After watching most of the latest Republican debate, last week, one thing becomes obvious---who needs a platform to stand on when you have a Bible? From evolution to protecting the life of an unborn, it's patently obvious that all the contenders, for the Republican Party nomination, have a black belt in Bible studies. Too bad we're not looking to elect Moses to the highest elected office in the land, or it might work.
What's more, they all seem to have ideas about how to build the tallest, most durable fence. Not a word was said about statesmanship or diplomacy, but then their Democratic rivals dwell more on war than peace, too.
It seems, to me, that the word "illegal" reared its ugly head more in this debate than any other I've ever seen---Republican or Democrat, and was used exclusively with respect to immigration. Not one candidate, not Mike Huckabee, Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, not even Ron Paul, talked about illegal electronic surveillance of ordinary Americans, or withholding of witness testimony from detainees, or the outing of a covert CIA agent.
Hell, if these guys are so concerned about "illegals," why don't they impeach Bush and Cheney, neither of whom got to where they are legally. The answer may well be that we've had cruise control government, in this country, for nearly a decade. Reportedly, even super-delegates are uncommitted, and waiting for guidance from on high when it comes to picking the next president. So, maybe we should toss a coin, eh?
While the Democratic contenders make different noises, one walks away from the Republican debating team with the knowledge that, if these guys get in, Roe v. Wade will be overturned, more money will go to defense, the gap between rich and poor will be greater, the national guard will be deployed, more often, to secure the borders, the I.C.E. man will cometh with greater frequency, we'll see more censorship not just of government documents, but of movies, books, and TV shows, and God will be just another regular on Jay Leno.
Be scared; be very, very scared. In this country, we have a long, and distinguished history of deluding ourselves that miracles can happen. Well, miracles don't happen. I haven't seen another Jack Kennedy running for president lately, have you?
And, whether you like Edwards, or Obama, it's time for the Hillary-bashers, including myself, to back down and realize that it's not the candidate, but the platform we need to focus on, as well as the consequences of eight more years of neo-con jihadists to what's left of our civil liberties, and the prospect for world peace.
Unless we want to our worst fears for reality, we'd better rally, and rally strong, behind whichever Democrat gets the nomination and, hopefully, has the strongest odds of winning the election. There will be no place to run, and no place to hide if we lose this one.
After watching most of the latest Republican debate, last week, one thing becomes obvious---who needs a platform when you have a Bible to stand on? From evolution to protecting the life of an unborn, it's patently obvious that the one thing all the contenders have in common is their black belt in Bible studies. Too bad we're not looking to elect Moses to the highest elected office in the land, or it might work.
It seemed, to me, that the word "illegal" reared its ugly head more in this debate than any other I've ever seen---Republican or Democrat, and was used exclusively with respect to immigration. Not one candidate, not Mike Huckabee, Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, not even Ron Paul, talked about illegal electronic surveillance of ordinary Americans, or withholding of witness testimony from detainees, or the outing of a covert CIA agent.
Hell, if these guys are so concerned about "illegals," why don't they impeach Bush and Cheney, neither of whom got to where they are legally.
Be scared; be very, very scared. In this country, we have a long, and distinguished history of deluding ourselves that miracles can happen. Well, miracles don't happen. I haven't seen another Jack Kennedy running for president lately, have you?
And, whether you like Edwards, or Obama, it's time for the Hillary-bashers, including myself, to back down and realize that it's not the candidate, but the platform we need to focus on, as well as the consequences of eight more years of neo-con jihadists to what's left of our civil liberties, and the prospect for world peace.
Unless we want to make our worst fears a reality, we'd better rally, and rally strong, behind whichever Democrat has the strongest odds of winning the election. There will be no place to run, and no place to hide if we lose this one.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Just Ask
Is the surge working? Some members of Congress might think so, but just ask one of the mothers of the nearly 4,000 American service members who have died as a result of our occupation of Iraq.
Better still, ask a single mother, in one of the poorest inner city families, whose child support has been funneled into the coffers of the state in which she lives to compensate for her welfare payments (NYT) Think of how much she would have benefited if only a fraction of the billions spent in Iraq went to cover the states' aid to dependent families program.
Oh, and while we're at it, why not ask one of the relatives of the thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children who have been slain to bring "democracy" to that country. While we, in this country, can sit comfortably back, and celebrate the assertion that casualties are down, one casualty in this illegal war is one casualty too many.
If we, as a nation, are so concerned about importing representative government to foreign lands, why did we look the other way when President Pervez Musharraf, of Pakistan, informed this administration, in advance, that he was declaring martial law, and suspending the constitution? If we're so concerned about making the world safe from terrorists, where did the $11 billion we gave Musharraf go, and can it be into the pockets of those who have been trying to undermine "democracy" in Afghanistan?
If this administration is so concerned about democracy, then why don't we invade Beijing whose human rights abuses are egregious, or North Korea whose leader poses the most direct, and ongoing threat to world peace, and stability of any? And, what about Khaddafi? He's been neutralized as Musharraf appears to have been. Nobody buys silence better than those American presidents who preach democracy, but whose practices are surpassed only by mob bosses.
Civilizations measure the cost of war not merely in terms of collateral, and reconstruction, but in terms of human cost. The cost to our karma, for our assault on the Persian Gulf, is immeasurable and equal to the loss of a parent for a small child on the outskirts of Baghdad. That loss is our loss, too.
Were it possible to ask a former president, Thomas Jefferson, what he thinks of this White House, and its rhetoric, he'd probably say "Don't bother me, I'm sleeping." Oh, and as for George Washington, he'd be on his way back to London by now.
Better still, ask a single mother, in one of the poorest inner city families, whose child support has been funneled into the coffers of the state in which she lives to compensate for her welfare payments (NYT) Think of how much she would have benefited if only a fraction of the billions spent in Iraq went to cover the states' aid to dependent families program.
Oh, and while we're at it, why not ask one of the relatives of the thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children who have been slain to bring "democracy" to that country. While we, in this country, can sit comfortably back, and celebrate the assertion that casualties are down, one casualty in this illegal war is one casualty too many.
If we, as a nation, are so concerned about importing representative government to foreign lands, why did we look the other way when President Pervez Musharraf, of Pakistan, informed this administration, in advance, that he was declaring martial law, and suspending the constitution? If we're so concerned about making the world safe from terrorists, where did the $11 billion we gave Musharraf go, and can it be into the pockets of those who have been trying to undermine "democracy" in Afghanistan?
If this administration is so concerned about democracy, then why don't we invade Beijing whose human rights abuses are egregious, or North Korea whose leader poses the most direct, and ongoing threat to world peace, and stability of any? And, what about Khaddafi? He's been neutralized as Musharraf appears to have been. Nobody buys silence better than those American presidents who preach democracy, but whose practices are surpassed only by mob bosses.
Civilizations measure the cost of war not merely in terms of collateral, and reconstruction, but in terms of human cost. The cost to our karma, for our assault on the Persian Gulf, is immeasurable and equal to the loss of a parent for a small child on the outskirts of Baghdad. That loss is our loss, too.
Were it possible to ask a former president, Thomas Jefferson, what he thinks of this White House, and its rhetoric, he'd probably say "Don't bother me, I'm sleeping." Oh, and as for George Washington, he'd be on his way back to London by now.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Fiction
Now for a digression from political fare, it is a delight to have discovered Russell Baker's "Growing Up," his memoir which I highly recommend. "Growing Up" is literature in the best possible sense of the word. There is no pretention to fact, only the sensual adoration of the living, breathing word, and watching that word transform into a continuum of self and other that exists only to recreate itself.
Underlying his love for language, Baker acknowledges that, in the final analysis, it's all fiction. What is that great line from Jean Cocteau? "Les choses que je conte sont les mesonges vrais;" the tales that I tell are truthful lies."
Am currently discussing the convergence of fact and fiction in Baker's memoir as part of a freshman college English class I'm teaching. The students are asked to consider if it's ever possible to be completely "factual" about oneself, or anything in one's life, except of course for the date of one's birth. Being alive is about constantly reinventing oneself, and celebrating the ability to be among the only upright animals with the capacity to do so.
"Only the imagination is real," William Carlos Williams once wrote; "Je est un autre," "I is another," said Jean-Arthur Rimbaud. We objectify ourselves, and it is only through the process of that objectivization that we discover what resides within us. "Give a man a mask, and he will tell you the truth," says Antonin Artaud.
"Tell me who you are, and I will tell you how much you escape;" oh, and, I said that.
Underlying his love for language, Baker acknowledges that, in the final analysis, it's all fiction. What is that great line from Jean Cocteau? "Les choses que je conte sont les mesonges vrais;" the tales that I tell are truthful lies."
Am currently discussing the convergence of fact and fiction in Baker's memoir as part of a freshman college English class I'm teaching. The students are asked to consider if it's ever possible to be completely "factual" about oneself, or anything in one's life, except of course for the date of one's birth. Being alive is about constantly reinventing oneself, and celebrating the ability to be among the only upright animals with the capacity to do so.
"Only the imagination is real," William Carlos Williams once wrote; "Je est un autre," "I is another," said Jean-Arthur Rimbaud. We objectify ourselves, and it is only through the process of that objectivization that we discover what resides within us. "Give a man a mask, and he will tell you the truth," says Antonin Artaud.
