by Richard L. Franklin
4/30/08
'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'
Thomas Jefferson, who was a true son of the Enlightenment, made sure these sacred truths were given a prominent spot in the great Declaration. He placed them first among human rights because they are axiomatic for the building of a true democracy.
As you know, an axiom is a self-evident truth that requires no proof or evidence to be accepted as true. Axioms are truths we can embrace without reflection or reasoning. If you had geometry in high school, you will recall having first learned a number of axioms that were givens. You then learned how to prove a variety of assertions that could always be traced back to the axioms.
The Enlightenment held that certain assertions are sacred, axiomatic, and meant to be permanently built into the foundation of any true democracy. Jefferson did something stunning when he announced a great democratic trinity to the whole world. He told the world in a few simple words that there were certain self evident truths and that, 'among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' Among all the words ever written or spoken, I admire and cherish those words above all the words ever spoken.
I've written more than once on the right to life and why a democratic state has no moral or democratic right kill its own citizens. When asked to state my reasons for my vehement objection to capital punishment, I usually offer as a basic reason for my hatred of capital punishment the fact that it is 'undemocratic' in the deepest sense of that term.
Such killings by the state grossly violate a sacred, treasured, self-evident principle of any true democracy. Alas, this response invariably triggers totally blank looks from even bright, well educated people. They see no philosophical problems with authorizing the state to kill its own citizens. I've always found it passing strange that these people have often seen or heard the initial words of the great declaration, but those words do not seem to have any deep meaning for them.
I also have often written about the third member of the trinity, the pursuit of happiness, and the prerequisites for every person to be able to pursue self-growth and relish the happiness that is born of that growth. Such elements as free universal healthcare and free universal education are foundational for the pursuit and embrace of happiness. How can a human being find happiness while wallowing in sickness and ignorance? I see those two features of society as self-evident human rights that must be implemented by a truly democratic society
The second member of the trinity, liberty, was meant to be a condition all citizens could use to achieve self-growth and happiness. It took many generations and considerable struggle, but liberty was theoretically finally given a major boost by the 14th Amendment which sought to include all citizens under an umbrella of freedom. At least it was trumpeted as doing so, but it is clear today that it needed to go further.
A major flaw of the great amendment is it failed to somehow cover homosexuals and lesbians, who have yet to be actually given the same civil rights enjoyed by a majority of Americans. Freedom in America has always been a slow work in progress, and perhaps that was inevitable from day one. The ancient Greeks were clearly prescient in their belief that there was a powerful, perhaps overwhelming tendency of all democracies to degenerate into a tyranny of the majority.
Although it seems to have been forgotten by nearly all Americans, the primary reason for writing and passing a Constitution was to protect the rights of minorities from a tyranny of the majority, so all citizens could freely seek self-growth and happiness without interference from majority groups. The founders had struggled mightily to find a way to deal with the absolute certainty of the ancient Greek philosophers that all democracies inevitably degenerate into a tyranny of the majority, and they somehow deceived themselves into believing they had solved that problem with the American constitution.
The founders, like the ancient Greeks, were initially convinced all democracies would indeed eventually degenerate into a tyranny of the majority. It was inherent in any pure democracy to eventually slide into a tyranny of the majority. Perhaps this was a proclivity deeply rooted in human nature.
After much discussion and debate, the founders eventually came up with an ingenious concept to prevent this from happening. The answer to the problem that they agreed upon was that of a constitutionally based democratic republic. Underline 'constitutional'. A written, agreed to document would be the device that would forever protect minorities from persecutions by majorities.
We grow up being told the founding fathers had designed a brilliant system of government that would forever stabilize and preserve our democracy. But it wasn't brilliant at all. In fact, it was poorly designed, and America would soon become a corporate industrial plutocracy overseeing massive poverty, unmitigated abuse of workers and children during the industrial revolution, thousands of lynchings, exploitation of women, and so forth
The current movement that is spreading from state to state to amend state constitutions so as to ban gays and lesbians from being able to enter into the same civil contracts that heterosexual men and women can freely enter into is a naked violation of a basic part of the sacred trinity --- an absolute, egalitarian right to pursue one's happiness.
Perhaps even worse, these revisions of state constitutions sabotage the very purpose of the constitutions that are now being altered in state after state. Americans apparently do not even know that those same constitutions originally came into existence to protect minorities from persecution by a majority. Most Americans seemingly believe constitutions are there for the benefit of the majority. This ignorance has been a huge impediment to the growth and nurturing of a true democracy.
Constitutional amendments and state laws that ban certain groups from entering into the same civil contracts the majority of Americans can freely enter into are profoundly violative of a member of the great trinity --- the unfettered pursuit of happiness. Gays and lesbians also want to exchange vows and gain the hundreds of advantages granted to married couples under state and federal laws and to be fully integrated into civil society.
So what has happened along the way since Jefferson first enunciated those three great, self-evident truths, and proclaimed them to the world? The tragic truth is that the great trinity has had every one of its three members grossly violated, mangled, or simply disregarded. When I tell folks we do not have a democracy in America that even comes close to the democracy the great Enlightenment thinkers hoped America would grow into, they only look at me blankly and have no idea where I'm coming from.
It's true the slaves were finally freed, and women finally were allowed to vote, but the progress was horrendously slow and bloody. Even during my lifetime there were states in America that had capital punishment laws for those who practiced sodomy, death statutes that clearly were meant to be selectively enforced against only gays. Lynchings were still a popular pastime in the deep South. And raped women were still being victimized a second time in the courts.
With eight years of Bush and a cowardly, obsequious Congress prostrating itself in the face of an ongoing transformation of America into a neofascist state, we have now radically back pedaled even further from the Enlightenment concepts of democratic freedom. Brutally put, today we barely have even a sham democracy.
I offer my apologies for using so many words to say a few simple things about the self evident truths that were once so hopefully proclaimed to the world and which have been repeatedly butchered. I guess I simply wanted to recall for a moment the world's first proclamation by a national state of three self-evident, transcendent, glorious truths, and how tragic it is that the American people have blown it by allowing greedy corporatists, militarists, racists, homophobes, sexists and other anti-democratic Americans to shred the great American dream.
Benjamin Franklin feared the American people would never manage to keep their new republic. Other great Americans have voiced similar fears. Consider the touching words of Abraham Lincoln:
'I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.'
