's lady friend would still be alive if they played with a toy gun instead of a real one.
We all make choices. All of our choices have voices. The victims of drive-by shootings, inner city violence, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and now Cleveland all cry out for greater regulation of assault weapons. John Lennon would, too. Ironically, he wrote the lyrics: "Happiness is a warm gun," and only a few years later, his life was cut short by a firearm. As another songwriter has said: "how many more will it take till we know that too many people have died?" The answer isn't blowing in the wind; it's at our front door; keep assault weapons out of the hands of as many Americans as possible. Our children will be grateful for this, and the rest of the world will be, too.
Respectfully,
Jayne
Dear Stu,
Thank you for your thoughtful note. I think my article was misunderstood entirely. I never intended to attack the NRA, or its members; that would be like attacking AAA because someone got killed by a drunk driver. To the contrary, I attacked any attempt to legitimize the culture of violence, and try to make assault rifles respectable.
As today's shooting by a 14 year old in a Cleveland school clearly demonstrates, access to handguns is flat out too widespread. After all, the officer who went bezerk in Wisconsin, on Sunday, and shot 7 people was 20 years old, not much older than the Cleveland teenager. As a society, and as human beings (whether members of the NRA or the AARP), we need to think about what message we're sending to our young people by mystifying guns, and fanning the flames of violence both here and in Iraq.
The shooting of those two Christian Iraqi women by western convoys, near Baghdad, yesterday was reprehensible. We are role models not just to our children, but for the whole world. I'd rather teach my son how to use a dictionary than a gun, but I respect your mother's decision. She obviously raised a man she can be proud of. Alas, you are increasingly in the minority. The incidence of accidental shootings, in homes with guns, is far greater than in homes where there are no guns, obviously. Phil Specter's lady friend would still be alive if they played with a toy gun instead of a real one.
We all make choices. All of our choices have voices. The victims of drive-by shootings, inner city violence, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and now Cleveland all cry out for greater regulation of assault weapons. John Lennon would, too. Ironically, he wrote the lyrics: "Happiness is a warm gun," and only a few years later, his life was cut short by a firearm. As another songwriter has said: "how many more will it take till we know that too many people have died?" The answer isn't blowing in the wind; it's at our front door; keep assault weapons out of the hands of as many Americans as possible. Our children will be grateful for this, and the rest of the world will be, too.
Respectfully,
Jayne
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Euripedes has a question for Congress...
"Where do we seek justice when the injustice of power is our destruction?"
Monday, October 08, 2007
Remembering John Lennon
John Lennon would have turned 67 years old Tuesday were it not for the agitated roar of yet another madman's gun. If he were still with us, I think he might well ask when we, as a society, will outgrow our wars and weapons, and cultivate diplomacy and compassion instead.
To those, especially, who call themselves "Christians," like John McCain, and then advocate more violence on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan, and arguably in Iran next, he might also ask: how can you try to pass this counterfeit religion off as true faith? John had a sixth sense for mendacity, and there's even more mendacity now than when he was here.
And, a final word to all those who continue to support the National Rifle Association, oppose gun control, as well as "give money to people with minds that hate," you prove one thing, and one thing only: this world doesn't deserve the likes of Mr. Lennon any more than it deserves the likes of you. Go back to the cave you crawled out of. There must not be one more ounce of innocent blood shed to protect your flag, and your so-called constitutional right to bear arms. We have met the "terrorist," and it is us!
The world is a little smaller by virtue of the heinous act that took the life of John Lennon. Rest in peace, John, as peace is what you wanted most, and peace is what most eludes us to this day.
"Revolution"
(Lennon/McCartney)
You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright
You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright
You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright
To those, especially, who call themselves "Christians," like John McCain, and then advocate more violence on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan, and arguably in Iran next, he might also ask: how can you try to pass this counterfeit religion off as true faith? John had a sixth sense for mendacity, and there's even more mendacity now than when he was here.
And, a final word to all those who continue to support the National Rifle Association, oppose gun control, as well as "give money to people with minds that hate," you prove one thing, and one thing only: this world doesn't deserve the likes of Mr. Lennon any more than it deserves the likes of you. Go back to the cave you crawled out of. There must not be one more ounce of innocent blood shed to protect your flag, and your so-called constitutional right to bear arms. We have met the "terrorist," and it is us!
The world is a little smaller by virtue of the heinous act that took the life of John Lennon. Rest in peace, John, as peace is what you wanted most, and peace is what most eludes us to this day.
"Revolution"
(Lennon/McCartney)
You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright
You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright
You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Another Poster Child for the NRA
Only a few hundred miles outside of Milwaukee, in a town of 2,000, a twenty year old "off-duty" deputy sheriff, and part-time police officer, apparently went bezerk, and went on a shooting spree, at an undisclosed private house, taking the lives of at least six people. The suspect, whose name is being withheld, was himself fatally shot by "authorities," some of whom may have worked at the same sheriff's office. Many of the specific details of this crime are being withheld, and t here is only speculation about the motive. (AP) A mother of one of the victims suggests jealousy might be behind the killler's rampage.