"Tell me who you are, and I will tell you how much you escape;" oh, and, I said that.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
The Katrina of Public Health
Some alarming, awe-inspiring, news today out of Washington, D.C., and no, it's not Trent Lott's resignation. The results of a study, the first of its kind, of HIV cases in the nation's capital are out, and they show that AIDS has reached "epidemic" proportions in D.C. (WaPo)
In the five year test period in question, ending in 2006, while African-Americans comprise roughly 60% of the city's population, they account for more than 80% of the more than 3,000 HIV cases that have been identified. 90% of women residents who tested positive for the disease are African-American. And, nearly 40% of reported cases were among heterosexuals showing, in the words of a District administrator, that "HIV is everybody's disease" in D.C.
The presence of an epidemic of this magnitude so close to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue can't help but make one wonder if federal policy, or non-policy is at the nucleus of this health catastrophe. Yet, where is the public outrage that a campaign of misinformation, disinformation, or information/education blocade should claim the same demographic casualties as that of Hurricane Katrina.
D.C.'s AIDS rate is the highest of any city in the U.S., and twice that of New York. Ostensibly, many of the 50 million uninsured Americans who live in our nation's capital are unable to get tested, or treated because they have no access to health care, but there are other numbers with respect to the African-American community that are almost as startling.
While blacks comprise only 12% of the population, nearly half of those on death row are African-American. Incarceration rates for blacks and latinos, in this country, are more than six times greater than for whites. One third of whites 25 or older have a college degree while only about 17% of blacks have graduated from college.
Many fault District health officials for not disseminating enough information, and creating a climate which is user-friendly for AIDS awareness, but the seeds of this campaign of devout ignorance may be found in the earliest days of this administration's tenure. As president-elect, George W. Bush told The New York Times "the jury is still out" on evolution. His attitude towards condom distribution, sex education, and HIV prevention shows that, for George Bush, the jury is out on science, too.
Moreover, on this administration's watch, more than $100 million in grants have been allocated for abstinence-only education programs. The president pressured the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to eliminate, from its Web site, anything that might promote the efficacy of using condoms to prevent STDs, and AIDS.
Roughly 90% of the $15 billion set aside for fighting HIV globally has been made available to domestic groups for use in their ongoing worldwide campaign to promote abstinence, and to discourage the use of condoms in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Is it any wonder then that the spread of HIV/AIDS of this magnitude among the largest minority population of any American city should strike this close to home for a president who, as his response to Hurricane Katrina has plainly demonstrated, is one of devout indifference.
In a city the size of D.C. that has nearly 20,000 of its residents infected by this deadly disease, somebody's got to pony up to how it came to pass that such a vast number, many of whom are over 40, manage to find themselves stricken with HIV or AIDS. And, while many prefer to blame District health officials for lagging public awareness of the AIDS crisis in Washington, there is no doubt that this administration's stalwart fundamentalist anti-science, anti-environment, and anti-reality ethos are principally responsible.
When there is such a large number of those who test positive who are minority, and an equally high percentage of incarcerated people of color, a good place to start might be inaugurating a program of condom distribution in D.C. prisons, if only to protect the larger population. By not making safe sex available to the inmate population, the Bush administration is, in effect, affirming their policy of “selective survival,” which was witnessed in the footage of those who had the wherewithal to escape Hurricane Katrina by taking to the highway making it out of New Orleans while the rest were left to perish.
But, those who have built their legacy on the politics of denial are condemned to the legacy they’ve created for themselves.
The platform of "compassionate conservatism" on which this president ran is no more to be found in these statistics than in the waving hands of those drowning as a result of a monstrous hurricane in New Orleans. Once again, it becomes crystal clear that survival, too, is a matter of privilege.
The jury is no longer out on this White House, and its contagion of ideology which has claimed the lives of thousands on the battlefield, and many more at home.
In the five year test period in question, ending in 2006, while African-Americans comprise roughly 60% of the city's population, they account for more than 80% of the more than 3,000 HIV cases that have been identified. 90% of women residents who tested positive for the disease are African-American. And, nearly 40% of reported cases were among heterosexuals showing, in the words of a District administrator, that "HIV is everybody's disease" in D.C.
The presence of an epidemic of this magnitude so close to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue can't help but make one wonder if federal policy, or non-policy is at the nucleus of this health catastrophe. Yet, where is the public outrage that a campaign of misinformation, disinformation, or information/education blocade should claim the same demographic casualties as that of Hurricane Katrina.
D.C.'s AIDS rate is the highest of any city in the U.S., and twice that of New York. Ostensibly, many of the 50 million uninsured Americans who live in our nation's capital are unable to get tested, or treated because they have no access to health care, but there are other numbers with respect to the African-American community that are almost as startling.
While blacks comprise only 12% of the population, nearly half of those on death row are African-American. Incarceration rates for blacks and latinos, in this country, are more than six times greater than for whites. One third of whites 25 or older have a college degree while only about 17% of blacks have graduated from college.
Many fault District health officials for not disseminating enough information, and creating a climate which is user-friendly for AIDS awareness, but the seeds of this campaign of devout ignorance may be found in the earliest days of this administration's tenure. As president-elect, George W. Bush told The New York Times "the jury is still out" on evolution. His attitude towards condom distribution, sex education, and HIV prevention shows that, for George Bush, the jury is out on science, too.
Moreover, on this administration's watch, more than $100 million in grants have been allocated for abstinence-only education programs. The president pressured the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to eliminate, from its Web site, anything that might promote the efficacy of using condoms to prevent STDs, and AIDS.
Roughly 90% of the $15 billion set aside for fighting HIV globally has been made available to domestic groups for use in their ongoing worldwide campaign to promote abstinence, and to discourage the use of condoms in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Is it any wonder then that the spread of HIV/AIDS of this magnitude among the largest minority population of any American city should strike this close to home for a president who, as his response to Hurricane Katrina has plainly demonstrated, is one of devout indifference.
In a city the size of D.C. that has nearly 20,000 of its residents infected by this deadly disease, somebody's got to pony up to how it came to pass that such a vast number, many of whom are over 40, manage to find themselves stricken with HIV or AIDS. And, while many prefer to blame District health officials for lagging public awareness of the AIDS crisis in Washington, there is no doubt that this administration's stalwart fundamentalist anti-science, anti-environment, and anti-reality ethos are principally responsible.
When there is such a large number of those who test positive who are minority, and an equally high percentage of incarcerated people of color, a good place to start might be inaugurating a program of condom distribution in D.C. prisons, if only to protect the larger population. By not making safe sex available to the inmate population, the Bush administration is, in effect, affirming their policy of “selective survival,” which was witnessed in the footage of those who had the wherewithal to escape Hurricane Katrina by taking to the highway making it out of New Orleans while the rest were left to perish.
But, those who have built their legacy on the politics of denial are condemned to the legacy they’ve created for themselves.
The platform of "compassionate conservatism" on which this president ran is no more to be found in these statistics than in the waving hands of those drowning as a result of a monstrous hurricane in New Orleans. Once again, it becomes crystal clear that survival, too, is a matter of privilege.
The jury is no longer out on this White House, and its contagion of ideology which has claimed the lives of thousands on the battlefield, and many more at home.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
"Gimme Shelter?"
There is no place like home, or so they say. Just ask Luis Posada Carriles, and more than a thousand people from 85 countries, many of whom have been accused of torture, rape, and genocide, and are now taking refuge in the United States to avoid prosecution, according to the Department of Homeland Security. (McClatchy)
Recently declassified documents, obtained by the National Security Archive, show that Posada Carilles, a Cuban exile and former CIA operative, was a key figure in the bombing of a Cuban commercial airline flight in October, 1976. Yet, Posada, called the Osama bin Laden of the Western Hemisphere," spent only 6 months in an immigration detention center, is now a free man in Miami, Florida while American citizen, Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," is currently serving a life sentence after being convicted of attempting to blow up a commercial airliner, in flight, with a plastic explosive in his shoe.
Mind you,this is not to suggest, for a moment, that Reid doesn't deserve life in prison, but only to ask this simple question: are all terrorists created equally, or are some terrorists more equal than others? Is torture a form of terrorism and, if so, how can we justify granting sanctuary to those who have been indicted in their own countries on charges of war crimes?
While a recent refugee to South Florida, Posada, joins the likes of two Salvoradoran generals who have been living in Florida for nearly twenty years; former Salvodoran minister of defense, Jose Guillermo Garcia, and Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova, past director of the Salvadoran National Guard. Both officers were the target of a lawsuit in federal court in West Palm Beach by an administrator of a free clinic in Washington who as a young doctor, a quarter of a century ago, cared for the poor in his native El Salvador during that country's civil war. Juan Ramogoza Arca asserts that he was seized by the Salvadoran military and, for nearly a month, subjected to such egregious, and insidious practices as electric shocks, sodomy, waterboarding, as well as being covered by a hood containing calcium oxide. You will recall that the accused generals were part of a military supported, and financed, by the United States government.
What vexes Romagoza and two other plaintiffs who are seeking damages against the generals is that both torturers and their victims have found safe haven from justice in Florida, Bush country. What enrages Senator Richard Durbin is that the U.S. has now become the dumping ground of choice for those who have committed the most heinous crimes, principally because we lack the laws necessary to prosecute them.