Richard L. Franklin is the author of ‘The Mythology of Self Worth’.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
My Pastor Is Holier Than Yours
by Mary Pitt
4/29/08
I am constantly amazed at the obscure details that politicians will dig up to cast aspersions upon the personal lives of their opponents in order to keep the people from looking at the issues. Lately we are being exposed to the "Preacher Scandal" where each candidate is expected to tell their pastor to just shut up!
The good Rev. Wright is drawing fire, much of which is singeing Senator Barack Obama, because he is a prime example of what a black pastor is expected to be, an oratorical firebrand who inspires his people to hope for freedom and equality. In return, people are looking askance at Senator John McCain for accepting the endorsement of the radical fundamentalist ministers who are cheering on our wasteful Middle East war in the hope for Armageddon
The mainstream media is having a field day with this minutia while parading "experts" on both politics and religion across our screen. Hours of air time are spent on this trivia while the soldiers keep dying in Iraq, the criminality of the Pentagon policies, the brutal treatment, not only of our prisoners, but of our "all-volunteer" servicewomen, is conveniently swept under the rug and onto the back pages of the newspapers.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, homes are being foreclosed by predatory lenders, gasoline prices are in the stratosphere, and the cost of even food has become prohibitive. Meanwhile, the small amount of money that is left in the pockets of the working class is being rooted out to pay for health care, medications, and the very basics of life in order to enrich still further the corporate thieves in the board rooms. Those scoundrels are aware that their time is short and they must gouge all they can from the working class before the current administration leaves office and their gravy train ends.
What will stop this debacle of democracy when the new administration leaves office? It is almost impossible to find out, since nobody is talking about the issues. We know that Senator Hillary Clinton can put on a phony rural accent on command and that Senator Barack Obama is an accomplished wordsmith, but what will they DO to correct the course of our nation? Both have tiptoed around the health issues, speaking of "tax credits" "help with paying insurance premiums", but it is indefinite and brings to mind comments about "treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease".
None of them have even mentioned the Presidential signing statements and executive exceptions which have slammed the door to "open government" and effectively neutered the Congress and the courts. Would any of the candidates continue that policy? Who knows?
Plans to leave Iraq are "off the table" for McCain and amorphous in the proposals from the Democratic candidates. McCain wants to ameliorate the pain of gas prices by suspending the taxes paid at the pump at the risk of further deteriorating highways. Hillary Clinton suggests a "windfall profits" tax on corporations but Barack Obama is too busy defending himself from the charges against Pastor Wright to develop any plan at all that we have heard.
It would seem that the American voter would have the discernment to realize which way the smoke is blowing and to shout, "Enough!" This whole tragicomedy of a political campaign has descended into farce as the "pundits" mis-speak and mis-quote. The speeches in question were not "sermons" delivered in his Chicago church as depicted by Chris Matthews and others, but speeches delivered at conferences and meetings of black leaders. If Obama had been sitting in that pew for every Sunday of his twenty-year membership, he would have heard none of them!
But we have all heard Jerry Falwell and John Hagee and their pronouncements about the wrath of God as the reasons for each of the disasters that have befallen our country as well as the other calls from the Fundamentalist pastors of divine retaliation for our failure to embrace their faith. They do not ask for God to damn America but tell us that He already has! We should pay no more attention to the professional rantings of Pastor Wright than we do to those of the Fundamentalists and get on with the process of choosing the next leader of out nation. If we must pray for something, let it be that we still have a nation to govern in January, 2009.
4/29/08
I am constantly amazed at the obscure details that politicians will dig up to cast aspersions upon the personal lives of their opponents in order to keep the people from looking at the issues. Lately we are being exposed to the "Preacher Scandal" where each candidate is expected to tell their pastor to just shut up!
The good Rev. Wright is drawing fire, much of which is singeing Senator Barack Obama, because he is a prime example of what a black pastor is expected to be, an oratorical firebrand who inspires his people to hope for freedom and equality. In return, people are looking askance at Senator John McCain for accepting the endorsement of the radical fundamentalist ministers who are cheering on our wasteful Middle East war in the hope for Armageddon
The mainstream media is having a field day with this minutia while parading "experts" on both politics and religion across our screen. Hours of air time are spent on this trivia while the soldiers keep dying in Iraq, the criminality of the Pentagon policies, the brutal treatment, not only of our prisoners, but of our "all-volunteer" servicewomen, is conveniently swept under the rug and onto the back pages of the newspapers.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, homes are being foreclosed by predatory lenders, gasoline prices are in the stratosphere, and the cost of even food has become prohibitive. Meanwhile, the small amount of money that is left in the pockets of the working class is being rooted out to pay for health care, medications, and the very basics of life in order to enrich still further the corporate thieves in the board rooms. Those scoundrels are aware that their time is short and they must gouge all they can from the working class before the current administration leaves office and their gravy train ends.
What will stop this debacle of democracy when the new administration leaves office? It is almost impossible to find out, since nobody is talking about the issues. We know that Senator Hillary Clinton can put on a phony rural accent on command and that Senator Barack Obama is an accomplished wordsmith, but what will they DO to correct the course of our nation? Both have tiptoed around the health issues, speaking of "tax credits" "help with paying insurance premiums", but it is indefinite and brings to mind comments about "treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease".
None of them have even mentioned the Presidential signing statements and executive exceptions which have slammed the door to "open government" and effectively neutered the Congress and the courts. Would any of the candidates continue that policy? Who knows?
Plans to leave Iraq are "off the table" for McCain and amorphous in the proposals from the Democratic candidates. McCain wants to ameliorate the pain of gas prices by suspending the taxes paid at the pump at the risk of further deteriorating highways. Hillary Clinton suggests a "windfall profits" tax on corporations but Barack Obama is too busy defending himself from the charges against Pastor Wright to develop any plan at all that we have heard.
It would seem that the American voter would have the discernment to realize which way the smoke is blowing and to shout, "Enough!" This whole tragicomedy of a political campaign has descended into farce as the "pundits" mis-speak and mis-quote. The speeches in question were not "sermons" delivered in his Chicago church as depicted by Chris Matthews and others, but speeches delivered at conferences and meetings of black leaders. If Obama had been sitting in that pew for every Sunday of his twenty-year membership, he would have heard none of them!
