from City Lights Books in San Francisco comes the following announcement...
CITY LIGHTS & THE COMMONWEALTH CLUB CELEBRATE HOWL'S 50TH!----------------
-------Wednesday, November 15th, from 5:30-7 pm
In 1956, City Lights published Allen Ginsberg's Howl and Other Poems. Soon after, City Lights publisher & owner Lawrence Ferlinghetti and City Lights store manager Shigeyoshi Murao were arrested, charged with publishing and distributing "obscene material." What followed is one of the most important first-amendment battles of the 20th century, with City Lights emerging victorious. Allen Ginsberg became a house-hold name, City Lights was known worldwide, and the court decision set a crucial precedent for subsequent free speech battles.
Please join City Lights as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the publication of Howl and Other Poems at a special event on Wednesday, November 15th, from 5:30- 7 pm, at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. Special Guests include: Marc Bamuthi Joseph, Artistic Director for Youth Speaks, reading from "Howl" followed by a panel discussion with Bill Morgan, editor of Howl on Trial: The Battle for Free Expression and author of the new biography, I Celebrate Myself: The Somewhat Private Life of Allen Ginsberg, Al Bendich, the attorney who successfully defended "Howl" at the original trial in 1957, Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director of the ACLU-NC, and Jason Shinder, Editor of Howl: Fifty Years Later.
The Club is located at 595 Market St, San Francisco, 94105.Get more info and advance tickets here: http://www.commonwealthclub.org/ & (415) 597-670015654005.htm
Yes, indeed, the publication of Ginsberg's poem "Howl" was "one of the most important first amendment battles of the twentieth century." That said, the road to publishing "Howl" was paved by precedent setting publication of James Joyce's great "Ulysses," and the brave sacrifices, struggles, and triumphs of Mr. Joyce, of course, as well as Sylvia Beach, as it wasn't until 1933 that "Ulysses" was allowed into the U.S., thanks to the landmark ruling of Judge Woolsey.
One wonders, given the current climate or repression and censorship, if what is widely regarded as the greatest novel in the English language would be allowed on our shores today. Alas, the fight to protect and preserve the First Amendment, my friends, is in its infancy.
Monday, October 09, 2006
here's a scandal for you...
For those who want something you can sink your teeth into, here's a scandal for you...
How is it that this president took us into Iraq when we have a lunatic like Kim Jong in North Korea playing ping pong with Japan, and China over threats to flex his newfound nuclear muscle, yet another in Iran fine tuning his arsenal, and another mass murderer hanging out in a cave somewhere outside Pakistan? What's more, how is it that Mah Jong and bin Laden are free to roam the cabin while a deposed, and largely irrelevant dictator, Saddam, has been disappeared by the American criminal justice system which has managed, simultaneously to also infect Iraq, Israel, and what's left of the "civilized" world?
The larger question, of course, is who cares about nuclear holocaust when we have elected officials who can't keep it in their laptop, and congressional "no fly" zones?
How is it that this president took us into Iraq when we have a lunatic like Kim Jong in North Korea playing ping pong with Japan, and China over threats to flex his newfound nuclear muscle, yet another in Iran fine tuning his arsenal, and another mass murderer hanging out in a cave somewhere outside Pakistan? What's more, how is it that Mah Jong and bin Laden are free to roam the cabin while a deposed, and largely irrelevant dictator, Saddam, has been disappeared by the American criminal justice system which has managed, simultaneously to also infect Iraq, Israel, and what's left of the "civilized" world?
The larger question, of course, is who cares about nuclear holocaust when we have elected officials who can't keep it in their laptop, and congressional "no fly" zones?
Sunday, October 08, 2006
The Truth and Anna P.
On Thursday, Bob Schieffer, renowned CBS newsman who has covered events in D.C. for more than three decades, said that he can't recall "a time when it's been more challenging for journalists." Schieffer was referring, of course, to the Bush administration's program of domestic surveillance, as well as a rash of frivolous grand jury subpoenas, over the past five years, coercing journalists to give up their confidential sources. Schieffer is right. There is no way news of extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, and Abu Ghraib would reach our shores were it not for reporters. The press, in this country, has acted as the watchdog for governmental transgressions; indeed, were it not for two Washington Post reporters, Richard Nixon might not have been forced to resign.
Less than 36 hours after Bob Schieffer's speech, a 48 year old celebrated investigative journalist in Russia, Anna Politkovskaya, who had been working copiously to expose the travesties of her government, under Vladimir Putin, was shot dead in the elevator of her apartment building in Moscow. Ms. Politkovskaya had received nearly a dozen awards from human rights, and international journalist groups such as Reporters without Borders, over the years, for her exemplary work exposing, and documenting, the slaughter, torture, and harassment of civilians by Russian soldiers in Chechnya. "People sometimes pay with their lives for saying out loud what they think," Ms. Politkovskyaya has been quoted as saying. (AP) Clearly, too, they pay the ultimate price for writing what they think as a book that she recently wrote which takes issue with Putin's campaign against "terror" in Chechnya, and reveals "widespread abuse of civilians by government troops" (AP) surely didn't win her any fans among Moscow's military elite.
This was not the first attempt on the life of this 48 year old mother of two. Back in 2004, she experienced symptoms of food poisoning after drinking tea during a Moscow flight to south Russia where she was covering a hostage crisis in a school. A few years before this incident, she reportedly received e-mail death threats seeking to avenge the reputation of a member of Russian law enforcement who she accused of torturing civilians. (AP) Still, nothing deterred her from her lifelong commitment to investigating, and exposing the travesties visited upon the Russian people by their government.
Anna P. was one of the few allowed into a theatre in Moscow held hostage by Chechen rebels, back in 2002, where she tried to negotiate with the militants. The fact that many of those who were in the theatre, at the time, later succumbed to gas poisoning served as the focus of much of her most recent investigative work, as well as her ongoing inquiry into the Putin regime's campaign of torture against Chechen "terrorists."
Nearly two dozen journalists have been killed in Russia over the past 8 years, many in Chechnya, making Russia among the most dangerous countries for journalists, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. (AP) Clearly, the syllabus for Journalism 101 doesn't include serving in a war, an undeclared war, no less, against the free flow of information, and a free press.
Human Rights Watch, in a report more than two years ago, notes that of the seven Russian detainees, at Guantanamo Bay, who were released by the U.S. government, six urged the U.S. not to release them saying they were afraid they'd be "tortured, or mistreated" when they got back home. "They were right," asserts HRW, "All seven have been variously harassed, detained, mistreated, and beaten since they set foot on Russian soil. Two have been convicted of terrorism after highly irregular trials. One was tortured in pre-trial detention. Three are in hiding after campaigns of intimidation and harassment by Russian law enforcement authorities." So, given how the Russian government harasses its citizens, it should come as no surprise how it treats one who exposes its campaign of beating, and intimidation of civilians in Chechnya.
Over the past 50 years, much of the world has the words "made in the USA" stamped all over it, which may explain why the Cold War ended not with a bang, but a whimper. Since the Berlin Wall came down, and the U.S.S.R was dissolved, a dreadful mimesis has maimed, and forever defaced, many autonomous nations. Only dogs bark at their own reflection in the mirror. Monsters often embrace what they see that most resembles themselves, and do the best they can to destroy anything that differs. Ineluctably, perhaps, but inevitably nonetheless, America has spread her campaign of fear, and secrecy globally.
So, while Russian prosecutors open an investigation into who, or what, killed this prominent reporter, and while they concede that "the killing could be linked to her work," (AP) it is up to those of us who care about getting the truth out to continue Anna Politkovskaya's mission to uncover those crimes that come within the parameters of normal governmental practice. We, in this country, can best do justice to her memory, as well as the memory of all those who keep us informed in these dark times, by acknowledging universally that torture must not be allowed to breed under the badge of terror, and demanding that crimes against journalists be seen, and punished, as crimes against humanity.
Anna Politkovskaya was a foot soldier in the campaign for truth, a free press, and a multidimensional view of the world as was Daniel Pearl, and others who will have received no accolades, and who won't be remembered except perhaps as a footnote in a history book yet to be written, thus it is up to each and every one of us to celebrate members of the press, one and all.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Outing Jeb...