Ostensibly, the Neo-Con platform of law and order has failed to deliver the kind of legislation that would hold anyone who emigrates to this country, as a means of fleeing justice from their own, accountable for murder, war crimes, and human trafficking. Ironically, it is a Democratic congressman who seeks to correct this flagrant oversight on the part of the Bush regime which has, for the past half dozen years, engaged in the quixotic pseudo-quest to hunt down "terrorists," and those who pose a threat to "national security" while providing shelter for those accused of rape, as well as others, like Luis Posada Carriles, who have done nothing less than bring down a Cuban passenger flight.
Arguably, the larger question is--why is it that Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was detained and subjected to dubious "enhanced alternative" interrogation techniques for years, held for years without being charged, then convicted of plotting to kill terrorists overseas and supporting terrorists while Luis Posada Carriles who has been implicated in "top secret CIA and FBI intelligence reports" (NSA) as being the key figure in orchestrating the bombing of a civilian airliner, thirty years ago, which claimed the lives of all all its passengers and crew, is not being held, or prosecuted? This is merely further proof of this administration's policy of selective prosecution.
Notably, former attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, declined the opportunity to label Posada a "terrorist," and give him all the advantages that comes with such designation, i.e., indefinite incarceration without charge, no access to evidence against one, and access to attorney only after one has confessed. Likewise, last spring, immigration fraud charges against Posada were dismissed. My, my....can it be that Luis Posada Carriles, a man who was involved in the downing of a commercial Cuban airliner long before the USA Patriot Act was a glimmer in John Ashcroft's eyes, is being treated to star treatment because he once worked for the CIA? Posada Carriles, who has been in this country for two and a half years, has only spent six months in detention despite having been called among "the most prolific purveyors of political violence in recent history."
Is it a mere coincidence that Posada, and the Salvadoran generals accused of war crimes and atrocities, are now living the good life in Florida, a state under the umbrella of another Bush? And, more importantly, why is the Bush administration not only allowing Posada to go free, but granting him safe haven, and what does this tell us about bin Laden and his possible ongoing relationship with the CIA.
Make no mistake, the so-called war on terror is not about ideology, but expediency. If massve amounts of oil were to be found in Karachi, or nearby, President Musharraf would be hiding from American troops fearing that they would do to him they did to Saddam Hussein.
When speaking to the Federalist Society, on Friday, Republican presidential candidate, and former New York governor during 9/11, Rudy Giuliani, like George H.W. Bush before him, sought to court the conservatives of his party by promising to appoint more right-wing judges who will affirm the right to bear arms, and turn back the clock on Roe v. Wade. Giuliani said "It's this country that's going to save civilization from Islamic terrorism." That's good to know because, for the past several years, a president of his party has made the same claim while giving shelter to those who will someday be seen as the forefathers of terrorism.
Recently declassified documents, obtained by the National Security Archive, show that Posada Carilles, a Cuban exile and former CIA operative, was a key figure in the bombing of a Cuban commercial airline flight in October, 1976. Yet, Posada, called the Osama bin Laden of the Western Hemisphere," spent only 6 months in an immigration detention center, is now a free man in Miami, Florida while American citizen, Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," is currently serving a life sentence after being convicted of attempting to blow up a commercial airliner, in flight, with a plastic explosive in his shoe.
Mind you,this is not to suggest, for a moment, that Reid doesn't deserve life in prison, but only to ask this simple question: are all terrorists created equally, or are some terrorists more equal than others? Is torture a form of terrorism and, if so, how can we justify granting sanctuary to those who have been indicted in their own countries on charges of war crimes?
While a recent refugee to South Florida, Posada, joins the likes of two Salvoradoran generals who have been living in Florida for nearly twenty years; former Salvodoran minister of defense, Jose Guillermo Garcia, and Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova, past director of the Salvadoran National Guard. Both officers were the target of a lawsuit in federal court in West Palm Beach by an administrator of a free clinic in Washington who as a young doctor, a quarter of a century ago, cared for the poor in his native El Salvador during that country's civil war. Juan Ramogoza Arca asserts that he was seized by the Salvadoran military and, for nearly a month, subjected to such egregious, and insidious practices as electric shocks, sodomy, waterboarding, as well as being covered by a hood containing calcium oxide. You will recall that the accused generals were part of a military supported, and financed, by the United States government.
What vexes Romagoza and two other plaintiffs who are seeking damages against the generals is that both torturers and their victims have found safe haven from justice in Florida, Bush country. What enrages Senator Richard Durbin is that the U.S. has now become the dumping ground of choice for those who have committed the most heinous crimes, principally because we lack the laws necessary to prosecute them.
Ostensibly, the Neo-Con platform of law and order has failed to deliver the kind of legislation that would hold anyone who emigrates to this country, as a means of fleeing justice from their own, accountable for murder, war crimes, and human trafficking. Ironically, it is a Democratic congressman who seeks to correct this flagrant oversight on the part of the Bush regime which has, for the past half dozen years, engaged in the quixotic pseudo-quest to hunt down "terrorists," and those who pose a threat to "national security" while providing shelter for those accused of rape, as well as others, like Luis Posada Carriles, who have done nothing less than bring down a Cuban passenger flight.
Arguably, the larger question is--why is it that Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was detained and subjected to dubious "enhanced alternative" interrogation techniques for years, held for years without being charged, then convicted of plotting to kill terrorists overseas and supporting terrorists while Luis Posada Carriles who has been implicated in "top secret CIA and FBI intelligence reports" (NSA) as being the key figure in orchestrating the bombing of a civilian airliner, thirty years ago, which claimed the lives of all all its passengers and crew, is not being held, or prosecuted? This is merely further proof of this administration's policy of selective prosecution.
Notably, former attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, declined the opportunity to label Posada a "terrorist," and give him all the advantages that comes with such designation, i.e., indefinite incarceration without charge, no access to evidence against one, and access to attorney only after one has confessed. Likewise, last spring, immigration fraud charges against Posada were dismissed. My, my....can it be that Luis Posada Carriles, a man who was involved in the downing of a commercial Cuban airliner long before the USA Patriot Act was a glimmer in John Ashcroft's eyes, is being treated to star treatment because he once worked for the CIA? Posada Carriles, who has been in this country for two and a half years, has only spent six months in detention despite having been called among "the most prolific purveyors of political violence in recent history."
Is it a mere coincidence that Posada, and the Salvadoran generals accused of war crimes and atrocities, are now living the good life in Florida, a state under the umbrella of another Bush? And, more importantly, why is the Bush administration not only allowing Posada to go free, but granting him safe haven, and what does this tell us about bin Laden and his possible ongoing relationship with the CIA.
Make no mistake, the so-called war on terror is not about ideology, but expediency. If massve amounts of oil were to be found in Karachi, or nearby, President Musharraf would be hiding from American troops fearing that they would do to him they did to Saddam Hussein.
When speaking to the Federalist Society, on Friday, Republican presidential candidate, and former New York governor during 9/11, Rudy Giuliani, like George H.W. Bush before him, sought to court the conservatives of his party by promising to appoint more right-wing judges who will affirm the right to bear arms, and turn back the clock on Roe v. Wade. Giuliani said "It's this country that's going to save civilization from Islamic terrorism." That's good to know because, for the past several years, a president of his party has made the same claim while giving shelter to those who will someday be seen as the forefathers of terrorism.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Chivalry is Alive and Well and Living in Las Vegas
Both Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama and John Edwards were treated to boos and jeers, last night, when attempting to corner the first woman candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, on the issue of health care, and special interests, but it was Clinton herself who said "if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen." Too bad someone didn't tell that to the president before his now infamous meeting with then Prime Minister Tony Blair, on Downing Street, where the two commanders-in-chef cooked the books with respect to fraudulent evidence that took us to war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton also added that she's comfortable in the kitchen;that's what concerns me; that's what John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich worry about, too.
While I'm being facetious when I say that the audience was being chivalrous in its defense of Hillary, make no mistake----the spectators' omnipotent, and egregious disapproval for Clinton's challengers' attempts at hardball effectively muted the substance of their charges. Ironically, too, those who watched last night's debate, whether they were in Vegas or in New Orleans, and those who will choose the next Democratic Party nominee, are the ones who needed most to hear what John Edwards had to say about the politics of privilege, big business, and obdurate devotion to corporate profit.
Those who most need to hear what both Edwards and Kucinich have to say about class struggle in America, about unions, about NAFTA, about economic disenfranchisement were coming to the defense of the one candidate who has yet to take a decisive stand against outsourcing jobs, and who has conspicuously aligned herself with the other boys when it comes to defending Roe v. Wade on the basis of a "right to privacy," rather than on the basis of a woman's right to choose. Oh, yes, and man or woman, choice is the issue now as it will be for generations.
While Barack Obama has routinely paid lip service to indigence and hunger in America, only John Edwards has taken on that subject squarely, and only Edwards and Kucinich dare to expose America's dirty little secret of poverty, privilege, and those who gain most by preserving the status quo. There's talk of changes to tax laws, but the underlying issue, that it is those who are most disadvantaged among us who will be first on the front lines of war, is swept under the rug by both frontrunners of this campaign.