But we have all heard Jerry Falwell and John Hagee and their pronouncements about the wrath of God as the reasons for each of the disasters that have befallen our country as well as the other calls from the Fundamentalist pastors of divine retaliation for our failure to embrace their faith. They do not ask for God to damn America but tell us that He already has! We should pay no more attention to the professional rantings of Pastor Wright than we do to those of the Fundamentalists and get on with the process of choosing the next leader of out nation. If we must pray for something, let it be that we still have a nation to govern in January, 2009.
Monday, April 28, 2008
nattering on
I watched the NBC news tonight. these were the stories as best as I can remember.
Tax rebate; Price of gas; Rev Wright & Obama; Hannah Montana; Crumbling infrastructure; Gorillas.
This is what you missed.
4 US soldiers killed; militants shell Green Zone
Slobodan Lekic, AP News
Apr 28, 2008 15:35 EST
Bombardments by suspected militants killed four U.S. soldiers Monday as troops tried to push Shiite fighters farther from the U.S.-protected Green Zone and out of range of their rockets and mortars.
At least 44 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq in April, making it the deadliest month for U.S. forces since September... http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=146286
The “mainstream media”, or more appropriately, the Consolidated Corporate Media of America, (CCMA) is doing its job. Its “job”, its assignment if you will, is to do whatever it can to keep the corporatists in power.
The dollar is crumbling, so the price of oil is galloping, which causes food prices, and everything else to rise, and the Fed will probably lower their interest rate again tomorrow to try to protect the profits of the corporatists, which will again lower the value of the dollar, which will cause the price of oil to climb, and so on. But hey! you’re getting money from the IRS. So, as our beloved leader, the enlightened one and anointed by god, the conqueror of Mesopotamia, the little bush, says, “Don’t worry. Go shopping”. And don’t forget your flag lapel pin.
And yet we natter on, about Obama’s pastor, and his bitter comment, and even Clinton’s sniper problem. And whatever other inane and trivial thing that can distract us from the ugly truth of what America has become.
The Torture Election
Monday, 28 April 2008
Chris Floyd
http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1494/135/
As the presidential horse race grows more frenzied and absurd -- Flag pins! Bowling! Obliteration!-- it is important to keep in mind what the election is really about: torture.
Specifically, the use of torture as an openly admitted, formally recognized instrument of national policy, approved at the highest level of government. The Bush Administration has now dropped all pretense that it is not engaging in interrogation techniques and incarceration practices long recognized by both international and U.S. law as blatantly criminal. What's more, the Administration boldly asserts that the president can simply ignore laws prohibiting torture if he feels that circumstances warrant the use of "interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law," the New York Times reported over the weekend.
(The Washington Post had a similar story -- similarly buried deep inside the paper. A brazen declaration of presidential tyranny -- in the service of torture, no less -- was considered worth mentioning somewhere in the "papers of record," but obviously not worth making a big fuss about.)
Torture is at the very heart of the Bush presidency, the most quintessential manifestation of its governing philosophy: a "Commander-in-Chief" state, where presidential directives can override any law in the name of "national security." The use of torture demonstrates that not even the most heinous crimes -- including techniques used by Nazi sadists and KGB brutes -- are beyond the pale of the "unitary executive's" arbitrary will. On the basis of this authoritarian power -- established through a series of presidential orders and "legal" opinions by appointed lackeys -- many other crimes can be "justified": aggressive war; kidnapping and rendition; indefinite detention; secret prisons; warrantless surveillance; even the "extrajudicial killing" of people the president designates as terrorists or terrorist "suspects."
The highest officials of the Bush Administration have gone to enormous lengths to twist, pervert and destroy legal precepts that have been in force in Anglo-American law for centuries -- precisely because they know that their policies are criminal under any reasonable understanding of the law. Bush, and the likely prime mover of the torture regime, longtime authoritarian Dick Cheney, were told at the very beginning that the policies they were instigating would leave them and their minions open to criminal charges. That's why the Administration's legal hacks have devoted so much relentless attention on subverting the Geneva Conventions, which are incorporated into and have the full force of American law.
Bush and his minions know that if the rule of law is ever restored -- even partially and imperfectly -- they will be rightly be subject to prosecution, imprisonment and possibly even execution.
And this is why torture is the core issue -- perhaps the only real issue -- in the presidential campaign. Iraq is not really an issue; whoever wins, the war will go on, in one form or another. Even under the so-called withdrawal plans of the "progressive" candidates, Americans will be killing and dying in Iraq for years to come. As for the economy, by their own admission none of the presidential aspirants will do anything more than tinker around the edges of the present rapacious system -- an unholy marriage of crony capitalism and corporate socialism that has devastated America's communities, left millions with harsher, diminished lives, corrupted civic society and degraded and homogenized American culture. For the elite factions that thrive on war profits and the brutal economic structure, none of the candidates represents a serious enough threat for any action -- beyond the usual lying, sabotage, vote-rigging and media manipulation to get their favorite into power, of course.
But torture is a different matter. Consider how many very powerful people -- and hundreds of their minions -- face very serious charges if the next president decides to apply the law. Will they really allow this to happen? Or even risk allowing this to happen?
Right now, the torturers control the military and the security apparatus, including many secret forces and units that we know little or nothing about. They have already used these assets to launch a war of aggression, to instigate a system of torture, to spy without restraint on the American people, and to imprison anyone in the world they claim is a terrorist. Why should we imagine that they will draw the line at using these assets to save themselves from prison -- or the poison needle?
It would seem then that the Bush Administration has only two choices: cut a deal with the candidates on torture -- or eliminate them from the race, one way or another. It goes without saying that John McCain will do nothing but revel in the authoritarian powers brought into the open by Bush; certainly it is inconceivable that he would ever prosecute the instigators of the Bush torture regime. Thus the focus here falls on the winner of the Democratic nomination.
It is Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton who will have to come to terms with the Bush team on torture. (If they have not already done so, that is. Given the intimate, growing personal ties between the Bushes and the Clintons, one could plausibly surmise that Clinton at least has already signalled her benevolent intentions on this point. But perhaps not. The true relations of our ruling families remain forever obscured from the rabble. Meanwhile, Obama is clearly leaning in the "right" direction, as noted here, although he retains a little wiggle room; perhaps he's not yet sealed the deal.)