Okay, it's not like this is the first time a police officer has been involved in a violent crime, and okay, maybe we can rationalize this outrageous, and horrifying event by noting what a rare occurrence it is to see members of law enforcement committing homicides. Oh, and yes, maybe it's completely inappropriate to talk about ready access to firearms of all kinds, especially when we're talking about police. But, what does the police manual, in Crandon, Wisconsin, say about carrying a weapon when off duty? Yes, of course, this appears to have been a crime of passion, so one wouldn't expect the deputy sheriff to consult his manual beforehand.
That said, there appears to be far greater leniency with respect to the carrying, and use, of weapons by members of law enforcement in this country than is desirable.
Interestingly, as you know, police officers in Great Britain don't carry guns, and that country has a much lower incidence of violent crime.
There are many who will use the "rotten apple" argument iin defense of America's law enforcement, and say that police departments needn't bother taking a closer look at the way they train their recruits with respect to when, where, how, and why they discharge their weapons, tear gas, and tasers. Maybe they're right. The commission of a crime like this by a police officer is clearly an anomaly, but we, as a society, can no more afford complacency, and apathy, when it comes to the actions of those we entrust with enforcing our laws than with those we elect to higher office.
And, factoring the National Rifle Association, and the abuse of legal, and illegal, weapons in this country, out of the equation, there have been way too many images, on the news, lately of policemen holding down an agitated, and anguished 45 year old woman at a Phoenix airport,.as well as rounding up members of Code Pink at a recent Lieberman/ McCain rally, and tasering an overzealous undergraduate at a Florida university for refusing to succumb to campus police after making controversial comments about impeaching the president. Oh, this is only what has been captured on camera. You wouldn't have to be there to guess how law enforcement handled the so-called Jenna 6, in Louisiana, when making their arrests judging by some of the amateur video that has made its way to primetime news of big city police beating up Rodney King, and others like him in inner cities around America.
But, what does this have to do with a clearly deranged young man who, possibly after what may have been little more than a lover's quarrel, does in his girlfriend, and her whole family? Simply this, when we are bombarded with news accounts of soldiers gunning down innocent Iraqi citizens, of Los Angelenos being tear gassed for speaking out against draconian measures targeting illegal immigrants, of riot police routinely making their presence felt at anti-war protest rallies, of youngsters being tasered, whether they be students at a college in South Florida, or young men of color in our nation's inner cities, how can any reasonable person possibly expect anyone who has access to a gun not to model the kind of obscene, irrational behavior that destroyed the lives of six, and will force the state attorney general of Wisconsin to consider what the evaluation process is, and how it is this 20 year old got to be a member of a sheriff's department in the first place. Hopefully, too, the attorney general will place more restrictions on the use of deadly force by the police on the police, or on any human being. Deadly force is no substitute for due process.
While one often thinks of Charleton Heston when thinking about the NRA, in this age of the cowboy, any gun-toting madman will do just as well..
Hopefully, the terrible event that took place in Wisconsin today will compel us all to examine empowerment by weapon, as well as an issue increasingly swept under the table, that of police brutality, and abuse of power. We know we've arrived when the "authorities" who shot the off-duty deputy sheriff to death themselves face review. We have become far too accepting of fatal shootings by on-duty police officers just as we're far too tolerant of those who think it's their constitutional right to bear arms, even when, increasingly, it's at the expense of innocent life.
The officer who fired his gun, and took the lives of six isn't the only poster child for the NRA; each of his victims is, too.
Okay, it's not like this is the first time a police officer has been involved in a violent crime, and okay, maybe we can rationalize this outrageous, and horrifying event by noting what a rare occurrence it is to see members of law enforcement committing homicides. Oh, and yes, maybe it's completely inappropriate to talk about ready access to firearms of all kinds, especially when we're talking about police. But, what does the police manual, in Crandon, Wisconsin, say about carrying a weapon when off duty? Yes, of course, this appears to have been a crime of passion, so one wouldn't expect the deputy sheriff to consult his manual beforehand.
That said, there appears to be far greater leniency with respect to the carrying, and use, of weapons by members of law enforcement in this country than is desirable.
Interestingly, as you know, police officers in Great Britain don't carry guns, and that country has a much lower incidence of violent crime.
There are many who will use the "rotten apple" argument iin defense of America's law enforcement, and say that police departments needn't bother taking a closer look at the way they train their recruits with respect to when, where, how, and why they discharge their weapons, tear gas, and tasers. Maybe they're right. The commission of a crime like this by a police officer is clearly an anomaly, but we, as a society, can no more afford complacency, and apathy, when it comes to the actions of those we entrust with enforcing our laws than with those we elect to higher office.