Forget Mark Foley, the president's brother appears to have taken a fancy to hanging out in closets lately, too. As the AP reports, while taking his daily constitutional (no pun intended)walk on the campaign trail in Pittsburgh, Florida governor, and presidential brother, Jeb Bush, came across a horde of protestors on his way to a high stakes fundraiser for Pennsylvania's incumbent Republican senator, Rick Santorum.
A startled, and apparently unprepared, Bush, when confronted by this virulent group of "anti-Republican" demonstrators, which included rank and file members of United Steelworkers union, as well as an anti-war group, sought refuge. Indeed, word has it that the Pittsburgh protestors were so in his face that local law enforcement felt compelled to use stun guns to subdue a few of them, and the first brother, sensing that he was in color code orange country, took cover in the supply closet of a subway station to avoid the crowd.
As if hiding in a closet weren't enough, Bush reportedly also blew a kiss to an antiwar protestor who suggested that he go back where he came from. Hmmmm...one can only wonder what his ultra-conservative buddy, the Pennsylvania senator, must have said when he found out his key endorser would rather be in the closet than face-off against a bunch of left wing commie steelworkers.
Maybe that's where we could find his famous brother, the president, back in the Vietnam days, in some closet in Texas instead of flying aircraft in the national guard. And wouldn't the world be a much safer, and saner place if the president chose to continue to hide instead of antagonizing half the planet with his in-your-face rhetoric?
And, oh, if only we could be a fly on the bathroom wall of the posh Duquesne Club, where Friday's fundraiser was held,.so we coould hear the good senator''s response when he was told that his favorite scrabble buddy, Jeb Bush, took to cowering inside subway supply closets, and blowing kisses at anti-war protestors.. How "Kiss of the Spider Woman," really!
Consider the irony, after all, in that it was Rick Santorum, back in 2003, when discussing a high court battle over sodomy who declared: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." (AP) Well, if nothing else, Santorum can find some consolation in knowing that Jeb kept the closet warm for him.
A startled, and apparently unprepared, Bush, when confronted by this virulent group of "anti-Republican" demonstrators, which included rank and file members of United Steelworkers union, as well as an anti-war group, sought refuge. Indeed, word has it that the Pittsburgh protestors were so in his face that local law enforcement felt compelled to use stun guns to subdue a few of them, and the first brother, sensing that he was in color code orange country, took cover in the supply closet of a subway station to avoid the crowd.
As if hiding in a closet weren't enough, Bush reportedly also blew a kiss to an antiwar protestor who suggested that he go back where he came from. Hmmmm...one can only wonder what his ultra-conservative buddy, the Pennsylvania senator, must have said when he found out his key endorser would rather be in the closet than face-off against a bunch of left wing commie steelworkers.
Maybe that's where we could find his famous brother, the president, back in the Vietnam days, in some closet in Texas instead of flying aircraft in the national guard. And wouldn't the world be a much safer, and saner place if the president chose to continue to hide instead of antagonizing half the planet with his in-your-face rhetoric?
And, oh, if only we could be a fly on the bathroom wall of the posh Duquesne Club, where Friday's fundraiser was held,.so we coould hear the good senator''s response when he was told that his favorite scrabble buddy, Jeb Bush, took to cowering inside subway supply closets, and blowing kisses at anti-war protestors.. How "Kiss of the Spider Woman," really!
Consider the irony, after all, in that it was Rick Santorum, back in 2003, when discussing a high court battle over sodomy who declared: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." (AP) Well, if nothing else, Santorum can find some consolation in knowing that Jeb kept the closet warm for him.
an excerpt from "America's Anti-Torture Tradition," Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
The below excerpt was posted as a comment on a piece I wrote, "in time for Columbus Day," which appears on Huffington Post. It is from an article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. , from 2005, which appeared in The Los Angeles Times:
"George Washington, dead on point. "In 1776," wrote historian David Hackett Fischer in "Washington's Crossing," "American leaders believed it was not enough to win the war. They also had to win in a way that was consistent with the values of their society and the principles of their cause. One of their greatest achievements ... was to manage the war in a manner that was true to the expanding humanitarian ideals of the American Revolution." After capturing 1,000 Hessians in the Battle of Trenton, he ordered that enemy prisoners be treated with the same rights for which our young nation was fighting.
In an order covering prisoners taken in the Battle of Princeton, Washington wrote: "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren.... Provide everything necessary for them on the road."
America's Anti-Torture TraditionDecember 17, 2005 Los Angeles Times Robert F. Kennedy Jr.http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1217-30.htm...
"George Washington, dead on point. "In 1776," wrote historian David Hackett Fischer in "Washington's Crossing," "American leaders believed it was not enough to win the war. They also had to win in a way that was consistent with the values of their society and the principles of their cause. One of their greatest achievements ... was to manage the war in a manner that was true to the expanding humanitarian ideals of the American Revolution." After capturing 1,000 Hessians in the Battle of Trenton, he ordered that enemy prisoners be treated with the same rights for which our young nation was fighting.
In an order covering prisoners taken in the Battle of Princeton, Washington wrote: "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren.... Provide everything necessary for them on the road."
America's Anti-Torture TraditionDecember 17, 2005 Los Angeles Times Robert F. Kennedy Jr.http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1217-30.htm...
sense of direction...
Say what you will about him, while Christopher Columbus had a bad sense of direction in having mistaken America for India, this president demonstrated an even worse one when he brought us to Iraq.
Friday, October 06, 2006
No Fly List
Too bad somebody in "Homeland Security" didn't think to put Mark Foley on a "no fly" list...
In time for Columbus Day...
comes word, from Camp Pendleton, of a two page sworn affidavit sent this week to the Defense Department by Lt. Col. Colby Vokey, and reported by the Associated Press that got word of these allegations from a sergeant in the Marines that "striking detainees," at the controversial naval base in Cuba, is "common practice."
There are calls for an investigation into these charges which first surfaced from a claim by a paralegal who met several off duty guards at a bar, late last month, who boasted of such barbaric practices as banging detainees' heads against cell doors, depriving them of water, and prohibiting customary privileges without cause. As if that's not enough, the Marine sergeant also went so far as to describe the guards as sitting at the bar laughing while telling stories of beating Gitmo prisoners. Additionally, several guards bragged of "punching in the face" men in their custody. (AP)
Lt. Col. Colby Vokey, a "defense coordinator" for the Marine Corps., (AP) has called for a formal Defense Department inquiry into these allegations of abuse which he says are not only "offensive," but in violation of "United States and international law." Ahem...I'll say it once again, a high-ranking member of the Marine Corps. now suggests that the inhuman, and degrading actions of a group of marines, who happened to be caught confessing to their abusive practices while under the influence ,and whose actions are being described as commonplace, states, without equivocation, that these acts violate United States and international law.
Guantanamo Bay is now home to more than 400 so-called "enemy combatants" some of whom, over the past several months, have committed suicide; many of whom have engaged in massive hunger strikes, and only a handful of whom have been charged with criminal activity. The report that alleges guards boast of routine, senseless beatings was presented to the Department of Defense inspector general. While there are high profile Navy officers already stepping forward, and pledging to cooperate fully with this stunning investigation into what appear to be routine beatings for the hell of it, one wonders if the Joint Task Force promise to enforce "the safe and humane care and custody of detained enemy combatants" (AP) is little more than a bandaid on a wound that requires a tourniquet.
As Columbus Day approaches, one wonders what would our founding fathers say were they to learn about secret prisons, "enemy combatants," waterboarding, and routine beating of prisoners held only hundreds of miles away from Miami? If nothing else, Columbus Day is celebration of leadership, however misguided, thus it is appropriate to ask where were those "in command" when their subordinates engaged in these wanton, and criminal acts?
Surely, no rational person would believe, for a minute, that a group of several off duty guards at Camp Pendleton would openly describe, and relish these disgusting beatings to a total stranger in a bar without one commissioned officer being aware of them. Can it be that those in command look the other way when this abuse is taking place? If so, then these sergeants, lieutenants, and any officer who knew about these abuses must be held accountable. If we can expect the Speaker of the House to step down because of a cover up involving a member of Congress, then why, in the hell, don't we demand the same from our armed forces!