In the most benign scenario for these negotiations, perhaps some small fry will be offered up as a PR sop for the victor. Just as Scooter Libby took the fall for Karl Rove (in another obvious backroom deal), we might see John Yoo or that despised putz-for-all-seasons, Doug Feith, put on trial, while Bush, Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice and the other "principals" go free.
But it is much more likely that any acknowledgement of criminality will be unacceptable to the torturers. It would establish a principle -- or rather, re-establish a principle -- that would forever leave them open to future prosecution.
So again, we come down to a stark choice for the Democratic candidate: either agree to "move on" from "bitter partisan rancor" over "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- or else. There are of course several ways to eliminate someone from public life; the tools have been refined somewhat since the days when "lone gunmen" stalked the land, removing inconvenient figures.
But given the proven nature of the Bush team -- and the dire consequences they face from any normal, rightful application of the law -- we should assume that they will do whatever it takes to escape those consequences.
And that's why torture is the decisive issue of this campaign. But this decision will not be in the hands of the voters; it will be made -- as most of the decisions that govern our lives are made -- in the inner sanctums of elite power.
Tax rebate; Price of gas; Rev Wright & Obama; Hannah Montana; Crumbling infrastructure; Gorillas.
This is what you missed.
4 US soldiers killed; militants shell Green Zone
Slobodan Lekic, AP News
Apr 28, 2008 15:35 EST
Bombardments by suspected militants killed four U.S. soldiers Monday as troops tried to push Shiite fighters farther from the U.S.-protected Green Zone and out of range of their rockets and mortars.
At least 44 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq in April, making it the deadliest month for U.S. forces since September... http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=146286
The “mainstream media”, or more appropriately, the Consolidated Corporate Media of America, (CCMA) is doing its job. Its “job”, its assignment if you will, is to do whatever it can to keep the corporatists in power.
The dollar is crumbling, so the price of oil is galloping, which causes food prices, and everything else to rise, and the Fed will probably lower their interest rate again tomorrow to try to protect the profits of the corporatists, which will again lower the value of the dollar, which will cause the price of oil to climb, and so on. But hey! you’re getting money from the IRS. So, as our beloved leader, the enlightened one and anointed by god, the conqueror of Mesopotamia, the little bush, says, “Don’t worry. Go shopping”. And don’t forget your flag lapel pin.
And yet we natter on, about Obama’s pastor, and his bitter comment, and even Clinton’s sniper problem. And whatever other inane and trivial thing that can distract us from the ugly truth of what America has become.
The Torture Election
Monday, 28 April 2008
Chris Floyd
http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1494/135/
As the presidential horse race grows more frenzied and absurd -- Flag pins! Bowling! Obliteration!-- it is important to keep in mind what the election is really about: torture.
Specifically, the use of torture as an openly admitted, formally recognized instrument of national policy, approved at the highest level of government. The Bush Administration has now dropped all pretense that it is not engaging in interrogation techniques and incarceration practices long recognized by both international and U.S. law as blatantly criminal. What's more, the Administration boldly asserts that the president can simply ignore laws prohibiting torture if he feels that circumstances warrant the use of "interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law," the New York Times reported over the weekend.
(The Washington Post had a similar story -- similarly buried deep inside the paper. A brazen declaration of presidential tyranny -- in the service of torture, no less -- was considered worth mentioning somewhere in the "papers of record," but obviously not worth making a big fuss about.)
Torture is at the very heart of the Bush presidency, the most quintessential manifestation of its governing philosophy: a "Commander-in-Chief" state, where presidential directives can override any law in the name of "national security." The use of torture demonstrates that not even the most heinous crimes -- including techniques used by Nazi sadists and KGB brutes -- are beyond the pale of the "unitary executive's" arbitrary will. On the basis of this authoritarian power -- established through a series of presidential orders and "legal" opinions by appointed lackeys -- many other crimes can be "justified": aggressive war; kidnapping and rendition; indefinite detention; secret prisons; warrantless surveillance; even the "extrajudicial killing" of people the president designates as terrorists or terrorist "suspects."
The highest officials of the Bush Administration have gone to enormous lengths to twist, pervert and destroy legal precepts that have been in force in Anglo-American law for centuries -- precisely because they know that their policies are criminal under any reasonable understanding of the law. Bush, and the likely prime mover of the torture regime, longtime authoritarian Dick Cheney, were told at the very beginning that the policies they were instigating would leave them and their minions open to criminal charges. That's why the Administration's legal hacks have devoted so much relentless attention on subverting the Geneva Conventions, which are incorporated into and have the full force of American law.
Bush and his minions know that if the rule of law is ever restored -- even partially and imperfectly -- they will be rightly be subject to prosecution, imprisonment and possibly even execution.
And this is why torture is the core issue -- perhaps the only real issue -- in the presidential campaign. Iraq is not really an issue; whoever wins, the war will go on, in one form or another. Even under the so-called withdrawal plans of the "progressive" candidates, Americans will be killing and dying in Iraq for years to come. As for the economy, by their own admission none of the presidential aspirants will do anything more than tinker around the edges of the present rapacious system -- an unholy marriage of crony capitalism and corporate socialism that has devastated America's communities, left millions with harsher, diminished lives, corrupted civic society and degraded and homogenized American culture. For the elite factions that thrive on war profits and the brutal economic structure, none of the candidates represents a serious enough threat for any action -- beyond the usual lying, sabotage, vote-rigging and media manipulation to get their favorite into power, of course.
But torture is a different matter. Consider how many very powerful people -- and hundreds of their minions -- face very serious charges if the next president decides to apply the law. Will they really allow this to happen? Or even risk allowing this to happen?
Right now, the torturers control the military and the security apparatus, including many secret forces and units that we know little or nothing about. They have already used these assets to launch a war of aggression, to instigate a system of torture, to spy without restraint on the American people, and to imprison anyone in the world they claim is a terrorist. Why should we imagine that they will draw the line at using these assets to save themselves from prison -- or the poison needle?