And, factoring the National Rifle Association, and the abuse of legal, and illegal, weapons in this country, out of the equation, there have been way too many images, on the news, lately of policemen holding down an agitated, and anguished 45 year old woman at a Phoenix airport,.as well as rounding up members of Code Pink at a recent Lieberman/ McCain rally, and tasering an overzealous undergraduate at a Florida university for refusing to succumb to campus police after making controversial comments about impeaching the president. Oh, this is only what has been captured on camera. You wouldn't have to be there to guess how law enforcement handled the so-called Jenna 6, in Louisiana, when making their arrests judging by some of the amateur video that has made its way to primetime news of big city police beating up Rodney King, and others like him in inner cities around America.
But, what does this have to do with a clearly deranged young man who, possibly after what may have been little more than a lover's quarrel, does in his girlfriend, and her whole family? Simply this, when we are bombarded with news accounts of soldiers gunning down innocent Iraqi citizens, of Los Angelenos being tear gassed for speaking out against draconian measures targeting illegal immigrants, of riot police routinely making their presence felt at anti-war protest rallies, of youngsters being tasered, whether they be students at a college in South Florida, or young men of color in our nation's inner cities, how can any reasonable person possibly expect anyone who has access to a gun not to model the kind of obscene, irrational behavior that destroyed the lives of six, and will force the state attorney general of Wisconsin to consider what the evaluation process is, and how it is this 20 year old got to be a member of a sheriff's department in the first place. Hopefully, too, the attorney general will place more restrictions on the use of deadly force by the police on the police, or on any human being. Deadly force is no substitute for due process.
While one often thinks of Charleton Heston when thinking about the NRA, in this age of the cowboy, any gun-toting madman will do just as well..
Hopefully, the terrible event that took place in Wisconsin today will compel us all to examine empowerment by weapon, as well as an issue increasingly swept under the table, that of police brutality, and abuse of power. We know we've arrived when the "authorities" who shot the off-duty deputy sheriff to death themselves face review. We have become far too accepting of fatal shootings by on-duty police officers just as we're far too tolerant of those who think it's their constitutional right to bear arms, even when, increasingly, it's at the expense of innocent life.
The officer who fired his gun, and took the lives of six isn't the only poster child for the NRA; each of his victims is, too.
Collateral Damage
It isn't only the collapse of home mortgages, and escalating foreclosures, we need to be concerned about. The Constitution has now become a victim of "collateral" damage, too.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Who needs approval ratings when you have lifetime immunity?
While President Bush's approval ratings fell to their lowest level yet, with only 31% of Americans giving him a big thumbs-up for his job performance, he, Cheney, Rice, and crew can sleep easier knowing that their military junta, which has been reinforced by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, grants them blanket immunity from prosecution for war crimes.
Now that The New York Times has just released two previously classified memos, proving that then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales fibbed when he said that this administration doesn't approve torture, the phrase "alternative interrogation methods" can be revealed for what it is--a transparent euphemism. This "hidden legacy of President Bush's second term and Mr. Gonzales's tenure at the Justice Department" (NYT) flies in the face not merely of the Geneva Conventions, but exposes this administration for its unprecedented human rights abuses.
The White House was uncharacteristically quick in denying allegations that it secretly authorized the use of practices that amount to psychological, and physical, torture on detainees. Indeed, had they responded this quickly to Hurricane Katrina, there wouldn't have been half as many deaths, or people displaced. But, then, there's no oil in New Orleans, now is there?
That said, a $60 million dollar question (allowing for inflation) remains: if Scooter Libby could be indicted, tried, and convicted for perjury and obstruction of justice in Plame-gate, now that he's a private citizen, why isn't Alberto Gonzales facing perjury and obstruction charges with respect to the dubious veracity of his sworn testimony at a Senate hearing, the purging of millions of White House e-mails, psychological mauling of his predecessor while he was gravely ill in hospital, as well as masterminding the unwarranted, and unprecedented, wholesale firing, mid-term of U.S. attorneys who refused to play ball in voter fraud prosecutions.
Congress, whose approval rating barely surpasses that of the White House, has played one handed poker too long. It's all well and good for our elected representatives to hold their little hearings, but why the hell aren't we being treated to photos of the former attorney general on his way to federal court where he can finally put his hand on King James, and swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and where he may be criminally prosecuted for failing to do so? Moreover, if the executive branch's former hired gun points in their direction. when asked who gave the command to tweak torture such that it doesn't translate into English, it is up to Congress to revoke the Military Commissions Act of 2006, reinstate the War Crimes Act, and let the chips fall where they may.
Now that John Ashcroft has spoken, it's time for Alberto Gonzales to talk, in a court of law, about who was pulling the strings while he magically appeared at his predecessor's bedside, as well as who ordered him to sign off on hitherto anathema detainee questioning practices, and why. Yes men do what they are told, and Mr. Gonzales is no exception.
The buck seldom stops far from where it begins. The time for answers is here.