Edwards and Kucinich are the only candidates taking strident aim at extraordinary rendition, torture, electronic surveillance, and the USA Patriot Act; this is flat out unacceptable. What does Edwards get for his persistent attack on the lords of the manor, and his dogged insistence upon openness in government? He gets accused of being a pit bull. Why? Can it be because Edwards is the only one with the courage to come out and say what we all dread to hear, that the process is corrupt, and rigged.
The days of the iron hand in the velvet glove are over. The gloves are off, and whether they're ready or not, all candidates for elected office must be prepared to get down and dirty, as well as come clean about where their allegiances lie. We can no more afford eight more years of sacrificing our sons and daughters on the altars of oil profits than we can eight more years of attempts to cover up who gets sacrificed, and why.
Moreover, when the subject of "illegal immigration" comes up, no candidate, not even Governor Bill Richardson, mentions the existence of sweatshops where undocumented immigrants work for well below minimum wage, and live in crowded, rat infested housing in states where migrant farm workers continue to suffer.
That we are this close to Iowa, and less than a year away from one of the most important presidential elections this country has ever faced, and not one clear, unambiguous, endorseable Democratic candidate has emerged is almost as scary as the all but inevitable air strikes against Iran, and behind the scenes efforts to displace another American-backed dictator, this time in Pakistan rather than Iraq.
And, while she talks of bringing Ahmadinejad "to the table" to talk, front runner Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the Senate resolution that named the Iranian Revolutionary National Guard a "terrorist" group. Likewise, while she insists that "national security" ought to be any president's primary concern, the leading Democratic contender fails to publicly connect the dots, and show how violation of the Consitution, and the First and Fourth Amendments, poses a graver risk to our national security than bin Laden, or Al Qaeda ever could.
Like it or not, the process of voting, in America, has become a lot like ordering from a Chinese restaurant: one from Column A, one from Column B. If things keep going at this rate, instead of using ballots, in 2050, people will be voting with take-out menus.
Whether it be a Republican, or Democratic Party debate, one thing is clear: the days of chivalry and civility are over. A political party must not only come up with a candidate, but a platform, and whether the nominee is a smooth talker, or is custom made for a photo-op, those who go to the polls must wipe the sleep out of their eyes, and vote with their heads not their prayer beads.
Any platform that tips backwards in an effort to remain centrist is one that is doomed to fail. Any candidate who is unwilling to risk it all, and put everything on the line to be a vehicle for the delivery of truth, not illusions, is one who ought to be running for ringmaster not president of the United States.
While I'm being facetious when I say that the audience was being chivalrous in its defense of Hillary, make no mistake----the spectators' omnipotent, and egregious disapproval for Clinton's challengers' attempts at hardball effectively muted the substance of their charges. Ironically, too, those who watched last night's debate, whether they were in Vegas or in New Orleans, and those who will choose the next Democratic Party nominee, are the ones who needed most to hear what John Edwards had to say about the politics of privilege, big business, and obdurate devotion to corporate profit.
Those who most need to hear what both Edwards and Kucinich have to say about class struggle in America, about unions, about NAFTA, about economic disenfranchisement were coming to the defense of the one candidate who has yet to take a decisive stand against outsourcing jobs, and who has conspicuously aligned herself with the other boys when it comes to defending Roe v. Wade on the basis of a "right to privacy," rather than on the basis of a woman's right to choose. Oh, yes, and man or woman, choice is the issue now as it will be for generations.
While Barack Obama has routinely paid lip service to indigence and hunger in America, only John Edwards has taken on that subject squarely, and only Edwards and Kucinich dare to expose America's dirty little secret of poverty, privilege, and those who gain most by preserving the status quo. There's talk of changes to tax laws, but the underlying issue, that it is those who are most disadvantaged among us who will be first on the front lines of war, is swept under the rug by both frontrunners of this campaign.
Edwards and Kucinich are the only candidates taking strident aim at extraordinary rendition, torture, electronic surveillance, and the USA Patriot Act; this is flat out unacceptable. What does Edwards get for his persistent attack on the lords of the manor, and his dogged insistence upon openness in government? He gets accused of being a pit bull. Why? Can it be because Edwards is the only one with the courage to come out and say what we all dread to hear, that the process is corrupt, and rigged.
The days of the iron hand in the velvet glove are over. The gloves are off, and whether they're ready or not, all candidates for elected office must be prepared to get down and dirty, as well as come clean about where their allegiances lie. We can no more afford eight more years of sacrificing our sons and daughters on the altars of oil profits than we can eight more years of attempts to cover up who gets sacrificed, and why.
Moreover, when the subject of "illegal immigration" comes up, no candidate, not even Governor Bill Richardson, mentions the existence of sweatshops where undocumented immigrants work for well below minimum wage, and live in crowded, rat infested housing in states where migrant farm workers continue to suffer.
That we are this close to Iowa, and less than a year away from one of the most important presidential elections this country has ever faced, and not one clear, unambiguous, endorseable Democratic candidate has emerged is almost as scary as the all but inevitable air strikes against Iran, and behind the scenes efforts to displace another American-backed dictator, this time in Pakistan rather than Iraq.
And, while she talks of bringing Ahmadinejad "to the table" to talk, front runner Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the Senate resolution that named the Iranian Revolutionary National Guard a "terrorist" group. Likewise, while she insists that "national security" ought to be any president's primary concern, the leading Democratic contender fails to publicly connect the dots, and show how violation of the Consitution, and the First and Fourth Amendments, poses a graver risk to our national security than bin Laden, or Al Qaeda ever could.
Like it or not, the process of voting, in America, has become a lot like ordering from a Chinese restaurant: one from Column A, one from Column B. If things keep going at this rate, instead of using ballots, in 2050, people will be voting with take-out menus.
Whether it be a Republican, or Democratic Party debate, one thing is clear: the days of chivalry and civility are over. A political party must not only come up with a candidate, but a platform, and whether the nominee is a smooth talker, or is custom made for a photo-op, those who go to the polls must wipe the sleep out of their eyes, and vote with their heads not their prayer beads.
Any platform that tips backwards in an effort to remain centrist is one that is doomed to fail. Any candidate who is unwilling to risk it all, and put everything on the line to be a vehicle for the delivery of truth, not illusions, is one who ought to be running for ringmaster not president of the United States.
Giving t'anks...
Let's hope that, next year at around this time, we will be giving thanks instead of tanks...
Monday, November 12, 2007
You Can Leave Your Hat On
Last week, the president placed a call to Pakistan's president, General Pervez Musharraf. Let's hope it was a collect call as our tax dollars have already totalled close to $11 billion since 9/11. much of that money going to better arm those we claim to be fighting. President Bush reportedly told President Musharraf "You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time." Well, that's not entirely what he meant, of course; he meant that one can't be army chief and head of a country, but when one usurps his position as commander-in-chief, what difference does it make if he's wearing a uniform or not?
Moreover, if Mr. Bush feels that strongly about what he perceives to be a conflict of interest, why doesn't he step down as commander-in-chief, leave Iraq to Iraqis, and Iran to Iranians instead of pursuing a foreign policy that amounts to selective destruction. (AP)
The voluptuaries of power always say that power is about seduction, and seduction requires knowing what to hide. Arguably, few have mastered the fine art of obfuscation better than our 43rd president. But, even more than concern about conmingling military power with executive power, Mr. Bush's "frank discussion" with the Pakistani leader makes crystal clear his wishes: "The United States wants you to have the elections as scheduled and take your uniform off." In a phone call that lasted only 20 minutes, the president asked Musharraf to take his uniform off at least twice.
Not that I'm a big fan of the Pakistani leader, but how dare a president of any country tell a leader of another sovereign state how to dress! If, as it's said, clothes make the man, does it follow that uniforms make the dictator? If we were to put Musharraf in an Armani suit, would it make the current Stalin-lite arrests of thousands of dissidents, many of whom are practicing attorneys, suspension of his country's constitution, and declaration of a state of emergency, or martial law, any more acceptable?
All this talk of taking off uniforms is agitprop, and amounts to nothing more than a distraction from the fact that we're supporting a government which is holding its own people hostage while, at the same time, claiming to be our ally in a so-called war on terror. Just as robbing a bank doesn't have to involve holding a gun to a teller's head, one can embezzle money, hijacking a country doesn't come with a dress code. While this is a bloodless coup, it is the second one, in less than a decade, and while Musharraf agreed to hold elections, as scheduled, in January, he will not set a timeline for the suspension of martial law.
This pattern of doublespeak isn't altogether new, now is it? The campaign for "law and order," which is at the nucleus of Pakistan's current state of emergency, is nothing more than a subterfuge for suspension of civil liberties in order to guarantee eelection. The law and order theme is a familiar one, too. We have seen what a campaign for "law and order" has done for this country; we have more rancor and official lawlessness now than at any other time in our history, as exemplified by practices that amount to torture applied to those we detain under the pretext of ridding the world of terrorists, and the routine subversion of our privacy rights in an effort to criminalize communication among ordinary Americans. Military courts, in Pakistan, may now try those civilians who disagree with its policies on charges "ranging from treason to inciting public unrest." How long before we do the same thing here?