It would seem then that the Bush Administration has only two choices: cut a deal with the candidates on torture -- or eliminate them from the race, one way or another. It goes without saying that John McCain will do nothing but revel in the authoritarian powers brought into the open by Bush; certainly it is inconceivable that he would ever prosecute the instigators of the Bush torture regime. Thus the focus here falls on the winner of the Democratic nomination.
It is Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton who will have to come to terms with the Bush team on torture. (If they have not already done so, that is. Given the intimate, growing personal ties between the Bushes and the Clintons, one could plausibly surmise that Clinton at least has already signalled her benevolent intentions on this point. But perhaps not. The true relations of our ruling families remain forever obscured from the rabble. Meanwhile, Obama is clearly leaning in the "right" direction, as noted here, although he retains a little wiggle room; perhaps he's not yet sealed the deal.)
In the most benign scenario for these negotiations, perhaps some small fry will be offered up as a PR sop for the victor. Just as Scooter Libby took the fall for Karl Rove (in another obvious backroom deal), we might see John Yoo or that despised putz-for-all-seasons, Doug Feith, put on trial, while Bush, Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice and the other "principals" go free.
But it is much more likely that any acknowledgement of criminality will be unacceptable to the torturers. It would establish a principle -- or rather, re-establish a principle -- that would forever leave them open to future prosecution.
So again, we come down to a stark choice for the Democratic candidate: either agree to "move on" from "bitter partisan rancor" over "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- or else. There are of course several ways to eliminate someone from public life; the tools have been refined somewhat since the days when "lone gunmen" stalked the land, removing inconvenient figures.
But given the proven nature of the Bush team -- and the dire consequences they face from any normal, rightful application of the law -- we should assume that they will do whatever it takes to escape those consequences.
And that's why torture is the decisive issue of this campaign. But this decision will not be in the hands of the voters; it will be made -- as most of the decisions that govern our lives are made -- in the inner sanctums of elite power.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
A Liberal View of the News
by Mary Pitt
4/23/08
Liberals, can you read the writing on the wall? The American people are being set up again. Hillary Clinton, with the assistance of the same old political tactics and the same old political mainstream media pundits has become the Come-Back Kid! Watch her march to the White House in triumph as she and her husband retaliate for the humiliation of having left it in shame. She will persuade the super-delegates of her party to end the Obama challenge and then walk all over poor old John McCain to once again take control of the government. And, once again, we will see the famous Clinton "compromise and coalition".
But Hillary is not Bill. We must bear in mind the Republican roots of Senator Clinton. She still carries the thought processes of the Goldwater Girl of the 1960's and she easily slides into compliance with the Republican mindset. Early in the campaign, when the true Liberals were discussing the health crisis and pushing for universal single-payer health care, Ms. Clinton offered her proposal for mandatory insurance, (a Romney program), which is nothing more nor less than the same kind of insurance company rip-off as is Medicare Part D. When others were demanding withdrawal from Iraq, she was saying that we will have to stay indefinitely "in order to protect our Embassy".
Since the Reagan years Americans have been pummeled by wars, threats, and mental abuse by successive administrations until we want only to make it stop. Many voters look back on the 'nineties with nostalgia as a time of relative peace and prosperity. In that light, another Clinton presidency looks like Valhalla. However, one has to wonder whether they or Ms. Clinton even understand the extent of the damage that has been wrought by the "executive orders" and the "signing exceptions" of our current President. Nobody has asked her or Obama how they would countermand those actions and restore daylight to the machinations of the White House. Could this be corrected only by order of the president, as they were established, would they require action by Congress or would review by the Supreme Court be necessary to open the records which would expose the cronyism and payoffs by this administration?
On this, the morning after, one might suffer vertigo from watching the pundits spin! The Republicans appear elated that Clinton won Pennsylvania and are engaged in an orgy of devouring Senator Obama and his wife. They adopt the Clinton charge of "elitism" and accuse them of "being out of touch with the American people". Listening to MSNBC's Joe, Mika, and Tucker as they claim that the Obamas do not have the "common touch" is another instance of walking through the looking glass. For these privileged people to complain that a black American couple who have, through education, become sufficiently successful and articulate to become potential occupants of the White House appears beyond their comprehension. Strange that this mindset did not afflict them when Condoleezza Rice, who is truly from a wealthy family, assumed her position in the Bush administration.
There is a message connected to this event and that is that no radical improvement in our state of governance is likely. Even if Obama should win the nomination, the scurrilous charges by Senator Clinton will be adopted by the Republicans as their own spin machine propels John McCain into the leadership and the Neo-Cons continue to operate under his cover. If Senator Clinton should continue her recovery and reach the White House, it will be little better as she can be expected to deal "across the aisle" and gain a half a loaf.
Truly, these are depressing times for the Liberal Populist as the goal of a truly democratic society fade into memory with no sign of restoration. The Way We Have Always Done It wins again.
The author is a very "with-it" old lady who aspires to bring a bit of truth, justice, and common sense to a nation that has lost touch with its humanity in the search for "societal perfection".
4/23/08
Liberals, can you read the writing on the wall? The American people are being set up again. Hillary Clinton, with the assistance of the same old political tactics and the same old political mainstream media pundits has become the Come-Back Kid! Watch her march to the White House in triumph as she and her husband retaliate for the humiliation of having left it in shame. She will persuade the super-delegates of her party to end the Obama challenge and then walk all over poor old John McCain to once again take control of the government. And, once again, we will see the famous Clinton "compromise and coalition".
But Hillary is not Bill. We must bear in mind the Republican roots of Senator Clinton. She still carries the thought processes of the Goldwater Girl of the 1960's and she easily slides into compliance with the Republican mindset. Early in the campaign, when the true Liberals were discussing the health crisis and pushing for universal single-payer health care, Ms. Clinton offered her proposal for mandatory insurance, (a Romney program), which is nothing more nor less than the same kind of insurance company rip-off as is Medicare Part D. When others were demanding withdrawal from Iraq, she was saying that we will have to stay indefinitely "in order to protect our Embassy".
Since the Reagan years Americans have been pummeled by wars, threats, and mental abuse by successive administrations until we want only to make it stop. Many voters look back on the 'nineties with nostalgia as a time of relative peace and prosperity. In that light, another Clinton presidency looks like Valhalla. However, one has to wonder whether they or Ms. Clinton even understand the extent of the damage that has been wrought by the "executive orders" and the "signing exceptions" of our current President. Nobody has asked her or Obama how they would countermand those actions and restore daylight to the machinations of the White House. Could this be corrected only by order of the president, as they were established, would they require action by Congress or would review by the Supreme Court be necessary to open the records which would expose the cronyism and payoffs by this administration?