There are calls for an investigation into these charges which first surfaced from a claim by a paralegal who met several off duty guards at a bar, late last month, who boasted of such barbaric practices as banging detainees' heads against cell doors, depriving them of water, and prohibiting customary privileges without cause. As if that's not enough, the Marine sergeant also went so far as to describe the guards as sitting at the bar laughing while telling stories of beating Gitmo prisoners. Additionally, several guards bragged of "punching in the face" men in their custody. (AP)
Lt. Col. Colby Vokey, a "defense coordinator" for the Marine Corps., (AP) has called for a formal Defense Department inquiry into these allegations of abuse which he says are not only "offensive," but in violation of "United States and international law." Ahem...I'll say it once again, a high-ranking member of the Marine Corps. now suggests that the inhuman, and degrading actions of a group of marines, who happened to be caught confessing to their abusive practices while under the influence ,and whose actions are being described as commonplace, states, without equivocation, that these acts violate United States and international law.
Guantanamo Bay is now home to more than 400 so-called "enemy combatants" some of whom, over the past several months, have committed suicide; many of whom have engaged in massive hunger strikes, and only a handful of whom have been charged with criminal activity. The report that alleges guards boast of routine, senseless beatings was presented to the Department of Defense inspector general. While there are high profile Navy officers already stepping forward, and pledging to cooperate fully with this stunning investigation into what appear to be routine beatings for the hell of it, one wonders if the Joint Task Force promise to enforce "the safe and humane care and custody of detained enemy combatants" (AP) is little more than a bandaid on a wound that requires a tourniquet.
As Columbus Day approaches, one wonders what would our founding fathers say were they to learn about secret prisons, "enemy combatants," waterboarding, and routine beating of prisoners held only hundreds of miles away from Miami? If nothing else, Columbus Day is celebration of leadership, however misguided, thus it is appropriate to ask where were those "in command" when their subordinates engaged in these wanton, and criminal acts?
Surely, no rational person would believe, for a minute, that a group of several off duty guards at Camp Pendleton would openly describe, and relish these disgusting beatings to a total stranger in a bar without one commissioned officer being aware of them. Can it be that those in command look the other way when this abuse is taking place? If so, then these sergeants, lieutenants, and any officer who knew about these abuses must be held accountable. If we can expect the Speaker of the House to step down because of a cover up involving a member of Congress, then why, in the hell, don't we demand the same from our armed forces!
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Happy Birthday Fox News...
The below comes courtesy of Danny Schecter, and Newsdissector...
Fox News: Ten Years of Infamy HAPPY BIRTHDAY MR AILESNEW JUICY DETAILS, SEX SEX SEX, UGH!FAIR LAMBASTS NEWS HOUR (AGAIN!)Last night I was writing from the inside of an airplane in flight. Tonight, I am stuck on a runway heading to Detroit. We have been here for an hour and a half. My night is blown along with my connection. This whole air travel thing which was so exciting for me back in the day, is now an excuciating ordeal. The security people are testy and overzealous treating toiletries as akin to terrorists. We all permit their bullting and invasive inspections as in our best interest. I see it as a job creation program and the front face of uniformed fascism treating us all as sheep. The absurdity or it all will become clearer in the years to come.I am told that today is the tenth anniversary of an institution that has demonstrated the fine art of fusing news and propaganda. Fox News has been with us for a decade with its very presence not only polluting our political environment but moving all the other networks to the right.I was at their opening party. Somehow I ‘Made” the list with a fancy invite signed by Rupert himself. We wanted to shoot it but in a portend of things to come, our cameras were not allowed.One of our interns stood outside 12ll Sixth Avenue, behind a security cordon trying to videotape all the VIPS who trooped in to honor an emerging media power and genuflect to the mogul who ran the NY Post.
It was jammed. The offices,just down the block from the late and lamented Globalvision HQ, had, according to the architect I chatted with, been built in just 16 weeks. The equipment was state of the Art, and Roger Ailes, ruled the roost as if he was a legitimate newsman and not a GOP ad man and operative dispatched to wage a media war.\n\nRudy was there along with a gaggle of right wing pols. But there were others as well like Geraldo Rivera who was sniffing around for a new home which would soon welcome him. Walter Crronkite walked through as did Barbara Walters. I had a sense that something very big was about to happen TO TV News but I was not prepared for what did happen.\n\nWhat seemed clear was that the Fox News Channel was not about news, but rather about promoting one way of looking at news, using news. It was a blend of right-wing talk radio, “hot” motormouth ideologue-“personalities” and patriotic packaging with friendly blonds and lots of bombast. It was formula driven as one of it program consultants—who, ironically had formerly worked for the MacNeil Lehrer News Hour on PBS—explained to me. It was run in a top down way with a message of the day discipline as t he film OUTFOXED and others explained.
It was designed as “good TV” with the Fox and Friends Morning Show in the AM and Bill O’Reilly, who had worked for ABC and “A Current Affair” batting cleanup. His personal was deliberately exaggerated as if netywork was aping themost popular format on cable—wrestling—with its cartoon performers all following a script built around conflict, good guys and bad, and lots of action.\n\nI wrote about Foc’s birth and has tracked its role in accelerating the death of TV News. My book The More You Watch, The Less You Know has a chapter, “I. Rupert” that chronicles the rise of Murdochism in tekevision while my lastest, “The Death of Media and the Fight for Democracy”assesses the consequences.
For more on what it was like in the early days, read Jeff Cohen’s new book Cable News Confidential about his experiences there. Like many I was startled when the founder of FAIR—soon to mark its 20th anniversary was allowed on the air. Or when I was invited on with O’ Reilly or Sean Hannity. But I realized it was all part of staging food fights as a way to annoy liberals and build a right wing following. It was never aboit news—and still isn’t.",1]
It was jammed. The offices,just down the block from the late and lamented Globalvision HQ, had, according to the architect I chatted with, been built in just 16 weeks. The equipment was state of the Art, and Roger Ailes, ruled the roost as if he was a legitimate newsman and not a GOP ad man and operative dispatched to wage a media war.Rudy was there along with a gaggle of right wing pols. But there were others as well like Geraldo Rivera who was sniffing around for a new home which would soon welcome him. Walter Crronkite walked through as did Barbara Walters. I had a sense that something very big was about to happen TO TV News but I was not prepared for what did happen.What seemed clear was that the Fox News Channel was not about news, but rather about promoting one way of looking at news, using news. It was a blend of right-wing talk radio, “hot” motormouth ideologue-“personalities” and patriotic packaging with friendly blonds and lots of bombast. It was formula driven as one of it program consultants—who, ironically had formerly worked for the MacNeil Lehrer News Hour on PBS—explained to me. It was run in a top down way with a message of the day discipline as t he film OUTFOXED and others explained. It was designed as “good TV” with the Fox and Friends Morning Show in the AM and Bill O’Reilly, who had worked for ABC and “A Current Affair” batting cleanup. His personal was deliberately exaggerated as if netywork was aping themost popular format on cable—wrestling—with its cartoon performers all following a script built around conflict, good guys and bad, and lots of action.I wrote about Foc’s birth and has tracked its role in accelerating the death of TV News. My book The More You Watch, The Less You Know has a chapter, “I. Rupert” that chronicles the rise of Murdochism in tekevision while my lastest, “The Death of Media and the Fight for Democracy”assesses the consequences.For more on what it was like in the early days, read Jeff Cohen’s new book Cable News Confidential about his experiences there. Like many I was startled when the founder of FAIR—soon to mark its 20th anniversary was allowed on the air. Or when I was invited on with O’ Reilly or Sean Hannity. But I realized it was all part of staging food fights as a way to annoy liberals and build a right wing following. It was never aboit news—and still isn’t.
Fox Topper Roger Ailes seems to be looking forward to covering the end of the world:
There were deeper and more disturbing repercussions [to our having seen the towers fall on live TV], geopolitically and, to many, spiritually. "The implications from a television standpoint," says Roger Ailes, chairman of FOX News and FOX Television Stations, "are simply that: When the end of the world comes, we\'ll be able to cover it live until the last camera goes out. I believe I mean it literally. If you can witness something like [9/11] by two billion people, live, then there's nothing that can\'t be covered. And if we get into a world war, with nuclear weapons, I assume we\'ll be covering it live."
That foxy quote is from a new book WATCHING THE WORLD CHANGE: The Stories Behind the Images of 9/11 edited by David Friend Can’t wait, can you?