Now that The New York Times has just released two previously classified memos, proving that then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales fibbed when he said that this administration doesn't approve torture, the phrase "alternative interrogation methods" can be revealed for what it is--a transparent euphemism. This "hidden legacy of President Bush's second term and Mr. Gonzales's tenure at the Justice Department" (NYT) flies in the face not merely of the Geneva Conventions, but exposes this administration for its unprecedented human rights abuses.
The White House was uncharacteristically quick in denying allegations that it secretly authorized the use of practices that amount to psychological, and physical, torture on detainees. Indeed, had they responded this quickly to Hurricane Katrina, there wouldn't have been half as many deaths, or people displaced. But, then, there's no oil in New Orleans, now is there?
That said, a $60 million dollar question (allowing for inflation) remains: if Scooter Libby could be indicted, tried, and convicted for perjury and obstruction of justice in Plame-gate, now that he's a private citizen, why isn't Alberto Gonzales facing perjury and obstruction charges with respect to the dubious veracity of his sworn testimony at a Senate hearing, the purging of millions of White House e-mails, psychological mauling of his predecessor while he was gravely ill in hospital, as well as masterminding the unwarranted, and unprecedented, wholesale firing, mid-term of U.S. attorneys who refused to play ball in voter fraud prosecutions.
Congress, whose approval rating barely surpasses that of the White House, has played one handed poker too long. It's all well and good for our elected representatives to hold their little hearings, but why the hell aren't we being treated to photos of the former attorney general on his way to federal court where he can finally put his hand on King James, and swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and where he may be criminally prosecuted for failing to do so? Moreover, if the executive branch's former hired gun points in their direction. when asked who gave the command to tweak torture such that it doesn't translate into English, it is up to Congress to revoke the Military Commissions Act of 2006, reinstate the War Crimes Act, and let the chips fall where they may.
Now that John Ashcroft has spoken, it's time for Alberto Gonzales to talk, in a court of law, about who was pulling the strings while he magically appeared at his predecessor's bedside, as well as who ordered him to sign off on hitherto anathema detainee questioning practices, and why. Yes men do what they are told, and Mr. Gonzales is no exception.
The buck seldom stops far from where it begins. The time for answers is here.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Urge the Senate to Pass the Federal Shield Law
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will be meeting this week to decide on the fate of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, HR 2102, SB 1267 which will guarantee immunity from prosecution to journalists who refuse to compromise the confidentiality of their sources in federal court proceedings. This is an essential piece of legislation, and one that must not get lost in the shuffle of breaking news, or the noose of government control over the press and the media will be allowed to tighten exponentially.
While 49 states now have shield laws which affirm that communications between reporters and their sources are as privileged as those of attorneys and their clients, this protection applies only to state, and local cases, not federal cases. (SPJ). Passage of this bill will prevent any federal prosecutor from bringing a journalist before a grand jury again, and coercing him to reveal the identity, or confidential information given him by his source. Passage of this bill will preclude any federal judge from holding in contempt, and issuing jail time, to a reporter who refuses to compromise the confidentiality of their source.
This legislation clearly stipulates that a journalist can only be forced to divulge this privileged relationship under rigorous, and extreme conditions such as if the court considers it necessary in order to "prevent imminent and actual harm to national security," or "imminent death or significant bodily harm." What's more, anyone who is involved with the "gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news and information for dissemination to the public" will be considered a "journalist," and will be shielded from prosecution for refusing to comply with a federal court's demand for naming names, or supplying documents.
As you know, the past seven years has seen an unprecedented number of freedom of information act requests. Clearly, the only way we have been able to unearth what this administration has been up to has been through the use of FOIA. Ironically, though, the Bush regime, which has distinguished itself by its unparalled, and continuous withholding of information, documents, testimony, in defiance of congressional subpoenas, as well as its willful, and arrogant, destruction of millions of White House e-mails, has hauled more reporters before grand juries, and placed them behind bars for refusing to violate their professional guidelines than any administration before it.
At a time when a record number of journalists have been killed, 75 last year alone making 2006 the deadliest year for journalists on record, we must urge the Senate to pass this federal shield law not merely to empower reporters, and a free press, but to empower each and every one of us; to give us back the truth of our elections and our wars.
Nearly one year ago to the day, half a world away, Russian investigative reporter Anna Politkovskaya was gunned down in her elevator, after having written a scathing expose of torture, and prisoner abuse by her government in Chechnya. We are no closer to knowing who killed her today. And, right here in our own backyard, Oakland Post editor, Chauncey Bailey, was brutally slain only feet away from his office. It's alleged that his killing had to do with his investigation of a black Muslim splinter group. It is unacceptable in a free society, in any society free or otherwise, in anything that remotely resembles "civilization," however uncivil, that a reporter should be savagely sacrified in the name of perpetuating silence, or a culture of blindness, one that thrives in secrecy and denial.