On this, the morning after, one might suffer vertigo from watching the pundits spin! The Republicans appear elated that Clinton won Pennsylvania and are engaged in an orgy of devouring Senator Obama and his wife. They adopt the Clinton charge of "elitism" and accuse them of "being out of touch with the American people". Listening to MSNBC's Joe, Mika, and Tucker as they claim that the Obamas do not have the "common touch" is another instance of walking through the looking glass. For these privileged people to complain that a black American couple who have, through education, become sufficiently successful and articulate to become potential occupants of the White House appears beyond their comprehension. Strange that this mindset did not afflict them when Condoleezza Rice, who is truly from a wealthy family, assumed her position in the Bush administration.
There is a message connected to this event and that is that no radical improvement in our state of governance is likely. Even if Obama should win the nomination, the scurrilous charges by Senator Clinton will be adopted by the Republicans as their own spin machine propels John McCain into the leadership and the Neo-Cons continue to operate under his cover. If Senator Clinton should continue her recovery and reach the White House, it will be little better as she can be expected to deal "across the aisle" and gain a half a loaf.
Truly, these are depressing times for the Liberal Populist as the goal of a truly democratic society fade into memory with no sign of restoration. The Way We Have Always Done It wins again.
The author is a very "with-it" old lady who aspires to bring a bit of truth, justice, and common sense to a nation that has lost touch with its humanity in the search for "societal perfection".
Monday, April 21, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Too Much of Nothing:
Crime Without Punishment, War Without End
Sunday, 13 April 2008
http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1485/135/
The President of the United States has openly, proudly admitted that he approved the use of interrogation methods that are by every measure -- including the measure of United States law -- criminal acts of torture. It is one of the most brazen and scandalous confessions of wrongdoing ever uttered by an American leader -- and it has had no impact whatsoever. No scandal, no outcry, no protest, no prosecution.
This pattern has recurred over and over throughout the Bush Administration. Bush and his minions commit crimes and atrocities in secret; they move heaven and earth to conceal their filthy deeds; they squirm and squeal like panicked rats when their some small portion of their evil comes to light; they belch forth a relentless series of self-contradictory lies to cover up, obfuscate or explain away the crimes; and when at last their malefactions can no longer be denied, they trot out the president himself to say: "Yeah, we did it; so what?" And then....nothing happens.
And now nothing is happening again. It is an astounding phenomenon. Bush is the most widely despised president in modern times. The war he launched on false pretenses against Iraq is deeply unpopular, and is plainly bankrupting the country. His economic policies have plunged millions into ruin, want and insecurity. The opposition political party controls the Congress -- a bastion they could have used as a bully pulpit to rally the public and as a battering ram to bring down an openly criminal, shamelessly unconstitutional, dangerous, illegitimate regime. And yet....nothing happens.
There has never been a condition of such deep, virtually catatonic civic paralysis in American history -- and few such instances in world history. There will be no good issue from all of this. No saving grace in the last act, no life-enhancing "lessons learned," no character growth in the story arc, no deus ex machina, no redemption. There will only be -- at best, in the very best-case scenario imaginable -- a long, slow agonizing slog through the ruins, a hard, interminable labor of waste disposal and reclamation, in a much-diminished world.
And yet the sleepwalking goes on. For not only is Bush never chastened or hobbled by revelations that ordinarily would topple even the strongest government in any nation with even a tincture of democracy -- he and his cronies simply move on from each exposed outrage to even greater crimes. And that is what is happening today. Even as Bush was telling ABC News about his approval of the White House torture meetings -- where the nation's most august figures of state watched CIA men act out torture techniques for them -- he and his minions were also bolting the last rivets onto their latest war machine: the engine of murder and destruction they have prepared for Iran.
The same process of deception and fearmongering that led to the Iraq invasion is being played out again. And once again, the Establishment press is playing an indispensible role in formenting a new act of mass murder. Once again, the media mandarins are shoveling horseshit directly from the White House down the gullets of the American people.
Last week, the Bush Regime used the Establishment house organs, the Washington Post and the New York Times, to announce that Iran is now the main U.S. enemy in Iraq. Both reports were laden with the usual unchallenged, unfiltered, unquestioned spin from the usual unnamed "senior U.S. officials" about Iran's "malign influence" in arming, training and directing deadly Shiite militia attacks against U.S. forces.
For two years now, Bush and his accomplicies have been methodically laying the groundwork for another specious casus belli ("Iran killing American troops!); manipulating the ever-eager-to-be-manipulated corporate media and Congress into swallowing every shift in the propaganda line; conducting their training for bomb runs on Iran (including scenarios for "tactical" nuclear attacks); moving attack fleets into the Persian Gulf and elsewhere within easy striking distance of Iran, building outposts on the Iranian border; running covert ops inside Iran (with the assistance of a terrorist cult once used as enforcers by Saddam Hussein). Now, with the aid of stories like those above, they are "rolling out the product," getting the "Iran is the Enemy" story front and center, no longer building it from the edges but making it the propaganda focus for the final act of Bush's bloodsoaked Grand Guignol.
One could write yards of exegesis on these articles, unpacking the outright lies, the skewed, misinformed -- and misinforming -- "analysis," the innumerable false assumptions built on old lies swallowed long before: "lies that no longer know they are lies, because they are the children and grandchildren of lies." This kind of exercise has its value, of course -- if only to demontrate, to ourselves and to future generations, that not everyone was willing to gobble down horseshit at the order of killers and torturers, and their simpering courtiers.
But ultimately, on the ground, it will not change a thing. The sharpest truth, shouted like a trumpet blast, will not wake the sleepwalkers now. Nothing has pierced the shadows and fog so far, nothing has roused their moral sense, their legal sense, their political sense; nothing has stirred them to take action against the torture, the secret prisons, the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, the ludicrous farce and deadly tyranny of the "Unitary Executive" cult -- and the never-ending act of mass murder and rape that is the war in Iraq. Will they stir now to stop another war crime in Iran?