Fox News: Ten Years of Infamy HAPPY BIRTHDAY MR AILESNEW JUICY DETAILS, SEX SEX SEX, UGH!FAIR LAMBASTS NEWS HOUR (AGAIN!)Last night I was writing from the inside of an airplane in flight. Tonight, I am stuck on a runway heading to Detroit. We have been here for an hour and a half. My night is blown along with my connection. This whole air travel thing which was so exciting for me back in the day, is now an excuciating ordeal. The security people are testy and overzealous treating toiletries as akin to terrorists. We all permit their bullting and invasive inspections as in our best interest. I see it as a job creation program and the front face of uniformed fascism treating us all as sheep. The absurdity or it all will become clearer in the years to come.I am told that today is the tenth anniversary of an institution that has demonstrated the fine art of fusing news and propaganda. Fox News has been with us for a decade with its very presence not only polluting our political environment but moving all the other networks to the right.I was at their opening party. Somehow I ‘Made” the list with a fancy invite signed by Rupert himself. We wanted to shoot it but in a portend of things to come, our cameras were not allowed.One of our interns stood outside 12ll Sixth Avenue, behind a security cordon trying to videotape all the VIPS who trooped in to honor an emerging media power and genuflect to the mogul who ran the NY Post.
It was jammed. The offices,just down the block from the late and lamented Globalvision HQ, had, according to the architect I chatted with, been built in just 16 weeks. The equipment was state of the Art, and Roger Ailes, ruled the roost as if he was a legitimate newsman and not a GOP ad man and operative dispatched to wage a media war.\n\nRudy was there along with a gaggle of right wing pols. But there were others as well like Geraldo Rivera who was sniffing around for a new home which would soon welcome him. Walter Crronkite walked through as did Barbara Walters. I had a sense that something very big was about to happen TO TV News but I was not prepared for what did happen.\n\nWhat seemed clear was that the Fox News Channel was not about news, but rather about promoting one way of looking at news, using news. It was a blend of right-wing talk radio, “hot” motormouth ideologue-“personalities” and patriotic packaging with friendly blonds and lots of bombast. It was formula driven as one of it program consultants—who, ironically had formerly worked for the MacNeil Lehrer News Hour on PBS—explained to me. It was run in a top down way with a message of the day discipline as t he film OUTFOXED and others explained.
It was designed as “good TV” with the Fox and Friends Morning Show in the AM and Bill O’Reilly, who had worked for ABC and “A Current Affair” batting cleanup. His personal was deliberately exaggerated as if netywork was aping themost popular format on cable—wrestling—with its cartoon performers all following a script built around conflict, good guys and bad, and lots of action.\n\nI wrote about Foc’s birth and has tracked its role in accelerating the death of TV News. My book The More You Watch, The Less You Know has a chapter, “I. Rupert” that chronicles the rise of Murdochism in tekevision while my lastest, “The Death of Media and the Fight for Democracy”assesses the consequences.
For more on what it was like in the early days, read Jeff Cohen’s new book Cable News Confidential about his experiences there. Like many I was startled when the founder of FAIR—soon to mark its 20th anniversary was allowed on the air. Or when I was invited on with O’ Reilly or Sean Hannity. But I realized it was all part of staging food fights as a way to annoy liberals and build a right wing following. It was never aboit news—and still isn’t.",1]
It was jammed. The offices,just down the block from the late and lamented Globalvision HQ, had, according to the architect I chatted with, been built in just 16 weeks. The equipment was state of the Art, and Roger Ailes, ruled the roost as if he was a legitimate newsman and not a GOP ad man and operative dispatched to wage a media war.Rudy was there along with a gaggle of right wing pols. But there were others as well like Geraldo Rivera who was sniffing around for a new home which would soon welcome him. Walter Crronkite walked through as did Barbara Walters. I had a sense that something very big was about to happen TO TV News but I was not prepared for what did happen.What seemed clear was that the Fox News Channel was not about news, but rather about promoting one way of looking at news, using news. It was a blend of right-wing talk radio, “hot” motormouth ideologue-“personalities” and patriotic packaging with friendly blonds and lots of bombast. It was formula driven as one of it program consultants—who, ironically had formerly worked for the MacNeil Lehrer News Hour on PBS—explained to me. It was run in a top down way with a message of the day discipline as t he film OUTFOXED and others explained. It was designed as “good TV” with the Fox and Friends Morning Show in the AM and Bill O’Reilly, who had worked for ABC and “A Current Affair” batting cleanup. His personal was deliberately exaggerated as if netywork was aping themost popular format on cable—wrestling—with its cartoon performers all following a script built around conflict, good guys and bad, and lots of action.I wrote about Foc’s birth and has tracked its role in accelerating the death of TV News. My book The More You Watch, The Less You Know has a chapter, “I. Rupert” that chronicles the rise of Murdochism in tekevision while my lastest, “The Death of Media and the Fight for Democracy”assesses the consequences.For more on what it was like in the early days, read Jeff Cohen’s new book Cable News Confidential about his experiences there. Like many I was startled when the founder of FAIR—soon to mark its 20th anniversary was allowed on the air. Or when I was invited on with O’ Reilly or Sean Hannity. But I realized it was all part of staging food fights as a way to annoy liberals and build a right wing following. It was never aboit news—and still isn’t.
Fox Topper Roger Ailes seems to be looking forward to covering the end of the world:
There were deeper and more disturbing repercussions [to our having seen the towers fall on live TV], geopolitically and, to many, spiritually. "The implications from a television standpoint," says Roger Ailes, chairman of FOX News and FOX Television Stations, "are simply that: When the end of the world comes, we\'ll be able to cover it live until the last camera goes out. I believe I mean it literally. If you can witness something like [9/11] by two billion people, live, then there's nothing that can\'t be covered. And if we get into a world war, with nuclear weapons, I assume we\'ll be covering it live."
That foxy quote is from a new book WATCHING THE WORLD CHANGE: The Stories Behind the Images of 9/11 edited by David Friend Can’t wait, can you?
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Only Temporary?
A federal appeals court today gave permission to the Bush administration to continue its domestic surveillance program while awaiting a definitive ruling as to whether or not its much-maligned spying program is even constitutional.
As the AP has just reported, the decision of the three judge panel was unanimous, and came without explanation. Do we need an explanation as to why a patently illegal act should be allowed to continue while an appeals court decides its fate? I think so. Do we need an explanation as to why this president, or any president gets to put the Bill of Rights on life support, and jeopardize those values for which not one, but several generations of American service men and women have given their lives?
The government's argument to the court is that "the country will be more vulnerable to a terrorist attack" without the ability to monitor overseas electronic transmissions, and phone calls to or from the United States by alleged "terrorists," or anyone this president, and the State Department, believes to be "a terrorist." Ironically, it was at the urging, and insistence of the Justice Department that the appeals court allowed the program to remain in place while its legality is debated, a debate that will, more than likely, take several months. As we've seen from the war in Iraq, lots of damage can be done in several months. Nevertheless, this administration is on a loose leash, and was just given a free pass to continue its ongoing campaign, in violation of FISA, to pry, with impunity and with no oversight, into the personal phone records, and missives, of thousands of American citizens.
About six weeks ago, as you recall, a U.S. district judge in Detroit, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, ruled the Bush domestic spying program unconstitutional in that it "violates the right to free speech and privacy and the separation of powers" (AP) granted by the Constitution,but who needs "free speech and privacy and separation of powers?" Who needs accountabilty, either? Clearly not "we the people" who are too busy standing by watching the decimation of our civil liberties, as well as an ongoing campaign against dissent, while we do absolutely nothing.
Lately, we have heard speeches by our attorney general who seeks to tweak established, and time-honored definitions of torture such that hitherto unthinkable practices are now state sanctioned. And while it may be difficult, we must process, too, the fact that the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed by Congress a bit more than a week ago, grants immunity from war crimes charges to this president, and other members of an administration that has orchestrated, and delivered, some of the most heinous, and hateful war crimes in the history of the industrialized world.
While the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to allow this administration's warrantless spying program is "only temporary," one wonders if the aftermath of acquiescing to executive branch bullying, and the recent request from Attorney-General Gonzales for "judicial humility" will be temporary, too, or if the courts are starting to buckle under the weight of the notion of a "unitary executive branch."
Who was it said that the commander-in-chief is commander of the military only, and not of the country? Happily, the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit to stop this program which puts in jeopardy the work of many scholars, lawyers, and journalists whose international phone calls are being routinely intercepted, but we can hardly breathe easier for the hard work of one organization. It's time for all of us to own this government, lock, stock, and barrel, and take personal responsibility for its high crimes and misdemeanors just as it's time for members of the Supreme Court to do as Congress has, and not allow a runaway rogue emperor to wipe out more than 200 years of American jurisprudence, as well as 500 years of international law.