That Richard Nixon would never have been forced to resign, in disgrace, over Watergate had it not been for the tireless work of two intrepid Washington Post reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, is widely known. That these reporters would never have heard a peep from Deep Throat were they not able to guarantee him, and their other sources, that their identities would be held in strictest confidence.
What better way to pay tribute to a tragically murdered journalist, in Russia, than by restoring dignity to a profession that has increasingly come under fire, and under manipulation by a government not unlike that of Vladimir Putin's, one that has repeatedly demonstrated how it would like to stifle not merely dissent, but the free flow of information.
It's up to us to ensure that the legacy of the 43rd president of the United States isn't death of the First Amendment by strangulation. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to dismember it. Contact your Senators now, and urge them to provide a federal shield for those who, in the tradition of the Japanese reporter shot dead in Burma, spend their last moments on earth taking photographs so that generations from now, people will know what really happened. Urge your Senator to pass this legislation because the truth, to you, is that important, too.
While 49 states now have shield laws which affirm that communications between reporters and their sources are as privileged as those of attorneys and their clients, this protection applies only to state, and local cases, not federal cases. (SPJ). Passage of this bill will prevent any federal prosecutor from bringing a journalist before a grand jury again, and coercing him to reveal the identity, or confidential information given him by his source. Passage of this bill will preclude any federal judge from holding in contempt, and issuing jail time, to a reporter who refuses to compromise the confidentiality of their source.
This legislation clearly stipulates that a journalist can only be forced to divulge this privileged relationship under rigorous, and extreme conditions such as if the court considers it necessary in order to "prevent imminent and actual harm to national security," or "imminent death or significant bodily harm." What's more, anyone who is involved with the "gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news and information for dissemination to the public" will be considered a "journalist," and will be shielded from prosecution for refusing to comply with a federal court's demand for naming names, or supplying documents.
As you know, the past seven years has seen an unprecedented number of freedom of information act requests. Clearly, the only way we have been able to unearth what this administration has been up to has been through the use of FOIA. Ironically, though, the Bush regime, which has distinguished itself by its unparalled, and continuous withholding of information, documents, testimony, in defiance of congressional subpoenas, as well as its willful, and arrogant, destruction of millions of White House e-mails, has hauled more reporters before grand juries, and placed them behind bars for refusing to violate their professional guidelines than any administration before it.
At a time when a record number of journalists have been killed, 75 last year alone making 2006 the deadliest year for journalists on record, we must urge the Senate to pass this federal shield law not merely to empower reporters, and a free press, but to empower each and every one of us; to give us back the truth of our elections and our wars.
Nearly one year ago to the day, half a world away, Russian investigative reporter Anna Politkovskaya was gunned down in her elevator, after having written a scathing expose of torture, and prisoner abuse by her government in Chechnya. We are no closer to knowing who killed her today. And, right here in our own backyard, Oakland Post editor, Chauncey Bailey, was brutally slain only feet away from his office. It's alleged that his killing had to do with his investigation of a black Muslim splinter group. It is unacceptable in a free society, in any society free or otherwise, in anything that remotely resembles "civilization," however uncivil, that a reporter should be savagely sacrified in the name of perpetuating silence, or a culture of blindness, one that thrives in secrecy and denial.
That Richard Nixon would never have been forced to resign, in disgrace, over Watergate had it not been for the tireless work of two intrepid Washington Post reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, is widely known. That these reporters would never have heard a peep from Deep Throat were they not able to guarantee him, and their other sources, that their identities would be held in strictest confidence.
What better way to pay tribute to a tragically murdered journalist, in Russia, than by restoring dignity to a profession that has increasingly come under fire, and under manipulation by a government not unlike that of Vladimir Putin's, one that has repeatedly demonstrated how it would like to stifle not merely dissent, but the free flow of information.
It's up to us to ensure that the legacy of the 43rd president of the United States isn't death of the First Amendment by strangulation. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to dismember it. Contact your Senators now, and urge them to provide a federal shield for those who, in the tradition of the Japanese reporter shot dead in Burma, spend their last moments on earth taking photographs so that generations from now, people will know what really happened. Urge your Senator to pass this legislation because the truth, to you, is that important, too.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Duplomacy
Don't you just love the way the White House calls virtually every dissident move by the Democrats, since the midterm election, "political theatre?" Well, talk about dramatic irony, key administration officials, the President, and First Lady even, are now calling upon China to intevene on behalf of Myanmar protestors, and Buddhist monks who have been getting slaughtered for speaking out against the military junta in the former Burma.
Somebody's short term memory is shot; after all, it was the Chinese who, in 1989, fired randomly into a crowd of protestors at Tiananmen Square kiling dozens. Now that China is officially a player, an anonymous administration honcho told The Washington Post that China has to keep their "clients" in check just like the other big bad empires.
Well, it looks like we can disabuse ourselves of the notion that Bush & Co's foreign policy is more a matter of ideology than political expediency while watching his Don Corleone approach to diplomacy. Who was it that said the only difference between organized crime and government is that organized crime pays better? (Well, they maybe didn't factor in the mega-bucks that military contractors rake in).