No, it's obvious now that we must drink this bitter cup to the dregs. The sleepwalkers have encompassed us all in their nightmare. And how terrible, how terrible will be the awakening.
Sunday, 13 April 2008
http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1485/135/
The President of the United States has openly, proudly admitted that he approved the use of interrogation methods that are by every measure -- including the measure of United States law -- criminal acts of torture. It is one of the most brazen and scandalous confessions of wrongdoing ever uttered by an American leader -- and it has had no impact whatsoever. No scandal, no outcry, no protest, no prosecution.
This pattern has recurred over and over throughout the Bush Administration. Bush and his minions commit crimes and atrocities in secret; they move heaven and earth to conceal their filthy deeds; they squirm and squeal like panicked rats when their some small portion of their evil comes to light; they belch forth a relentless series of self-contradictory lies to cover up, obfuscate or explain away the crimes; and when at last their malefactions can no longer be denied, they trot out the president himself to say: "Yeah, we did it; so what?" And then....nothing happens.
And now nothing is happening again. It is an astounding phenomenon. Bush is the most widely despised president in modern times. The war he launched on false pretenses against Iraq is deeply unpopular, and is plainly bankrupting the country. His economic policies have plunged millions into ruin, want and insecurity. The opposition political party controls the Congress -- a bastion they could have used as a bully pulpit to rally the public and as a battering ram to bring down an openly criminal, shamelessly unconstitutional, dangerous, illegitimate regime. And yet....nothing happens.
There has never been a condition of such deep, virtually catatonic civic paralysis in American history -- and few such instances in world history. There will be no good issue from all of this. No saving grace in the last act, no life-enhancing "lessons learned," no character growth in the story arc, no deus ex machina, no redemption. There will only be -- at best, in the very best-case scenario imaginable -- a long, slow agonizing slog through the ruins, a hard, interminable labor of waste disposal and reclamation, in a much-diminished world.
And yet the sleepwalking goes on. For not only is Bush never chastened or hobbled by revelations that ordinarily would topple even the strongest government in any nation with even a tincture of democracy -- he and his cronies simply move on from each exposed outrage to even greater crimes. And that is what is happening today. Even as Bush was telling ABC News about his approval of the White House torture meetings -- where the nation's most august figures of state watched CIA men act out torture techniques for them -- he and his minions were also bolting the last rivets onto their latest war machine: the engine of murder and destruction they have prepared for Iran.
The same process of deception and fearmongering that led to the Iraq invasion is being played out again. And once again, the Establishment press is playing an indispensible role in formenting a new act of mass murder. Once again, the media mandarins are shoveling horseshit directly from the White House down the gullets of the American people.
Last week, the Bush Regime used the Establishment house organs, the Washington Post and the New York Times, to announce that Iran is now the main U.S. enemy in Iraq. Both reports were laden with the usual unchallenged, unfiltered, unquestioned spin from the usual unnamed "senior U.S. officials" about Iran's "malign influence" in arming, training and directing deadly Shiite militia attacks against U.S. forces.
For two years now, Bush and his accomplicies have been methodically laying the groundwork for another specious casus belli ("Iran killing American troops!); manipulating the ever-eager-to-be-manipulated corporate media and Congress into swallowing every shift in the propaganda line; conducting their training for bomb runs on Iran (including scenarios for "tactical" nuclear attacks); moving attack fleets into the Persian Gulf and elsewhere within easy striking distance of Iran, building outposts on the Iranian border; running covert ops inside Iran (with the assistance of a terrorist cult once used as enforcers by Saddam Hussein). Now, with the aid of stories like those above, they are "rolling out the product," getting the "Iran is the Enemy" story front and center, no longer building it from the edges but making it the propaganda focus for the final act of Bush's bloodsoaked Grand Guignol.
One could write yards of exegesis on these articles, unpacking the outright lies, the skewed, misinformed -- and misinforming -- "analysis," the innumerable false assumptions built on old lies swallowed long before: "lies that no longer know they are lies, because they are the children and grandchildren of lies." This kind of exercise has its value, of course -- if only to demontrate, to ourselves and to future generations, that not everyone was willing to gobble down horseshit at the order of killers and torturers, and their simpering courtiers.
But ultimately, on the ground, it will not change a thing. The sharpest truth, shouted like a trumpet blast, will not wake the sleepwalkers now. Nothing has pierced the shadows and fog so far, nothing has roused their moral sense, their legal sense, their political sense; nothing has stirred them to take action against the torture, the secret prisons, the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, the ludicrous farce and deadly tyranny of the "Unitary Executive" cult -- and the never-ending act of mass murder and rape that is the war in Iraq. Will they stir now to stop another war crime in Iran?
No, it's obvious now that we must drink this bitter cup to the dregs. The sleepwalkers have encompassed us all in their nightmare. And how terrible, how terrible will be the awakening.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Why Americans Are Bitter
By Mary Pitt
4/12/08
The mainstream media is making of about the remark by Senator Barrack Obama about the residents of small-town America being "bitter". Actually, I believe that most Americans are "bitter" by now and with good reason. We can begin with the fact that the last two presidential elections have not been decided by the good common sense of the voting public but by the arcane machinations and dirty tricks of the political party machinery. First, let's explore the term, "bitter". On the scale of unhappiness, it is to be found somewhere beyond "disappointment", "disillusionment" and "desperation". Those terms have been common in recent years and with very good reason. However, as the situation of working America continues to deteriorate, we have certainly become "desperate" as nobody in government appears to truly know or care. However, being bitter does not denote surrender.
In the elections of 2000, the winner, who promised to be "a uniter, not a divider" undertook policies which created the widest division in the United States since the Civil War, not between states but between classes. Instantly, he began choosing "enemies" throughout the world of whom we should be aware and fearful. After the second and highly successful bombing of the World Trade Center, he immediately plunged the nation into a total war against an amorphous and disconnected "enemy" by attacking Afghanistan which appeared to be the home base of their leadership.
As it appeared that we were winning that war, though much was left to be done, we were bombarded by the fear machine regarding the other arch-enmity, the dictator of Iraq who was, we are told, prepared to attack us with nuclear weapons at any moment. When we invaded and found no "weapons of mass destruction" we were told that the dreaded Al Qaida was there and we had to destroy them, (turns out that Saddam hated Al Qaida and we found none), then we had to "establish democracy" and, despite our having killed a million or so Iraqi civilians and lost a couple of thousand more American troops. We are now told that we may here there another generation or two since Iraq is, by nature, tribal nation rife with sectarian rivalry and do not want to become a united nation. (That, by the way, is why it was placed under a brutal dictatorship when the British left Mesopotamia.)