It's absurd that anyone can believe General Musharraf when he says there will be "absolutely fair and transparent elections" in his country which is now under martial law. Clearly, the Bush administration misses Saddam so much, they've created another Saddam to take his place. How curious, too, that we've just signed a nuclear enrichment deal with India in light of the fact that India and Pakistan are mortal foes.
It's also curious to see the word "transparent" used by Musharraf; the same word has been applied by our president to his government, but where in hell is the transparency to be found from an administration that blocks the testimony, before Congress, of a Marine Corps lawyer who insists that his prosecution of a terrorist was derailed because of the egregious interrogation tactics that were employed? Some in the Pentagon may forget that confessions acquired by torture are inadmissible in court.
Where is transparency in government to be found when Pentagon general counsel, William Haynes II, forbids a subordinate to testify before Congress? (WaPo) When key sections of military reports are redacted? When the White House can withhold millions of emails on the pretext of executive privilege? When the president coerces two of his aides to defy congressional subpoenas, and refuse to testify before a House committee investigating the spurious firing of nine attorneys-general?
How can this president call on a dictator, thousands of miles away, and insist that he follow democratic rule while, at the same time, two prominent members of Congress, Rep. John Conyers and Rep.Jerrold Nadler, have had to write to incoming Attorney General Mukasay, before his official swearing in, no less, to request the release of three Justice Department "secret" legal opinions justifying the use of "painful physical and psychological tactics" on those we detain, and interrogate. These congressmen are right when they suggest that the withholding of legal opinions, from Congress, is almost as troubling as the procedure itself.
And, what of recent revelations by Rep. Henry Waxman that, despite his protestations to the contrary, there is now strong evidence that convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff had "hundreds of lobbying contqacts with White House officials" which flies in the face of the president's claim that he doesn't know Abramoff. Is this what this president has in mind by "transparency" in government? If so, it is clearly the same kind of transparency asserted by General Musharraf.
One has only to look at Bush's choice for Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte, to see what a farce "compassionate conservatism" is.. Yes, this is the same Negroponte who describes Pakistan as a key ally in the war on terror, and Musharraf as invaluable to our efforts, and told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that "No country has done more in terms of inflicting damage and punishment on the Taliban and Al Qaeda since 9/ll." Yes, very impressive, as is the fact that Musharraf released 25 pro-Taliban fighters right after he suspended his country's constitution (NYT), after his own admission, years ago, "There is no doubt Afghan militants are supported from Pakistan soil."
Not only do recently declassified documents obtained by the National Security Archive reveal that the Taliban "was directly funded, armed, and advised by Islamabad itself," but much of the $11 billion we sent to the Pakistani general, after his coup, ended up in the hands of the Taliban and other "terrorist" groups, the same groups that Musharraf claims to be defending his country against by declaring martial law.
Yes, this is the same John Negroponte who as U.S. ambassador to Honduras, nearly a quarter of century ago, helped to boost military aid to that country tenfold to realize his objective of making Honduras a fortress against the revolutionary Sandinistas in neighboring Nicaragua, and who ignored the claims of his predecessor, Jack Binns, of numerous human rights abuses by the Honduran military Negroponte stubbornly denied having knowledge of any Honduran military wrongdoing, and even back then demonstrated a penchant for a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" mentality.
According to one former Honduran congressman, Mr. Negroponte's attitude was "one of tolerance and silence. They needed Honduras to loan its territory more than they were concerned about innocent people being killed." (Wiki) How reassuring to see that our deputy secretary of state hasn't changed a bit; his response to the crisis in Pakistan is not unlike his response to what happened in Honduras; ethics are sacrificed at the altar of political, and economic expediency.
But, the larger question is - hasn't Washington had enough of this reptilian hubris? Isn't it time for glasnost? All this presidential preoccupation with the leader of Pakistan removing his uniform doesn't, in any sense, obscure the need for him to take off his mask, quit hiding behind executive privilege and, more imortantly, quit thinking he can run his government from underground.
Nobody gets to break the law, then make it law, not even in this country. As the song goes, "Even the president of the United States sometimes has to stand naked."
Moreover, if Mr. Bush feels that strongly about what he perceives to be a conflict of interest, why doesn't he step down as commander-in-chief, leave Iraq to Iraqis, and Iran to Iranians instead of pursuing a foreign policy that amounts to selective destruction. (AP)
The voluptuaries of power always say that power is about seduction, and seduction requires knowing what to hide. Arguably, few have mastered the fine art of obfuscation better than our 43rd president. But, even more than concern about conmingling military power with executive power, Mr. Bush's "frank discussion" with the Pakistani leader makes crystal clear his wishes: "The United States wants you to have the elections as scheduled and take your uniform off." In a phone call that lasted only 20 minutes, the president asked Musharraf to take his uniform off at least twice.
Not that I'm a big fan of the Pakistani leader, but how dare a president of any country tell a leader of another sovereign state how to dress! If, as it's said, clothes make the man, does it follow that uniforms make the dictator? If we were to put Musharraf in an Armani suit, would it make the current Stalin-lite arrests of thousands of dissidents, many of whom are practicing attorneys, suspension of his country's constitution, and declaration of a state of emergency, or martial law, any more acceptable?
All this talk of taking off uniforms is agitprop, and amounts to nothing more than a distraction from the fact that we're supporting a government which is holding its own people hostage while, at the same time, claiming to be our ally in a so-called war on terror. Just as robbing a bank doesn't have to involve holding a gun to a teller's head, one can embezzle money, hijacking a country doesn't come with a dress code. While this is a bloodless coup, it is the second one, in less than a decade, and while Musharraf agreed to hold elections, as scheduled, in January, he will not set a timeline for the suspension of martial law.
This pattern of doublespeak isn't altogether new, now is it? The campaign for "law and order," which is at the nucleus of Pakistan's current state of emergency, is nothing more than a subterfuge for suspension of civil liberties in order to guarantee eelection. The law and order theme is a familiar one, too. We have seen what a campaign for "law and order" has done for this country; we have more rancor and official lawlessness now than at any other time in our history, as exemplified by practices that amount to torture applied to those we detain under the pretext of ridding the world of terrorists, and the routine subversion of our privacy rights in an effort to criminalize communication among ordinary Americans. Military courts, in Pakistan, may now try those civilians who disagree with its policies on charges "ranging from treason to inciting public unrest." How long before we do the same thing here?
It's absurd that anyone can believe General Musharraf when he says there will be "absolutely fair and transparent elections" in his country which is now under martial law. Clearly, the Bush administration misses Saddam so much, they've created another Saddam to take his place. How curious, too, that we've just signed a nuclear enrichment deal with India in light of the fact that India and Pakistan are mortal foes.
It's also curious to see the word "transparent" used by Musharraf; the same word has been applied by our president to his government, but where in hell is the transparency to be found from an administration that blocks the testimony, before Congress, of a Marine Corps lawyer who insists that his prosecution of a terrorist was derailed because of the egregious interrogation tactics that were employed? Some in the Pentagon may forget that confessions acquired by torture are inadmissible in court.
Where is transparency in government to be found when Pentagon general counsel, William Haynes II, forbids a subordinate to testify before Congress? (WaPo) When key sections of military reports are redacted? When the White House can withhold millions of emails on the pretext of executive privilege? When the president coerces two of his aides to defy congressional subpoenas, and refuse to testify before a House committee investigating the spurious firing of nine attorneys-general?
How can this president call on a dictator, thousands of miles away, and insist that he follow democratic rule while, at the same time, two prominent members of Congress, Rep. John Conyers and Rep.Jerrold Nadler, have had to write to incoming Attorney General Mukasay, before his official swearing in, no less, to request the release of three Justice Department "secret" legal opinions justifying the use of "painful physical and psychological tactics" on those we detain, and interrogate. These congressmen are right when they suggest that the withholding of legal opinions, from Congress, is almost as troubling as the procedure itself.
And, what of recent revelations by Rep. Henry Waxman that, despite his protestations to the contrary, there is now strong evidence that convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff had "hundreds of lobbying contqacts with White House officials" which flies in the face of the president's claim that he doesn't know Abramoff. Is this what this president has in mind by "transparency" in government? If so, it is clearly the same kind of transparency asserted by General Musharraf.
One has only to look at Bush's choice for Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte, to see what a farce "compassionate conservatism" is.. Yes, this is the same Negroponte who describes Pakistan as a key ally in the war on terror, and Musharraf as invaluable to our efforts, and told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that "No country has done more in terms of inflicting damage and punishment on the Taliban and Al Qaeda since 9/ll." Yes, very impressive, as is the fact that Musharraf released 25 pro-Taliban fighters right after he suspended his country's constitution (NYT), after his own admission, years ago, "There is no doubt Afghan militants are supported from Pakistan soil."
Not only do recently declassified documents obtained by the National Security Archive reveal that the Taliban "was directly funded, armed, and advised by Islamabad itself," but much of the $11 billion we sent to the Pakistani general, after his coup, ended up in the hands of the Taliban and other "terrorist" groups, the same groups that Musharraf claims to be defending his country against by declaring martial law.