Those of us looking for fall foliage may have to wait until after January, 2009. But, think what you will, nobody can ever accuse this regime of not inventing anything--they're masters of duplomacy.
Somebody's short term memory is shot; after all, it was the Chinese who, in 1989, fired randomly into a crowd of protestors at Tiananmen Square kiling dozens. Now that China is officially a player, an anonymous administration honcho told The Washington Post that China has to keep their "clients" in check just like the other big bad empires.
Well, it looks like we can disabuse ourselves of the notion that Bush & Co's foreign policy is more a matter of ideology than political expediency while watching his Don Corleone approach to diplomacy. Who was it that said the only difference between organized crime and government is that organized crime pays better? (Well, they maybe didn't factor in the mega-bucks that military contractors rake in).
Those of us looking for fall foliage may have to wait until after January, 2009. But, think what you will, nobody can ever accuse this regime of not inventing anything--they're masters of duplomacy.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Our So-Called Rights
Somebody needs to tell Rush Limbaugh that the question isn't what's a "phony soldier," but what's a phony right? Does the First Amendment apply to members of our armed forces who, ironically enough, are daily risking, and losing, their lives to defend it? Do they have the right to question the moral validity, and/or efficacy of a war without having to succumb to verbal evisceration by a glib, radically right pundit? Does the provision that protects free speech apply also to college students, like the one in Florida, who get tasered for asking unorthodox questions, and daring to imply that an election was rigged, or that a sitting president deserves impeachment?
And, what about those we've captured, and detained, without charge, or access to counsel at Guantanamo Bay, and at secret prisons around the world? What "rights," if any, do they have? Yesterday, the Defense Department announced that fourteen "high value" detainees at Gitmo have been offered "the right to request lawyers," a first step in challenging their "unlawful enemy combatant" designation before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal which might itself be described as a rigged process. (WaPo)
But, be that as it may, remember that those enemy combatants who were afforded the "right" to counsel at Guantanamo, in the past, were reportedly only allowed to see a lawyer if they confessed, or admitted guilt, first. Is it any different with these fourteen terror suspects? Did they, too, have to acknowledge crimes, and/or complicity, in order to be allowed to request representation? One wonders what, besides the obvious methods of torture that have leaked out, is taking place during these interrogations that now makes these men eligible for clearing their names?
Since their capture, the fourteen detainees, as well as more than three hundred others held at the naval base at Cuba, have had access only to their captors, and an occasional visit from members of the International Red Cross which visits have been labelled classified. They are only now being allowed the right to what amounts to military personal shoppers, those who will help them through the administrative hurdles necessary to obtain due process, something that both the Constitution, and international law, has, for more than 500 years, guaranteed them, but it appears that this process is more an administrative technicality than an opportunity for genuine adjudication.
The fact that the president of the American Bar Association, whose help in representing the alleged "terrorists" has been requested by the government, has said that he doesn't want the ABA to "lend support and credibility to such an inadequate review scheme" (WaPo) is something that should not be lost on anyone who labors under the delusion that we still have rights that would be recognizable, if only adroitly, by our founding fathers.
What can be more oxymoronic than the statement by an "anonymous" official that "the goal here is to have trials open and public to the greatest extent consistent with protecting classified information." But, clearly somebody's been reading too much Kafka, or maybe not enough, or maybe Zeno's Paradox is in syndication------"open and public trials" that still protect "classified information?"
In the words of a Center for Constitutional Rights attorney who has been trying, in vain, to contact one of the detainees now allowed the "right" to request representation, for over a year, the Defense Department is trying to "put some gloss," and create the aura of legitimacy, but this is mostly lip service, and a flawed facade in light of kangaroo military tribunals, and the Pentagon's insistence that counsel get "necessary security clearance," as well as submit to a complete background check. (WaPo)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but one can't help but wonder if some in this administration, including the current commander-in-chief , were coerced to submit to a background check, if they would still be running our military. The illusory right to counsel might implode on impact were details of what was said, and what transpired, during "classified" interrogations of these detainees to mysteriously surface. How much did they have to give up, or "confess" to in order to obtain the "right" to be represented. More importantly, how far have we deviated from accepted precepts of international law that it is now considered a victory to "allow" not representation, per se, but a request for representation.
This is not an argument in favor of one like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is among this group of "high value" terror suspects. Indeed, no one can defend the indefensible. That said, the indefensible is still entitled to a defense; at least, it was under the judicial system this country has had in place for the past 200 plus years before the onset of the current constitutional revisionists who have consistently shown that justice goes to the highest bidder.
But, the larger question is why should anybody care about a bunch of illegal aliens being held without charge, indefinitely, and being subjected to "alternate interrogation techniques," by our government, which are so controversial that they are deemed classified, or secret. Along with the Bush jihad on terror comes the so-called Patriot Act which neutralizes the Fourth Amendment, as the Padilla case demonstrates, such that citizens and noncitizens alike get harassed equally, leaving us all vulnerable to being dubbed "terrorists," and held without charge indefinitely.