As the AP has just reported, the decision of the three judge panel was unanimous, and came without explanation. Do we need an explanation as to why a patently illegal act should be allowed to continue while an appeals court decides its fate? I think so. Do we need an explanation as to why this president, or any president gets to put the Bill of Rights on life support, and jeopardize those values for which not one, but several generations of American service men and women have given their lives?
The government's argument to the court is that "the country will be more vulnerable to a terrorist attack" without the ability to monitor overseas electronic transmissions, and phone calls to or from the United States by alleged "terrorists," or anyone this president, and the State Department, believes to be "a terrorist." Ironically, it was at the urging, and insistence of the Justice Department that the appeals court allowed the program to remain in place while its legality is debated, a debate that will, more than likely, take several months. As we've seen from the war in Iraq, lots of damage can be done in several months. Nevertheless, this administration is on a loose leash, and was just given a free pass to continue its ongoing campaign, in violation of FISA, to pry, with impunity and with no oversight, into the personal phone records, and missives, of thousands of American citizens.
About six weeks ago, as you recall, a U.S. district judge in Detroit, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, ruled the Bush domestic spying program unconstitutional in that it "violates the right to free speech and privacy and the separation of powers" (AP) granted by the Constitution,but who needs "free speech and privacy and separation of powers?" Who needs accountabilty, either? Clearly not "we the people" who are too busy standing by watching the decimation of our civil liberties, as well as an ongoing campaign against dissent, while we do absolutely nothing.
Lately, we have heard speeches by our attorney general who seeks to tweak established, and time-honored definitions of torture such that hitherto unthinkable practices are now state sanctioned. And while it may be difficult, we must process, too, the fact that the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed by Congress a bit more than a week ago, grants immunity from war crimes charges to this president, and other members of an administration that has orchestrated, and delivered, some of the most heinous, and hateful war crimes in the history of the industrialized world.
While the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to allow this administration's warrantless spying program is "only temporary," one wonders if the aftermath of acquiescing to executive branch bullying, and the recent request from Attorney-General Gonzales for "judicial humility" will be temporary, too, or if the courts are starting to buckle under the weight of the notion of a "unitary executive branch."
Who was it said that the commander-in-chief is commander of the military only, and not of the country? Happily, the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit to stop this program which puts in jeopardy the work of many scholars, lawyers, and journalists whose international phone calls are being routinely intercepted, but we can hardly breathe easier for the hard work of one organization. It's time for all of us to own this government, lock, stock, and barrel, and take personal responsibility for its high crimes and misdemeanors just as it's time for members of the Supreme Court to do as Congress has, and not allow a runaway rogue emperor to wipe out more than 200 years of American jurisprudence, as well as 500 years of international law.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Dr. Dean to the rescue...
Today, President Bush argued that Democrats have a "softer side" when it comes to fighting terrorism.
Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Committee, responded to the president's boast that his party has more staying power by saying:
"What's softer than giving up the hunt for Osama bin Laden and ignoring the 16 intelligence agencies who told him that the war in Iraq is making us less safe at home and around the world? It's time for the truth. All the tough talk in the world cannot hide the fact that President Bush and his GOP Congress's bad decisions have hurt America's security."
Indeed, we agree with Howard Dean, though it would certainly appear as if Republicans have a much harder, and stiffer approach; at least, from reading Rep. Foley's e-mails. Clearly, nobody can ever accuse this administration of having a flaccid foreign policy. In fact, if nothing else, the past six years with Bush, Cheney, and Rummy at the helm have shown that even the defense department is capable of overdosing on Viagra.
Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Committee, responded to the president's boast that his party has more staying power by saying:
"What's softer than giving up the hunt for Osama bin Laden and ignoring the 16 intelligence agencies who told him that the war in Iraq is making us less safe at home and around the world? It's time for the truth. All the tough talk in the world cannot hide the fact that President Bush and his GOP Congress's bad decisions have hurt America's security."
Indeed, we agree with Howard Dean, though it would certainly appear as if Republicans have a much harder, and stiffer approach; at least, from reading Rep. Foley's e-mails. Clearly, nobody can ever accuse this administration of having a flaccid foreign policy. In fact, if nothing else, the past six years with Bush, Cheney, and Rummy at the helm have shown that even the defense department is capable of overdosing on Viagra.
Monday, October 02, 2006
oh, and here's another one...
Here's another question for you: now that Mark Foley has caused such a stir, does anyone remember Jack Abramoff. Or, more to the point, does anyone care about Jack Abramoff, and his misadventures with the White House?. Last week, a congressional report was scheduled to be released that confirms "hundreds of contacts between the White House and the now disgraced Abramoff and his colleagues" including nearly 100 with the president's right hand, Karl Rove. (LA Times)
With all the fuss and focus on e-mails and instant messages sent by a Florida congressman to an underaged male page, nobody seems to have noticed the findings of a report by the House Government Reform Committee which comes after scrutiny of no fewer than "14,000 pages of e-mails and other documents obtained from Abramoff's law firm" that document that the fallen lobbyist had 400 contacts with Bush's inner circle between 2001 and 2004. (LA Times).
Capping their months' long investigation by the Republican-controlled House, the report offers "an unusually detailed glimpse into a sordid subculture of fraud and attempted influence peddling." (LAT) Indeed, but who cares about a "sordid subculture" that tries to corrupt, subvert, and buy elections when we have more captivating "sordid," and salacious things to contemplate, and salivate over, like an attempted seduction in cyberspace,
Yes, yes, yes, instant messaging 16 year old boys is scandalous, and in this land founded, and peopled, by card-carrying Puritans, one is not at all surprised that the corruption that gets the most spin is the kind that sells the most newspapers. But think about this for a minute: this entire Foley debacle has managed to deflect much-needed attention away from the crucial disclosure of irrefutable evidence that this president lied about his acquaintance with Jumping Jack... why isn't anyone talking about that. And, more importantly, why is the Democratic Party sitting on its hands and allowing the Repugs to manipulate what this country will, and will not, talk about only weeks before a critical election? Once again, the Republicans have stolen the ball, and are trying to make it to home base.
With all the fuss and focus on e-mails and instant messages sent by a Florida congressman to an underaged male page, nobody seems to have noticed the findings of a report by the House Government Reform Committee which comes after scrutiny of no fewer than "14,000 pages of e-mails and other documents obtained from Abramoff's law firm" that document that the fallen lobbyist had 400 contacts with Bush's inner circle between 2001 and 2004. (LA Times).
Capping their months' long investigation by the Republican-controlled House, the report offers "an unusually detailed glimpse into a sordid subculture of fraud and attempted influence peddling." (LAT) Indeed, but who cares about a "sordid subculture" that tries to corrupt, subvert, and buy elections when we have more captivating "sordid," and salacious things to contemplate, and salivate over, like an attempted seduction in cyberspace,
Yes, yes, yes, instant messaging 16 year old boys is scandalous, and in this land founded, and peopled, by card-carrying Puritans, one is not at all surprised that the corruption that gets the most spin is the kind that sells the most newspapers. But think about this for a minute: this entire Foley debacle has managed to deflect much-needed attention away from the crucial disclosure of irrefutable evidence that this president lied about his acquaintance with Jumping Jack... why isn't anyone talking about that. And, more importantly, why is the Democratic Party sitting on its hands and allowing the Repugs to manipulate what this country will, and will not, talk about only weeks before a critical election? Once again, the Republicans have stolen the ball, and are trying to make it to home base.
Question of the Day...
How many Puritans does it take to change a lightbulb? As many as it takes to fix an election....
Sunday, October 01, 2006
rancid complacency ...
Revelations today, from the Washington Post, that then National Security Advisor, Condeleezza Rice, was apprised by former head of the CIA, George Tenet, of the real and present danger of an imminent Al Qaeda hit, only 2 months before 9/11, and that her response was less than inspired, raises the following ineluctable, but inevitable question: can it be that the level of rancid complacency this administration has consistently demonstrated, from the outset, is tantamount to complicity with those acts most heinous to the safety, and stability of these United States?