Yes, this is the same John Negroponte who as U.S. ambassador to Honduras, nearly a quarter of century ago, helped to boost military aid to that country tenfold to realize his objective of making Honduras a fortress against the revolutionary Sandinistas in neighboring Nicaragua, and who ignored the claims of his predecessor, Jack Binns, of numerous human rights abuses by the Honduran military Negroponte stubbornly denied having knowledge of any Honduran military wrongdoing, and even back then demonstrated a penchant for a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" mentality.
According to one former Honduran congressman, Mr. Negroponte's attitude was "one of tolerance and silence. They needed Honduras to loan its territory more than they were concerned about innocent people being killed." (Wiki) How reassuring to see that our deputy secretary of state hasn't changed a bit; his response to the crisis in Pakistan is not unlike his response to what happened in Honduras; ethics are sacrificed at the altar of political, and economic expediency.
But, the larger question is - hasn't Washington had enough of this reptilian hubris? Isn't it time for glasnost? All this presidential preoccupation with the leader of Pakistan removing his uniform doesn't, in any sense, obscure the need for him to take off his mask, quit hiding behind executive privilege and, more imortantly, quit thinking he can run his government from underground.
Nobody gets to break the law, then make it law, not even in this country. As the song goes, "Even the president of the United States sometimes has to stand naked."
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Norman Mailer's Lesson for Me
The below comes courtesy of New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston...
"Norman Mailer's Lesson for Me
In The Executioner's Song, Norman Mailer wrote six pages about me, calling me the finest of crime reporters and praising as the best one posed, a question I asked Larry Schiller to put to Gary Gilmore.
But Mailer got many of the facts, the kind journalists worry so much about, wrong. In one scene he has me riding in a taxi with Schiller. Actually, we were in a rented Oldsmobile and I was driving. In the Playboy adaptation he has me going to the Oregon trailer of Gilmore's mother. I never did, but I used to hang that except (from the Sept. 1980 issue) on the back of my bedroom door:
"When Dave Johnston fails you have a woman not ready to talk."
For all the specific detail errors for which a news reporter would be properly excoriated (and the book is laced with them), Mailer told truths far better than any of the many reporters, myself included, who covered the story.
By: David Cay Johnston
"Norman Mailer's Lesson for Me
In The Executioner's Song, Norman Mailer wrote six pages about me, calling me the finest of crime reporters and praising as the best one posed, a question I asked Larry Schiller to put to Gary Gilmore.
But Mailer got many of the facts, the kind journalists worry so much about, wrong. In one scene he has me riding in a taxi with Schiller. Actually, we were in a rented Oldsmobile and I was driving. In the Playboy adaptation he has me going to the Oregon trailer of Gilmore's mother. I never did, but I used to hang that except (from the Sept. 1980 issue) on the back of my bedroom door:
"When Dave Johnston fails you have a woman not ready to talk."
For all the specific detail errors for which a news reporter would be properly excoriated (and the book is laced with them), Mailer told truths far better than any of the many reporters, myself included, who covered the story.
By: David Cay Johnston
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Quotables...
President George W. Bush tells Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf today:
"You can't be president and the head of the military at the same time."
"You can't be president and the head of the military at the same time."
Monday, November 05, 2007
Channeling John ...
"She's not a girl who misses much
Do do do do do do- oh yeah!
She's well acquainted with the touch of the velvet hand
Like a lizard on a window pane
The man in the crowd with the multicoloured mirrors
On his hobnail boots
Lying with his eyes while his hands are busy
Working overtime
A soap impression of his wife which he ate
And donated to the National Trust
I need a fix 'cause I'm going down
Down to the bits that I left uptown
I need a fix cause I'm going down
Mother Superior jumped the gun
Mother Superior jumped the gun
Mother Superior jumped the gun
Mother Superior jumped the gun
Happiness is a warm gun
Happiness is a warm gun, momma
When I hold you in my arms
And I feel my finger on your trigger
I know nobody can do me no harm
Because happiness is a warm gun, momma
Happiness is a warm gun-Yes it is.
Happiness is a warm, yes it is...Gun!
Well don't ya know that happiness is a warm gun, momma?"
"Happiness is a Warm Gun" by John Lennon
I remember the day John Lennon was gunned down in front of the Dakota, all those years ago, and if he could speak today, he'd say connect the dots from the South Bronx to Baghdad, violence begets violence; hate begets hate; groups like the NRA are the symptom, not the disease. The disease is power, greed, and vengeance.
Nothing has changed in the 27 years , next month, since Lennon was slain that wicked cold day in New York, and he'd be the first to say so. No one, in either political party, will stand up to the gun lobby, and tell it like it is. Guns are more rampant, drive-by shootings have replaced bowling in our inner cities and there is more random street crime than ever
Whether it be in the field of battle, or the neighborhood schoolyard, the lust for violence must end; we need warm hearts not guns.
Oh, yes, and this, too, from John Lennon...
"All we are saying is give peace a chance."
Do do do do do do- oh yeah!
She's well acquainted with the touch of the velvet hand
Like a lizard on a window pane
The man in the crowd with the multicoloured mirrors
On his hobnail boots
Lying with his eyes while his hands are busy
Working overtime
A soap impression of his wife which he ate
And donated to the National Trust
I need a fix 'cause I'm going down
Down to the bits that I left uptown
I need a fix cause I'm going down
Mother Superior jumped the gun
Mother Superior jumped the gun
Mother Superior jumped the gun
Mother Superior jumped the gun
Happiness is a warm gun
Happiness is a warm gun, momma
When I hold you in my arms
And I feel my finger on your trigger
I know nobody can do me no harm
Because happiness is a warm gun, momma
Happiness is a warm gun-Yes it is.
Happiness is a warm, yes it is...Gun!
Well don't ya know that happiness is a warm gun, momma?"
"Happiness is a Warm Gun" by John Lennon
I remember the day John Lennon was gunned down in front of the Dakota, all those years ago, and if he could speak today, he'd say connect the dots from the South Bronx to Baghdad, violence begets violence; hate begets hate; groups like the NRA are the symptom, not the disease. The disease is power, greed, and vengeance.
Nothing has changed in the 27 years , next month, since Lennon was slain that wicked cold day in New York, and he'd be the first to say so. No one, in either political party, will stand up to the gun lobby, and tell it like it is. Guns are more rampant, drive-by shootings have replaced bowling in our inner cities and there is more random street crime than ever
Whether it be in the field of battle, or the neighborhood schoolyard, the lust for violence must end; we need warm hearts not guns.
Oh, yes, and this, too, from John Lennon...
"All we are saying is give peace a chance."
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Clarification on my NRA Piece
Since Atlantic Free Press ran my piece, "Another Poster Child for the NRA," nearly one month ago, I have been besieged with hate emails. Most of these are a result of the fact that someone evidently tagged a sentence on to the piece, as well as a disgusting graphic. Gun control has never been one of my issues, and it's not going to become one now. I merely wrote a piece expressing outrage at the proliferation of violence, and the abuse of handguns, assault rifles, and other firearms overall in society, as well as in that one isolated incident in a small town in Wisconsin.
So, by way of clarification, and for the absolute last time:
Please note: I never described members of the NRA, nor would I describe members of any group, as 'gun toting sickos.' I never used the word 'sicko' until now, nor am I responsible for the image that went with the original article. I have nothing but respect for law enforcement, hence my disappointment that there are some, even among police and clergy, who are corrupt, and do dastardly things. I was merely suggesting that anyone who wants peace, regardless of their uniform, join with others who wish to contain the ABUSE of firearms, and assault weapons.
There is so much that begs to be changed, in this society, why waste your valuable time and energy harassing a writer whose greatest crime is her naivete where human nature, and the viscera of the American gun culture, are concerned. You may keep your guns, with my pleasure, I can think of no better solution to the problem of overpopulation.
So, by way of clarification, and for the absolute last time:
Please note: I never described members of the NRA, nor would I describe members of any group, as 'gun toting sickos.' I never used the word 'sicko' until now, nor am I responsible for the image that went with the original article. I have nothing but respect for law enforcement, hence my disappointment that there are some, even among police and clergy, who are corrupt, and do dastardly things. I was merely suggesting that anyone who wants peace, regardless of their uniform, join with others who wish to contain the ABUSE of firearms, and assault weapons.
There is so much that begs to be changed, in this society, why waste your valuable time and energy harassing a writer whose greatest crime is her naivete where human nature, and the viscera of the American gun culture, are concerned. You may keep your guns, with my pleasure, I can think of no better solution to the problem of overpopulation.
Friday, November 02, 2007
No Wiggle Room.
There's no wiggle room when it comes to methods of interrogation, such as waterboarding, that raise palpable, and unavoidable questions about whether this government will find it in its power to nuance torture such that it becomes what this president has called "enhanced alternate" methods by which to extract information with coercion, and in violation of Geneva and international law. The days of letting glorified yes men, and evaders-in-chief slip through the cracks with a wink and a nod are over. Even if we deny accountability, and culpability, the rest of the world will hold us responsible, if not in our lifetimes than for generations to come.
Kudos to the senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for actively, and eloquently opposing Michael Mukasey's nomination for Attorney General. That Senators Feinstein and Schumer have said they will vote in support of Mukasey is a frightening statement about the kind of America our grandchildren will have to look forward to whether Democrats or Republicans win election, and hold office. No one who supports an ethos that consists of "the ends justifies the means," and the exercise of force over dialogue, deserves to sit in the Oval Office.