When those we capture and hold as our nation's enemy are compelled to complete a "Legal Representation Request" form in order to seek redress from a designation that has never been satisfactorily explained, the entire infrastructure of our criminal justice system is at stake. And, when a district judge in Portland, Ann Aiken, joins the ranks of other judges, throughout the country, in suggesting that the Patriot Act contains provisions that are unconstitutional, and that the latest revision to FISA law now enables the executive branch to "conduct surveillance and searches of Americans without satisfying the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment," (AP) take heed-----you are no safer in your home, from illegal search and seizure, than any of those currently held at Guantanamo Bay, or in any secret CIA prison around the world.
What's more, those searching your person, car, and home are no more obliged to tell you why they're searching you, charge you, or provide legal proof that they have reasonable justification to secretly enter your home, and go through your things as was done to Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield who sued the federal government after being wrongfully accused of having been involved in the Madrid train bombings.
Justice has to count for something, or the study of jurisprudence is nothing more than the random collection of artifacts in the name of irrelevancy. And, as the ruling of a U.S. district judge in Oregon asserts: "For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law -- with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised." Yes, and a shift to a nation that expunges key sections of military reports which allege abuse of Iraqi citizens, and prisoners, as well as one that requires the completion of forms in order to request a right that has been guaranteed for generations is one that is unacceptable, and must be denounced by all who pledge allegiance to liberty and justice for all.
In the next fourteen months before Election Day, it is up to us to insist that each and every presidential candidate clearly state their position on what they will do about extraordinary rendition, secret CIA terror cells, "alternative interrogation techniques," what is, and is not, classifiable by government, and how they will restore the Bill of Rights, and the integrity of the our Constitution.
And, what about those we've captured, and detained, without charge, or access to counsel at Guantanamo Bay, and at secret prisons around the world? What "rights," if any, do they have? Yesterday, the Defense Department announced that fourteen "high value" detainees at Gitmo have been offered "the right to request lawyers," a first step in challenging their "unlawful enemy combatant" designation before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal which might itself be described as a rigged process. (WaPo)
But, be that as it may, remember that those enemy combatants who were afforded the "right" to counsel at Guantanamo, in the past, were reportedly only allowed to see a lawyer if they confessed, or admitted guilt, first. Is it any different with these fourteen terror suspects? Did they, too, have to acknowledge crimes, and/or complicity, in order to be allowed to request representation? One wonders what, besides the obvious methods of torture that have leaked out, is taking place during these interrogations that now makes these men eligible for clearing their names?
Since their capture, the fourteen detainees, as well as more than three hundred others held at the naval base at Cuba, have had access only to their captors, and an occasional visit from members of the International Red Cross which visits have been labelled classified. They are only now being allowed the right to what amounts to military personal shoppers, those who will help them through the administrative hurdles necessary to obtain due process, something that both the Constitution, and international law, has, for more than 500 years, guaranteed them, but it appears that this process is more an administrative technicality than an opportunity for genuine adjudication.
The fact that the president of the American Bar Association, whose help in representing the alleged "terrorists" has been requested by the government, has said that he doesn't want the ABA to "lend support and credibility to such an inadequate review scheme" (WaPo) is something that should not be lost on anyone who labors under the delusion that we still have rights that would be recognizable, if only adroitly, by our founding fathers.
What can be more oxymoronic than the statement by an "anonymous" official that "the goal here is to have trials open and public to the greatest extent consistent with protecting classified information." But, clearly somebody's been reading too much Kafka, or maybe not enough, or maybe Zeno's Paradox is in syndication------"open and public trials" that still protect "classified information?"
In the words of a Center for Constitutional Rights attorney who has been trying, in vain, to contact one of the detainees now allowed the "right" to request representation, for over a year, the Defense Department is trying to "put some gloss," and create the aura of legitimacy, but this is mostly lip service, and a flawed facade in light of kangaroo military tribunals, and the Pentagon's insistence that counsel get "necessary security clearance," as well as submit to a complete background check. (WaPo)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but one can't help but wonder if some in this administration, including the current commander-in-chief , were coerced to submit to a background check, if they would still be running our military. The illusory right to counsel might implode on impact were details of what was said, and what transpired, during "classified" interrogations of these detainees to mysteriously surface. How much did they have to give up, or "confess" to in order to obtain the "right" to be represented. More importantly, how far have we deviated from accepted precepts of international law that it is now considered a victory to "allow" not representation, per se, but a request for representation.
This is not an argument in favor of one like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is among this group of "high value" terror suspects. Indeed, no one can defend the indefensible. That said, the indefensible is still entitled to a defense; at least, it was under the judicial system this country has had in place for the past 200 plus years before the onset of the current constitutional revisionists who have consistently shown that justice goes to the highest bidder.