"Operation Return to Sender"
In South Florida, not far from where Rep. Foley sent those notorious e-mails, a 30 year old Ukranian woman who, for the purpose of this article, will be called "B.M.," was arrested, two weeks ago, when she showed up at a local immigration office to update her green card papers. A legal alien resident of Florida, she is scheduled to be transferred soon to Krome Detention Center, outside Miami, and possibly deported back to her native Ukraine. Her arrest comes under a new immigration program called "Operation Return to Sender," and in the wake of new legislation passed, last week, by the Bush administration all but suspending habeas corpus for "enemy combatants.
The fact that this administration is using a pernicious new program to revoke the right to due process of those on our shores legally is egregious, and egregiously ignored by our legislators and media. As first reported by "the Raw Story," In a press release recently, Homeland Defense Secretary Michael Chertoff described "Operation Return to Sender" as a "tough interior enforcement strategy that seeks to catch and deport criminal aliens, increase worksite enforcement, and crack down hard on the criminal infrastructure that perpetuates illegal immigration." Chertoff further contends that the "fugitives captured in this operation threatened public safety in hundreds of neighborhoods and communities around the country." Notably, B.M. currently works as a recruiter placing engineers in positions nationwide with salaries averaging $150,000.
To suggest that an executive recruiter poses a threat to "public safety" is ludicrous. Equally absurd, and menacing to public safety in the largest possible sense, is news that the Ukranian woman has yet to be told the charges for which she is being held, not given notice that she was expected to appear before the Immigration and Custom Enforcement officers, nor told that she was subject to arrest and detention under this new "Return to Sender" program. Had B.M> not gone to her local immigration office for a routine green card update, it's entirely possible that she wouldn't be facing imminent detention in a holding cell outside Miami.
It appears that the most likely cause for flagging her file is that, back in 1989, "M" was convicted of a crime which was then not punishable by deportation. Laws passed in the 1990's that have been applied retroactively make her crime a deportable offense, according to Michael Keegan, a spokesman for the I.C.E. in Washington, D.C. However, immigration expert, and attorney, Mark Levey, argues that "she is nonetheless eligible for bond and for relief from removal based on her good character." ("Raw Story") We understand that the concept of "good character" is one that increasingly becomes more and more alien to members of the current administration, but when he was asked why she is only being arrested, detained, and on her way to being deported now, two decades later, I.C.E. spokesman Keegan responded by boasting about how much more effective I.C.E. is than its predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Indeed, and the Gestapo would be even more efficient.
Many of us were appalled, last week, by Congress' passage of new laws dealing with torture, treatment of detainees, and the implied suspension of habeas corpus. Forget "enemy combatants" being deprived of due process, according to Gino Sedikov, Maryanovsky's attorney, thousands of immigrants now currently sit in jails and detention centers, throughout the United States, with no hope for a review of the charges that brought them there.
Larisa Alexandrovna, managing news editor of "Raw Story," who is personally acquained with B.M. and her case, thinks it strange that in South Florida "where immigration targets are usually Cuban, South American, and Haitian" that a Ukranian Jew would be "arrested, held without charge, and her file goes missing," but she also finds it "odd that thousands of people are being swept up in these raids, we don't know their actual citizenship status, they are disappeared and held in detention facilities, and no one notices."
Arguably, it's even stranger that the mainstream press, and media, in this country have paid little, or no attention at all to "B.M's" story, and that of the many thousands who are currently being held without charge, and without legal recourse, as well as deported.We must not stand by and watch the wanton, and arbitrary suspension of due process in our own backyards, and members of our community, many of whom are legal aliens, have their constitutional rights suspended. This is not about "enemy combatants" anymore, it is about anyone this administration opts to target in its "Operation Return to Sender."
One can say something glib here like "let's return to sender, in November, all those who have compromised our national security in the name of protecting it, but sad to say, it may take more than one or two elections, more like one or two generations, to reverse the damage this administration's toxic legislation has done to our international credibility, and our moral fabric.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Good news from Reuters by way of Yahoo News...
U.S. terrorism trials face court challenges
By James Vicini Sat Sep 30, 9:26 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New military trial rules for terrorism suspects that
President George W. Bush' President George W. Bush endorsed and Congress approved will draw vigorous court challenges and could be struck down for violating rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, critics and legal experts said.
The legal battle will likely be ultimately decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court, which could be troubled the rules unconstitutionally restrict the suspects' rights, they said.
They cited the bill's provisions that strip foreign suspects of the right to challenge their detentions in U.S. courts, the broad definition of enemy combatants and what they described as unfair rules for military trials, including some use of hearsay and coerced evidence.
"I have no doubt that this is headed for the Supreme Court. Once again, the administration has overreached, and that makes it more likely that the court will strike it down," Stanford University law professor Jenny Martinez said.
"It allows the use of coerced evidence, which our laws have rejected since the founding of this country. It also denies noncitizens, including those in the U.S., access to court for fundamental human rights violations like torture," she said.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse defended the legislation as "plainly constitutional" and denied it foreclosed all judicial review.
'FAIR AND EFFECTIVE TRIALS'
"The military commissions established under the act provide the accused with the fundamental rights that will ensure fair and effective trials that fully satisfy all applicable standards under the Geneva Convention and our Constitution," he said.
The Supreme Court, by a 5-3 vote on June 29, struck down as illegal Bush's original system of military trials established after the September 11 attacks for prisoners at the
U.S. Navy'U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The ruling said the administration could either rely on the traditional U.S. court-martial system or seek congressional approval of rules to prosecute and interrogate the prisoners. The issue has become a major political battle before the November 7 elections in which control of Congress is at stake.
Democrats and even some Republican lawmakers said taking away the prisoners' right to have habeas corpus hearings in federal court was unconstitutional and would be struck down by the Supreme Court. The experts agreed.
"I believe that the court will conclude that the habeas- stripping provision is unconstitutional," said Eugene R. Fidell, a Washington attorney and military law expert who is president of the National Institute of Military Justice.
The bill expands the definition of "enemy combatants" to those who provide weapons, money and other support to terrorist groups. It defines conspiracy as a war crime, although four Supreme Court members in the majority in June said it was not a war crime.
"Just because Congress puts a stamp of approval on something, it does not necessarily mean it will pass constitutional muster before the Supreme Court," said Scott Silliman, a Duke University law professor and executive director at its Center on Law Ethics and National Security. He predicted the legality of the new rules would be a close issue for the courts. At the Supreme Court, it could come down to Justice
Anthony Kennedy Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote with four liberals and four conservatives.
Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners, vowed to challenge the removal of the habeas corpus rights.
Ratner said such an opportunity could arise when the administration moves to dismiss pending Guantanamo cases in order to apply the new rules. Defense lawyers could then respond by challenging the rules' constitutionality.
By James Vicini Sat Sep 30, 9:26 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New military trial rules for terrorism suspects that
President George W. Bush' President George W. Bush endorsed and Congress approved will draw vigorous court challenges and could be struck down for violating rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, critics and legal experts said.
The legal battle will likely be ultimately decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court, which could be troubled the rules unconstitutionally restrict the suspects' rights, they said.
They cited the bill's provisions that strip foreign suspects of the right to challenge their detentions in U.S. courts, the broad definition of enemy combatants and what they described as unfair rules for military trials, including some use of hearsay and coerced evidence.
"I have no doubt that this is headed for the Supreme Court. Once again, the administration has overreached, and that makes it more likely that the court will strike it down," Stanford University law professor Jenny Martinez said.
"It allows the use of coerced evidence, which our laws have rejected since the founding of this country. It also denies noncitizens, including those in the U.S., access to court for fundamental human rights violations like torture," she said.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse defended the legislation as "plainly constitutional" and denied it foreclosed all judicial review.
'FAIR AND EFFECTIVE TRIALS'
"The military commissions established under the act provide the accused with the fundamental rights that will ensure fair and effective trials that fully satisfy all applicable standards under the Geneva Convention and our Constitution," he said.
The Supreme Court, by a 5-3 vote on June 29, struck down as illegal Bush's original system of military trials established after the September 11 attacks for prisoners at the
U.S. Navy'U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The ruling said the administration could either rely on the traditional U.S. court-martial system or seek congressional approval of rules to prosecute and interrogate the prisoners. The issue has become a major political battle before the November 7 elections in which control of Congress is at stake.
Democrats and even some Republican lawmakers said taking away the prisoners' right to have habeas corpus hearings in federal court was unconstitutional and would be struck down by the Supreme Court. The experts agreed.