If a former First Lady, Nancy Reagan, could get as much mileage as she did out of the phrase "Just Say No to Drugs," it's time for those who represent all Americans, in Congress, to stand up, once and for all, and "Just Say No to Torture." As Voltaire once said, "Common sense is not so common." Stop the madness; stop it now.
Kudos to the senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for actively, and eloquently opposing Michael Mukasey's nomination for Attorney General. That Senators Feinstein and Schumer have said they will vote in support of Mukasey is a frightening statement about the kind of America our grandchildren will have to look forward to whether Democrats or Republicans win election, and hold office. No one who supports an ethos that consists of "the ends justifies the means," and the exercise of force over dialogue, deserves to sit in the Oval Office.
If a former First Lady, Nancy Reagan, could get as much mileage as she did out of the phrase "Just Say No to Drugs," it's time for those who represent all Americans, in Congress, to stand up, once and for all, and "Just Say No to Torture." As Voltaire once said, "Common sense is not so common." Stop the madness; stop it now.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Silencers are for Guns not People
Earlier this month, I wrote a piece called “Another Poster Child for the NRA” in response to a horrific and disturbing account of a young police officer, in a small town in Wisconsin, who apparently went insane, out of jealousy, and killed his girlfriend, and several friends. As one who has the utmost respect for law enforcement, what I found so shocking was that it was a member of the force who committed this crime.
It was never my intention to rant against the National Rifle Association, or law enforcement, but instead call for a closer look at a national ethos which enables, and legitimizes, the use of weapons, and deadly force in lieu of dedicated problem solving.
No sooner did my piece appear than I was besieged with hate mail, most of which came from National Rifle Association members, some from law enforcement, and the military, all of whom mistakenly seemed to think that I was targeting them with my comments. To the contrary, it is the intellectual climate, rife with fear and prejudice, one that provides safe haven, and immunity, for paid assassins while locking up protestors who belong to Code Pink. This newfangled militarism makes one nostalgic for the culture of narcissism..
So, by way of rejoinder: for openers, no one in their right mind would blame any one person, or group, for the outrageous escalation in violence in American society, much of it involving hand guns, in recent years. About a decade ago, then President Bill Clinton said “Every single day there are 13 children who die from guns.” How many more children are dying from guns today? Yet, there hasn’t been any gun control legislation since 1994, and those who defend their right to bear arms are ostensibly unnerved by the prospect that their friends, the hunters-in-chief, are leaving town.
Why this egregious absence of legislation attempting to stem the proliferation of assault rifles, hand guns, and illegal firearms in the past several years? A virile, righteous, and omnipresent gun lobby has successfully managed to silence their opposition, as has a vice president who, while he may not have the best aim, is himself a devout hunter, and a foreign policy which caters to the hunter ethos. Silencers aren’t only being used for firearms; they’re now handy ways to stifle dissent, too.
Indeed, the gun lobby has never been in better shape in Washington than it has been under the tutelage of President George W. Bush, so not a peep has been heard from those whose custom it is to speak out against guns, and the rash of violence in our nation’s public schools; schools like Columbine, Virginia Tech, in our nation’s inner cities, cities like Compton, East Los Angeles, in our nation’s workplaces. We’ve not heard a peep from the usual suspects who would be active in speaking up for more stringent laws to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of our youngsters.
Increasingly, in a world in which the American flag has become synonymous with another four letter word “duck,” and yet another “bomb,” this is not time to mince words. These folks who equate what they think of as their constitutional empowerment have, for the past several years, had a free ride, but now that a changing of the guard is in sight, they cling to their illusions of entitlement like a leper clings to what little skin he has left. And, to parody the Dylan Thomas poem, it’s as if every gun-toting Tom, Dick, and Harry decided not to go “gentle into that night,” but to “rage, rage, against the dying of the might.”
The gun lobby has managed to exercise that might religiously, and faithfully, to quiet their opposition, over the past half dozen years, because they have been the vocal majority, but that may be about to change, and they may well lose their leverage once the hunters, and Bible-thumpers, leave town. And, faced with the prospect of another Clinton in the White House, and the real prospect of yet again having to defend their right to bear arms, those who extol the virtues of the Second Amendment while ignoring the First and Fourth Amendments may be scared, scared of losing their leverage, scared they may be slipping. Violent crime isn’t slipping, though.
We’re experiencing what may be called a renaissance in violent crime, and can anyone not ask how it is that a youngster in high school can amass an arsenal in his bedroom which would rival any one might expect to find in a bunker in Baghdad, and how it is that moms and dads are giving Johnny his first gun for Christmas, as well as access to the kind of cache that could decimate an entire schoolyard? Why does it take a shooting at Columbine, or Virginia Tech to wake people up?
No one is suggesting, for a moment, that even if guns were to be eliminated from the face of the earth, random, and heinous crime would disappear with them. Where there’s a will to do grave bodily harm, there’s always a way.
It isn’t use of a weapon, per se, but the abuse of weapons, in general, and the lack of oversight that requires our attention. It’s not an issue with an occasional bad apple, in law enforcement, that requires our attention, but a culture in which intellectual lassitude is a way of life. Anyone possessing even a modicum of reason, whether they be a member of the NRA, or the AARP, can see there’s a need for all of us to sit down and talk about the proliferation and abuse of legal and illegal firearms, and how to keep guns out of the hands of those who can least handle them, even if they’ve been deputized to do so.
If it’s true, as we hear, that "guns don’t kill people;" rest assured that ignorance does. Awareness, and education, are essential steps in the direction of finding a solution, not sweeping, under the rug, all those who dare to speak up in violation of a code of silence that is as outmoded as it is deadly.
From the beginning of time, the forces of darkness have somehow managed to overpower, and silence, the forces of light. This explains the phenomenon of extinction. And, if things continue at this rate, we, too, will be staring down the barrel of an existential shotgun. One can only hope that it isn’t loaded.
It was never my intention to rant against the National Rifle Association, or law enforcement, but instead call for a closer look at a national ethos which enables, and legitimizes, the use of weapons, and deadly force in lieu of dedicated problem solving.
No sooner did my piece appear than I was besieged with hate mail, most of which came from National Rifle Association members, some from law enforcement, and the military, all of whom mistakenly seemed to think that I was targeting them with my comments. To the contrary, it is the intellectual climate, rife with fear and prejudice, one that provides safe haven, and immunity, for paid assassins while locking up protestors who belong to Code Pink. This newfangled militarism makes one nostalgic for the culture of narcissism..
So, by way of rejoinder: for openers, no one in their right mind would blame any one person, or group, for the outrageous escalation in violence in American society, much of it involving hand guns, in recent years. About a decade ago, then President Bill Clinton said “Every single day there are 13 children who die from guns.” How many more children are dying from guns today? Yet, there hasn’t been any gun control legislation since 1994, and those who defend their right to bear arms are ostensibly unnerved by the prospect that their friends, the hunters-in-chief, are leaving town.
Why this egregious absence of legislation attempting to stem the proliferation of assault rifles, hand guns, and illegal firearms in the past several years? A virile, righteous, and omnipresent gun lobby has successfully managed to silence their opposition, as has a vice president who, while he may not have the best aim, is himself a devout hunter, and a foreign policy which caters to the hunter ethos. Silencers aren’t only being used for firearms; they’re now handy ways to stifle dissent, too.
Indeed, the gun lobby has never been in better shape in Washington than it has been under the tutelage of President George W. Bush, so not a peep has been heard from those whose custom it is to speak out against guns, and the rash of violence in our nation’s public schools; schools like Columbine, Virginia Tech, in our nation’s inner cities, cities like Compton, East Los Angeles, in our nation’s workplaces. We’ve not heard a peep from the usual suspects who would be active in speaking up for more stringent laws to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of our youngsters.
Increasingly, in a world in which the American flag has become synonymous with another four letter word “duck,” and yet another “bomb,” this is not time to mince words. These folks who equate what they think of as their constitutional empowerment have, for the past several years, had a free ride, but now that a changing of the guard is in sight, they cling to their illusions of entitlement like a leper clings to what little skin he has left. And, to parody the Dylan Thomas poem, it’s as if every gun-toting Tom, Dick, and Harry decided not to go “gentle into that night,” but to “rage, rage, against the dying of the might.”
The gun lobby has managed to exercise that might religiously, and faithfully, to quiet their opposition, over the past half dozen years, because they have been the vocal majority, but that may be about to change, and they may well lose their leverage once the hunters, and Bible-thumpers, leave town. And, faced with the prospect of another Clinton in the White House, and the real prospect of yet again having to defend their right to bear arms, those who extol the virtues of the Second Amendment while ignoring the First and Fourth Amendments may be scared, scared of losing their leverage, scared they may be slipping. Violent crime isn’t slipping, though.
We’re experiencing what may be called a renaissance in violent crime, and can anyone not ask how it is that a youngster in high school can amass an arsenal in his bedroom which would rival any one might expect to find in a bunker in Baghdad, and how it is that moms and dads are giving Johnny his first gun for Christmas, as well as access to the kind of cache that could decimate an entire schoolyard? Why does it take a shooting at Columbine, or Virginia Tech to wake people up?