But, the larger question is why should anybody care about a bunch of illegal aliens being held without charge, indefinitely, and being subjected to "alternate interrogation techniques," by our government, which are so controversial that they are deemed classified, or secret. Along with the Bush jihad on terror comes the so-called Patriot Act which neutralizes the Fourth Amendment, as the Padilla case demonstrates, such that citizens and noncitizens alike get harassed equally, leaving us all vulnerable to being dubbed "terrorists," and held without charge indefinitely.
When those we capture and hold as our nation's enemy are compelled to complete a "Legal Representation Request" form in order to seek redress from a designation that has never been satisfactorily explained, the entire infrastructure of our criminal justice system is at stake. And, when a district judge in Portland, Ann Aiken, joins the ranks of other judges, throughout the country, in suggesting that the Patriot Act contains provisions that are unconstitutional, and that the latest revision to FISA law now enables the executive branch to "conduct surveillance and searches of Americans without satisfying the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment," (AP) take heed-----you are no safer in your home, from illegal search and seizure, than any of those currently held at Guantanamo Bay, or in any secret CIA prison around the world.
What's more, those searching your person, car, and home are no more obliged to tell you why they're searching you, charge you, or provide legal proof that they have reasonable justification to secretly enter your home, and go through your things as was done to Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield who sued the federal government after being wrongfully accused of having been involved in the Madrid train bombings.
Justice has to count for something, or the study of jurisprudence is nothing more than the random collection of artifacts in the name of irrelevancy. And, as the ruling of a U.S. district judge in Oregon asserts: "For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law -- with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised." Yes, and a shift to a nation that expunges key sections of military reports which allege abuse of Iraqi citizens, and prisoners, as well as one that requires the completion of forms in order to request a right that has been guaranteed for generations is one that is unacceptable, and must be denounced by all who pledge allegiance to liberty and justice for all.
In the next fourteen months before Election Day, it is up to us to insist that each and every presidential candidate clearly state their position on what they will do about extraordinary rendition, secret CIA terror cells, "alternative interrogation techniques," what is, and is not, classifiable by government, and how they will restore the Bill of Rights, and the integrity of the our Constitution.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Who needs Health-Net when we have Hillary-Net?
In an appearance on the Today Show, Hillary Clinton has, once again, clearly demonstrated who's paying her cab fare-- the HMOs and big pharmaceutical companies. How can anyone expect reform from an administration, on either side of the aisle, that consistently obscures the line of demarcation between national health insurance, and mandated medical coverage.
It's appalling to hear the leading Democratic presidential nominee talk about health insurance in much the same way as her Republican counterpart, Mitt Romney, who introduced a similar bogus "universal health care" measure to his constitutents in Massachusetts which has resulted in dire consequences for those who can least afford to pay monthly insurance premiums.
Mandating car insurance is one thing. One can live without a car; nearly two-thirds of the world does. Mandating health insurance is something else again. One can measure the integrity of a government by its response to those in need. Chronic, and contagious illness threatens the health of the community. Any state that is prepared to spend billions to go to war for oil, and military contracts, and allows its citizens to go to bed hungry, homeless, and without health coverage is one that will live on in infamy. Stop the big fraud of "universal health coverage," and expose it for what it is------lining the pockets of the big HMOs and pharmaceutical companies at the expense of the working man and woman in this country.
The larger issue isn't whether health care providers are regulated or not, but whether or not those who can least afford to pay to see a doctor will be required to do so under this proposed plan. The pain at the pump will pale in comparison to the pain felt by anyone who dares to find themselves at the mercy of HMOs, in a medical emergency, under any program that requires those least able to afford coverage to pay for their own health care.
It's appalling to hear the leading Democratic presidential nominee talk about health insurance in much the same way as her Republican counterpart, Mitt Romney, who introduced a similar bogus "universal health care" measure to his constitutents in Massachusetts which has resulted in dire consequences for those who can least afford to pay monthly insurance premiums.
Mandating car insurance is one thing. One can live without a car; nearly two-thirds of the world does. Mandating health insurance is something else again. One can measure the integrity of a government by its response to those in need. Chronic, and contagious illness threatens the health of the community. Any state that is prepared to spend billions to go to war for oil, and military contracts, and allows its citizens to go to bed hungry, homeless, and without health coverage is one that will live on in infamy. Stop the big fraud of "universal health coverage," and expose it for what it is------lining the pockets of the big HMOs and pharmaceutical companies at the expense of the working man and woman in this country.
The larger issue isn't whether health care providers are regulated or not, but whether or not those who can least afford to pay to see a doctor will be required to do so under this proposed plan. The pain at the pump will pale in comparison to the pain felt by anyone who dares to find themselves at the mercy of HMOs, in a medical emergency, under any program that requires those least able to afford coverage to pay for their own health care.
Friday, September 21, 2007
the greatest gift...
The greatest gift we can give is to leave something for those who come after us...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