"I believe that the court will conclude that the habeas- stripping provision is unconstitutional," said Eugene R. Fidell, a Washington attorney and military law expert who is president of the National Institute of Military Justice.
The bill expands the definition of "enemy combatants" to those who provide weapons, money and other support to terrorist groups. It defines conspiracy as a war crime, although four Supreme Court members in the majority in June said it was not a war crime.
"Just because Congress puts a stamp of approval on something, it does not necessarily mean it will pass constitutional muster before the Supreme Court," said Scott Silliman, a Duke University law professor and executive director at its Center on Law Ethics and National Security. He predicted the legality of the new rules would be a close issue for the courts. At the Supreme Court, it could come down to Justice
Anthony Kennedy Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote with four liberals and four conservatives.
Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners, vowed to challenge the removal of the habeas corpus rights.
Ratner said such an opportunity could arise when the administration moves to dismiss pending Guantanamo cases in order to apply the new rules. Defense lawyers could then respond by challenging the rules' constitutionality.
amen...one can only hope that the Supreme Court that awarded the presidency to Mr. Bush in 2000, the same court that this president has tried to load with likeminded conservatives will indeed restore much-needed oversight to a runaway executive branch and provide, in the best sense of the phrase, poetic justice...
The Smoking Shorts....
The Democrats may have found the way to win back the Senate from those whose campaign for "family values" has just hit a major speed bump. As you know, Florida Republican Rep. Mark Foley resigned from Congress yesterday after the discovery of some e-mails he wrote to a former teenage male page. One much publicized Foley missive to the 16 year old former congressional page asks: "You in your boxers, too? Well, strip down and get naked." This isn't the first instance of congressional impropriety. In 1983, two members of the House were censured for their dalliances with teenage pages. (AP) But, as the president likes to remind us, that was before 9/11, and with FCC, as well as governmental emphasis on "indecency fines," this could well be the biggest boon for a Democratic takeover of Congress we've ever seen, that is, if the Dems take a lesson from Bill Clinton, and start speaking up.
There is more than a little irony in the fact that the suggestive e-mail was sent from the 52 year old congressman who represents Palm Beach County, also presides over the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, and has been actively engaged in efforts to eradicate Internet child pornography. Further, it was Rep. Foley who asserted that "We track library books better than we do sexual predators," a statement which, no doubt, has come back to haunt him today.
This is not about the congressman's sexuality, or his attempts to seduce young boys; this is about his duplicity, and the hypocrisy of the party he represents. Efforts to sensationalize whatever small glimmer of lust one can uncover (no pun intended) in the electronic conveyances are tangential. Our main concern must be not merely an attempt to compromise the innocence, and virtue of an underaged congressional page, but the ongoing politics of deception practiced by those who tell us that they want to "edit" out certain salacious words from a T.V. sitcom while, at the same time, bolstering reelection campaigns of those who send "horny" instant messages to our teenagers. Just as President Clinton is said to have been impeached not because of an inappropriate sex act in the Oval Office, Rep. Mark Foley must step down not because he wrote a few quasi-erotic missives to a former 16 year old page, but because he egregiously misrepresented, and lied to his electorate about his core values.
That said, in an age when many are quick to use the word "devil," few are willing to play the role of devil's advocate, so allow me. Hanging poor Foley's boxers out to dry, in public, is Puritanism in its finest hour, and while I'm no fan of instant messaging, especially when it involves sexual harassment of any kind, I don't think instant crucifixion is the way to go either. To my knowledge, Mr. Foley has not put one finger on the boy; his advances were solely in cyberspace. Have we devolved so far into born again moralism that we can no longer distinguish between acts, and intentions? If so, then are we to impugn former president Jimmy Carter who confessed to have lusted in his heart? Is it one thing to lust in one's heart, and another to flirt with a teenager on the Internet? Of course. But, is there a difference between writing a seductive e-mail, or even making a phone call, and sexual assault? I think there is.
Yes, yes, Rep. Foley's resignation from Congress is more than appropriate, and his resignation from the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus must follow, but if the radical right-wing thinks that by eliminating one chickenhawk they will "ex-foliate," and rid their party of the moral hypocrisy, and duplicity that came with Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich, and the November revolution of 1994, they'd better think again.
What's more, those Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, who call for an investigation into when the Republican leadership in the House first found out about Foley's transgressions are merely emulating their Republican counterparts by trying to lose themselves in committees, paperwork, and bureaucracy all the while ignoring the very real, and ripe, possibility that, for first time in more than a decade, the Democratic Party may well have found their smoking gun in a pair of boxer shorts, no less. Now the only question is whether or not they have high enough octane, and savvy, to rise to the occasion, and not engage in discourse over who knew what when, but turn Mr. Foley's boxers into the Swift Boat that defeats these Republican neo-con men in the upcoming midterm election, as well as in 2008.
There is more than a little irony in the fact that the suggestive e-mail was sent from the 52 year old congressman who represents Palm Beach County, also presides over the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, and has been actively engaged in efforts to eradicate Internet child pornography. Further, it was Rep. Foley who asserted that "We track library books better than we do sexual predators," a statement which, no doubt, has come back to haunt him today.
This is not about the congressman's sexuality, or his attempts to seduce young boys; this is about his duplicity, and the hypocrisy of the party he represents. Efforts to sensationalize whatever small glimmer of lust one can uncover (no pun intended) in the electronic conveyances are tangential. Our main concern must be not merely an attempt to compromise the innocence, and virtue of an underaged congressional page, but the ongoing politics of deception practiced by those who tell us that they want to "edit" out certain salacious words from a T.V. sitcom while, at the same time, bolstering reelection campaigns of those who send "horny" instant messages to our teenagers. Just as President Clinton is said to have been impeached not because of an inappropriate sex act in the Oval Office, Rep. Mark Foley must step down not because he wrote a few quasi-erotic missives to a former 16 year old page, but because he egregiously misrepresented, and lied to his electorate about his core values.
That said, in an age when many are quick to use the word "devil," few are willing to play the role of devil's advocate, so allow me. Hanging poor Foley's boxers out to dry, in public, is Puritanism in its finest hour, and while I'm no fan of instant messaging, especially when it involves sexual harassment of any kind, I don't think instant crucifixion is the way to go either. To my knowledge, Mr. Foley has not put one finger on the boy; his advances were solely in cyberspace. Have we devolved so far into born again moralism that we can no longer distinguish between acts, and intentions? If so, then are we to impugn former president Jimmy Carter who confessed to have lusted in his heart? Is it one thing to lust in one's heart, and another to flirt with a teenager on the Internet? Of course. But, is there a difference between writing a seductive e-mail, or even making a phone call, and sexual assault? I think there is.
Yes, yes, Rep. Foley's resignation from Congress is more than appropriate, and his resignation from the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus must follow, but if the radical right-wing thinks that by eliminating one chickenhawk they will "ex-foliate," and rid their party of the moral hypocrisy, and duplicity that came with Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich, and the November revolution of 1994, they'd better think again.
What's more, those Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, who call for an investigation into when the Republican leadership in the House first found out about Foley's transgressions are merely emulating their Republican counterparts by trying to lose themselves in committees, paperwork, and bureaucracy all the while ignoring the very real, and ripe, possibility that, for first time in more than a decade, the Democratic Party may well have found their smoking gun in a pair of boxer shorts, no less. Now the only question is whether or not they have high enough octane, and savvy, to rise to the occasion, and not engage in discourse over who knew what when, but turn Mr. Foley's boxers into the Swift Boat that defeats these Republican neo-con men in the upcoming midterm election, as well as in 2008.
Friday, September 29, 2006
"This is how a nation loses its moral compass..."
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said of Congress' passage, this week, of legislation which deprives so-called "enemy combatants" of habeas corpus:
"This is how a nation loses its moral compass, its identity, its values and, eventually, its freedom. . . . We rebelled against King George III for less restrictions on liberty than this."
Washington Post, September 27, 2006
"This is how a nation loses its moral compass, its identity, its values and, eventually, its freedom. . . . We rebelled against King George III for less restrictions on liberty than this."
Washington Post, September 27, 2006
Thursday, September 28, 2006
drama queens have their place...