No one is suggesting, for a moment, that even if guns were to be eliminated from the face of the earth, random, and heinous crime would disappear with them. Where there’s a will to do grave bodily harm, there’s always a way.
It isn’t use of a weapon, per se, but the abuse of weapons, in general, and the lack of oversight that requires our attention. It’s not an issue with an occasional bad apple, in law enforcement, that requires our attention, but a culture in which intellectual lassitude is a way of life. Anyone possessing even a modicum of reason, whether they be a member of the NRA, or the AARP, can see there’s a need for all of us to sit down and talk about the proliferation and abuse of legal and illegal firearms, and how to keep guns out of the hands of those who can least handle them, even if they’ve been deputized to do so.
If it’s true, as we hear, that "guns don’t kill people;" rest assured that ignorance does. Awareness, and education, are essential steps in the direction of finding a solution, not sweeping, under the rug, all those who dare to speak up in violation of a code of silence that is as outmoded as it is deadly.
From the beginning of time, the forces of darkness have somehow managed to overpower, and silence, the forces of light. This explains the phenomenon of extinction. And, if things continue at this rate, we, too, will be staring down the barrel of an existential shotgun. One can only hope that it isn’t loaded.
Friday, October 26, 2007
The best way to check executive power...
Executive power should be checked at the door along with hats, scarves, and other mufflers.
Any world leader who makes so much noise that he can't hear the will of the people belongs in the coatroom not the Oval Office.
Any world leader who makes so much noise that he can't hear the will of the people belongs in the coatroom not the Oval Office.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Rhetorical Point Men
The president's weekly radio address this week had to do phishing---no, not the kind that results in a lot of spam in your mailbox, but the kind that got major Internet Service Providers and telecommunication companies to redact their own policy; the kind that got Congress to approve the legislation, last year, that grants the executive branch, and any other players, immunity from prosecution under the War Crimes Act of 1994.
Yes, this is the kind of fishing this president knows best, as well as the kind , that preoccupied his second in command, Mr. Cheney, and propelled him to assert that the world "cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions." (AP)
And, pray tell, which "terror-supporting state" is the vice president referencing? The one in Tehran, or the one that has supported Musharraf in Pakistan for the past decade? Josef Stalin would be proud of George W. Bush, albeit a bit saddened that he will no longer be remembered as the only Great Purger. Bush and Co. have done with language what Stalin did to his dissidents, no, not only torture, downright mutiliation. One has only to witness phrases like "axis of evil," "enhanced alternative interrogation techniques," "unlawful enemy combatants," and "war on terror" to know that this is one administration not seeking to protect the right to life of the English language.
Moreover, the Senate, last month, has opened the door to war with Iran by approving a resolution to label Iran's Islamic Iranian Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization." How convenient to use words like "knowledge," "terror," and "evil" as a means to abort information and justice. But, it gets even better.
At his news conference last week, the president nearly waxed poetic when he said "I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." Now then, don't you especially like the ubiquitous "them," the one size fits all variety which can just as easily accommodate Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Al Qaeda, Pakistan, China, and Russia? Don't you just love this concept of foreign policy in syndication; it's like watching re-runs of re-runs of re-runs with that sinking been there, done that, weak in the knee feeling you get when you know something's happening, but you don't know what it is, like the song goes.
Dame Dana Perino, White House spokesperson, who is almost as adept at damage control as her boss is at damage, was quick to point out that 43 isn't making "war plans," after all, but just a "rhetorical point." There's room on his dance card, a top military commander has said, for more misadventures like the one that has already cost us the lives of more than 3800 service members, as well as the lives of countless more Iraqis, "collateral damage," than anyone is ready, or willing, to admit.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
The Protect Who Act?
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.
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.
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...
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Move Over O.J.
O.J. blinked in court today when the charges against him were read. Somebody decided that should be front page news. America inhaled just long enough to eclipse the report yesterday that Congress is looking into allegations that a top official in the State Department, Inspector General Howard J. Krongard, used his "partisan political ties" to not only block investigations, but to completely ignore so-called "security lapses" at the U.S Embassy in Baghdad. Moreover, Krongard allegedly actively censored reports of fraud at the Embassy. (AP)
But, in the final analysis, who cares about "partisan political ties?" Given how quickly we put the U.S. attorney firings scandal to bed, not many. Given the dignified exit of a corrupt attorney-general, it wouldn't seem like anyone, with a pulse in America, gives a flying fajita about how toxic partisanship, in high places, can be.
Reassuring, isn't it, that our military isn't the only branch of government that has been found to routinely black out, or excise key details in reports of detainee abuse, or collateral damage in Iraq and Afghanistan. Equally reassuring when one considers how key parts of e-mails released by the White House, and pertaining to the U.S. attorney scandal, were also censored. But, why should anyone care about corruption in the State Department, the home mortgage debacle, the defeat of the habeas corpus restoration bill today in the Senate when the image of O.J. being handicuffed provides such allure, and such ratings.
Why, too, should anyone care about the "moderate" conservative the president has recommended to be our next attorney-general, retired federal judge Michael Mukasey? Does it matter that, immediately after 9/11, while chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Mukasey was a strong proponent of the dubious tactics the Bush regime employed to hold hundreds of "unlawful enemy combatants" in defiance of Geneva and the Fourth Amendment?
What extraordinary timing, too, now that this unitary executive has made clear his morbid desire to finalize proposed revisions to the FISA law, set to sunset in a couple of months, that allow for warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens, the president will, once again, find an attorney general who justified the use of "material witness warrants" as a way to detain "terrorism suspects" without formal charges. (WaPo) While some will argue that Mukasay is a moderate conservate, but that is like being slightly pregnant, no? If he is confirmed, In time, we will see that, apart from the occasional token attempt at dissent, the good judge is really not all that different from Gonzales.
Really, in the end, who cares about electronic surveillance, warrants, habeas corpus, State Department corruption, when we can have a healthy serving of scandal mixed in with our meat and potatoes. Who cares about stealing elections, or tasering twenty-year old students who ask too many questions at press conferences of former presidential candidates in Florida? Who cares if the new Baghdad embassy is being built as a result of "illegal labor trafficking?" (AP) Who cares if the earth burns up as a result of unregulated carbon monoxide emissions from our cars, and trucks roaming California freeways with huge balls of black smog thanks to Nafta? Who cares if we sign nuclear enrichment programs with countries like India while, at the same time, threatening to demolish Tehran for its nuclear enrichment programs? Who cares about non-proliferation with all this spell-binding footage, and audiotape of O.J. Simpson's surreal attempt to steal his own memorabiilia from a Las Vegas hotel.
To paraphrase Henny Youngman: "Take my democracy, please."
But, in the final analysis, who cares about "partisan political ties?" Given how quickly we put the U.S. attorney firings scandal to bed, not many. Given the dignified exit of a corrupt attorney-general, it wouldn't seem like anyone, with a pulse in America, gives a flying fajita about how toxic partisanship, in high places, can be.
Reassuring, isn't it, that our military isn't the only branch of government that has been found to routinely black out, or excise key details in reports of detainee abuse, or collateral damage in Iraq and Afghanistan. Equally reassuring when one considers how key parts of e-mails released by the White House, and pertaining to the U.S. attorney scandal, were also censored. But, why should anyone care about corruption in the State Department, the home mortgage debacle, the defeat of the habeas corpus restoration bill today in the Senate when the image of O.J. being handicuffed provides such allure, and such ratings.
Why, too, should anyone care about the "moderate" conservative the president has recommended to be our next attorney-general, retired federal judge Michael Mukasey? Does it matter that, immediately after 9/11, while chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Mukasey was a strong proponent of the dubious tactics the Bush regime employed to hold hundreds of "unlawful enemy combatants" in defiance of Geneva and the Fourth Amendment?
What extraordinary timing, too, now that this unitary executive has made clear his morbid desire to finalize proposed revisions to the FISA law, set to sunset in a couple of months, that allow for warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens, the president will, once again, find an attorney general who justified the use of "material witness warrants" as a way to detain "terrorism suspects" without formal charges. (WaPo) While some will argue that Mukasay is a moderate conservate, but that is like being slightly pregnant, no? If he is confirmed, In time, we will see that, apart from the occasional token attempt at dissent, the good judge is really not all that different from Gonzales.
Really, in the end, who cares about electronic surveillance, warrants, habeas corpus, State Department corruption, when we can have a healthy serving of scandal mixed in with our meat and potatoes. Who cares about stealing elections, or tasering twenty-year old students who ask too many questions at press conferences of former presidential candidates in Florida? Who cares if the new Baghdad embassy is being built as a result of "illegal labor trafficking?" (AP) Who cares if the earth burns up as a result of unregulated carbon monoxide emissions from our cars, and trucks roaming California freeways with huge balls of black smog thanks to Nafta? Who cares if we sign nuclear enrichment programs with countries like India while, at the same time, threatening to demolish Tehran for its nuclear enrichment programs? Who cares about non-proliferation with all this spell-binding footage, and audiotape of O.J. Simpson's surreal attempt to steal his own memorabiilia from a Las Vegas hotel.
To paraphrase Henny Youngman: "Take my democracy, please."
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