Drama queens have their place, but not on Fox News, or so says Fox News chief Roger Ailes. What's ailing Ailes? The news chief tells the Associated Press that he was offended by what he calls former President Bill Clinton's "wild overreaction" to anchor Chris Wallace's cross-examination on Sunday. Can it be that Mr. Clinton wasn't prepared to take the witness stand? Moreover, it seems that Mr. Ailes cannot himself resist the temptation to engage in a bit of hyperbole when he refers to Clinton's tirade as "an assault on all journalists."
I suppose Ailes didn't consider it an assault on journalism, and a free press when two-thirds of their programming was devoted to Madame Monica, and the Fox hunt for articles of impeachment. Talk about "wild overreactions," to suggest that contempt for bias is hatred for journalists is the sort of thing one might expect from the publisher of the National Enquirer, but not the head of a major American television news network.
And, yes, what's ailing Ailes is that the former president responded with such vitriole to the "mild-mannered, and respectful" probing of anchor Chris Wallace. (AP) Indeed, Chris Wallace was about as retiscent as a seventh grade biology student sticking needles in an aesthesized frog. But, what happens when the anesthesia wears off? S urely the former president knew that when one enters a lion's den, one can expect to get a little mauled, particularly when that particular lion has a long history of mauling anything that doesn't reflect its own Republican and conservative worldview. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and other progressive media watchdog groups, have long chastised Fox for its one-sided, and myopic reporting. What we saw on Sunday is what happens when a victim strikes back, and the victim ain't Fox News!
There is no small irony in the Fox news chief accusing a president who was violated by the neo-con news media of assaulting "all journalists." The press, in this country, was among the first casualties of the war on terror. The media has been plundered and raped by new FCC regulations which impose gargantuan, and obscene "indecency" fines on networks, and broadcasters, thereby censoring what we say and see on TV, and in the movies.
There is no small irony in the head of the penultimate conservative news network calling a former president who they previously scapegoated a hater of journalists in that, over the past five years, we've seen more harassment of the press than even Joe McCarthy could have imagined. So it is that a president, long famous for his drama queen antics, has now met his match in the head of Fox news who epitomizes purple prose in describing the victimization of his esteemed anchor.
After all, can we expect less than rage from a president who was tried, and convicted by the right wing media, and who has dared to speak up, finally, because he has nothing left to lose, but what's left of his dignity, and suggest that while the radical right are at the business of pointing fingers,they should point one in the right direction at the current president; and this constitutes an "assault on journalists?" After all, Fox knows a bit about assault; they've been attacking the truth for years.
Yes, yes, drama queens have their place, but it's not running network news shows.
I suppose Ailes didn't consider it an assault on journalism, and a free press when two-thirds of their programming was devoted to Madame Monica, and the Fox hunt for articles of impeachment. Talk about "wild overreactions," to suggest that contempt for bias is hatred for journalists is the sort of thing one might expect from the publisher of the National Enquirer, but not the head of a major American television news network.
And, yes, what's ailing Ailes is that the former president responded with such vitriole to the "mild-mannered, and respectful" probing of anchor Chris Wallace. (AP) Indeed, Chris Wallace was about as retiscent as a seventh grade biology student sticking needles in an aesthesized frog. But, what happens when the anesthesia wears off? S urely the former president knew that when one enters a lion's den, one can expect to get a little mauled, particularly when that particular lion has a long history of mauling anything that doesn't reflect its own Republican and conservative worldview. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and other progressive media watchdog groups, have long chastised Fox for its one-sided, and myopic reporting. What we saw on Sunday is what happens when a victim strikes back, and the victim ain't Fox News!
There is no small irony in the Fox news chief accusing a president who was violated by the neo-con news media of assaulting "all journalists." The press, in this country, was among the first casualties of the war on terror. The media has been plundered and raped by new FCC regulations which impose gargantuan, and obscene "indecency" fines on networks, and broadcasters, thereby censoring what we say and see on TV, and in the movies.
There is no small irony in the head of the penultimate conservative news network calling a former president who they previously scapegoated a hater of journalists in that, over the past five years, we've seen more harassment of the press than even Joe McCarthy could have imagined. So it is that a president, long famous for his drama queen antics, has now met his match in the head of Fox news who epitomizes purple prose in describing the victimization of his esteemed anchor.
After all, can we expect less than rage from a president who was tried, and convicted by the right wing media, and who has dared to speak up, finally, because he has nothing left to lose, but what's left of his dignity, and suggest that while the radical right are at the business of pointing fingers,they should point one in the right direction at the current president; and this constitutes an "assault on journalists?" After all, Fox knows a bit about assault; they've been attacking the truth for years.
Yes, yes, drama queens have their place, but it's not running network news shows.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Selective Deception
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, issued a caveat today that the Bush administration must be "very cautious and very restrained about the kind of information we want to give to al-Qaida." (AP) By only partially releasing a previously classified National Intelligence Estimate report, by the nation's 16 intelligence agencies, that alleges an escalating terror threat, indeed one that has ncreased in direct proportion to this government's "preemptive" military actions, the president, and his "defense ministers," are censoring, and manipulating, what information reaches the American people, and Congress.
White House press secretary Tony Snow, and others who defend partial declassification, insist that if the entire contents of the report were to be made public, "the independence of people doing intelligence analysis" would be compromised. (AP) Excuse me, but why this sudden concern about protecting the lives and "independence" of intelligence analysts from an administration that has been complicit in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame? Is it this government's job to assess, and select which investigators, and investigations are to be concealed, which revealed, and whose lives are worth protecting?
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld's politics of selective deception, which is egregiously demonstrated by the politically timed, and executed declassification of an "abridged" version of the findings of more than a dozen national intelligence agencies corrolates, and fits nicely with their ongoing pattern of seduction by secrecy. Keep in mind that we are being shortchanged by agencies that are sponsored by our taxpayer dollars. Maybe if Congress, and the citizens of this county stood up, and demanded to see the complete contents of those intelligence reports that got us into the war in Iraq, in the first place, we wouldn't be talking about the need to release these findings today.
Over the past 24 hours, much has been said about Iraq having become the "cause celebre" for terrorists. Clearly, Iraq has become not merely a "cause celebre,"and a training ground, but a fraternity house for jihadists. Over the past several hours, too, we've heard our president call "naive" those who believe that our campaign to topple Saddam in Iraq has only resulted in proliferation of Islamic fundamentalist holy warriors, as well as expansion of terror threat. From our president also comes the following rationalization: "My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions." (AP) Yes, yes, Mr. Bush is right, the global jihadists have "ambitions" just like we do. Funny thing about the desire for world domination, it's often accompanied by ambition. Now why doesn't the president open up the entire NIE report so that we can all see, and gauge the threat, as well as the ambitions of those, on both sides of the equation, who engage in ongoing military action that compromises the security, and sanity of the human race.
White House press secretary Tony Snow, and others who defend partial declassification, insist that if the entire contents of the report were to be made public, "the independence of people doing intelligence analysis" would be compromised. (AP) Excuse me, but why this sudden concern about protecting the lives and "independence" of intelligence analysts from an administration that has been complicit in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame? Is it this government's job to assess, and select which investigators, and investigations are to be concealed, which revealed, and whose lives are worth protecting?
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld's politics of selective deception, which is egregiously demonstrated by the politically timed, and executed declassification of an "abridged" version of the findings of more than a dozen national intelligence agencies corrolates, and fits nicely with their ongoing pattern of seduction by secrecy. Keep in mind that we are being shortchanged by agencies that are sponsored by our taxpayer dollars. Maybe if Congress, and the citizens of this county stood up, and demanded to see the complete contents of those intelligence reports that got us into the war in Iraq, in the first place, we wouldn't be talking about the need to release these findings today.
Over the past 24 hours, much has been said about Iraq having become the "cause celebre" for terrorists. Clearly, Iraq has become not merely a "cause celebre,"and a training ground, but a fraternity house for jihadists. Over the past several hours, too, we've heard our president call "naive" those who believe that our campaign to topple Saddam in Iraq has only resulted in proliferation of Islamic fundamentalist holy warriors, as well as expansion of terror threat. From our president also comes the following rationalization: "My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions." (AP) Yes, yes, Mr. Bush is right, the global jihadists have "ambitions" just like we do. Funny thing about the desire for world domination, it's often accompanied by ambition. Now why doesn't the president open up the entire NIE report so that we can all see, and gauge the threat, as well as the ambitions of those, on both sides of the equation, who engage in ongoing military action that compromises the security, and sanity of the human race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