The President keeps telling us that our economy is going through a "rough patch" and we should suck it up while our jobs continue to go off-shore, our homes being foreclosed, and children and elderly are dying needlessly for lack of medical care. Those who still have work are paying double for gasoline to get to work and retail prices are reaching for the sky because of the increased cost of getting merchandise from the factory or the docks to the stores. Meanwhile, the oil barons are being enriched beyond imagination by their windfall profits and the world is running out of fuel.
Recently we have been made aware of the fact that there are more hired mercenaries in Iraq than there are American troops. These hired guns are paid at a much higher rate than are our own soldiers and the corporations who direct them, largely Halliburton subsidiaries or spin-offs, are pocketing huge profits, not only for that but also for their no-bid "reconstruction" work. Kellogg, Brown & Root, a "former Halliburton" firm, are providing rotten food and contaminated water for our troops courtesy of their slave-wage laborers from all over the world. We have no idea how many of these "civilian employees" have been killed, I suppose because the hired help don't matter.
Meanwhile the leaders of Al Qaida are no longer in Afghanistan but have crossed the border into Pakistan but we can't go there because our leaders tell us that "Pakistan is our friend". However, the Taliban, the "extremist" organization is battling us in order to return that nation to the old, traditional ways of governing by tribal rules. The titular leader who was installed by us, Pervez Musharraf, is so hated by the people that he is virtually a prisoner in the capital city and, even there, can move only with armed guard.
To the citizens of a nation that, a few short years ago, was a "shining city on a hill" it is a revolting development to find that we are hated throughout the world and can only find "allies" with the payment of sufficient amounts of money. And, yes, there is the problem of money! The entire cost of the Bush misadventure has been charged to our children, grandchildren, ad infinitum, and the American dollar is no longer an advantage on the world markets. Tourists from all over the world can come here to find bargains in our stores, but Americans cannot share in their pursuits because Americans have no money!
We lose our jobs, we lose our homes, we lose our sons in the war without end, and now many of us are losing our tempers! Some are old enough to remember the miseries of the Great Depression and we feel another one coming on as history is repeating itself. It seems that Herbert Hoover was also unconcerned about the plight of the ordinary American and intent on following his own Pied Piper. When the world-wide drought and food shortage hit, the United States was virtually destroyed. Now we are reading about food riots and shortages in other nations and the scientists are warning that another drought is in the making. I don't know about Pennsylvania, Senator Obama, but I know about America and we are not only bitter. We are also sick and tired of elected officials who are lying to us as they betray our trust and their oaths of office
We're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it any more!
The author is a very "with-it" old lady who aspires to bring a bit of truth, justice, and common sense to a nation that has lost touch with its humanity in the search for "societal perfection".
4/12/08
The mainstream media is making of about the remark by Senator Barrack Obama about the residents of small-town America being "bitter". Actually, I believe that most Americans are "bitter" by now and with good reason. We can begin with the fact that the last two presidential elections have not been decided by the good common sense of the voting public but by the arcane machinations and dirty tricks of the political party machinery. First, let's explore the term, "bitter". On the scale of unhappiness, it is to be found somewhere beyond "disappointment", "disillusionment" and "desperation". Those terms have been common in recent years and with very good reason. However, as the situation of working America continues to deteriorate, we have certainly become "desperate" as nobody in government appears to truly know or care. However, being bitter does not denote surrender.
In the elections of 2000, the winner, who promised to be "a uniter, not a divider" undertook policies which created the widest division in the United States since the Civil War, not between states but between classes. Instantly, he began choosing "enemies" throughout the world of whom we should be aware and fearful. After the second and highly successful bombing of the World Trade Center, he immediately plunged the nation into a total war against an amorphous and disconnected "enemy" by attacking Afghanistan which appeared to be the home base of their leadership.
As it appeared that we were winning that war, though much was left to be done, we were bombarded by the fear machine regarding the other arch-enmity, the dictator of Iraq who was, we are told, prepared to attack us with nuclear weapons at any moment. When we invaded and found no "weapons of mass destruction" we were told that the dreaded Al Qaida was there and we had to destroy them, (turns out that Saddam hated Al Qaida and we found none), then we had to "establish democracy" and, despite our having killed a million or so Iraqi civilians and lost a couple of thousand more American troops. We are now told that we may here there another generation or two since Iraq is, by nature, tribal nation rife with sectarian rivalry and do not want to become a united nation. (That, by the way, is why it was placed under a brutal dictatorship when the British left Mesopotamia.)
The President keeps telling us that our economy is going through a "rough patch" and we should suck it up while our jobs continue to go off-shore, our homes being foreclosed, and children and elderly are dying needlessly for lack of medical care. Those who still have work are paying double for gasoline to get to work and retail prices are reaching for the sky because of the increased cost of getting merchandise from the factory or the docks to the stores. Meanwhile, the oil barons are being enriched beyond imagination by their windfall profits and the world is running out of fuel.
Recently we have been made aware of the fact that there are more hired mercenaries in Iraq than there are American troops. These hired guns are paid at a much higher rate than are our own soldiers and the corporations who direct them, largely Halliburton subsidiaries or spin-offs, are pocketing huge profits, not only for that but also for their no-bid "reconstruction" work. Kellogg, Brown & Root, a "former Halliburton" firm, are providing rotten food and contaminated water for our troops courtesy of their slave-wage laborers from all over the world. We have no idea how many of these "civilian employees" have been killed, I suppose because the hired help don't matter.
Meanwhile the leaders of Al Qaida are no longer in Afghanistan but have crossed the border into Pakistan but we can't go there because our leaders tell us that "Pakistan is our friend". However, the Taliban, the "extremist" organization is battling us in order to return that nation to the old, traditional ways of governing by tribal rules. The titular leader who was installed by us, Pervez Musharraf, is so hated by the people that he is virtually a prisoner in the capital city and, even there, can move only with armed guard.
To the citizens of a nation that, a few short years ago, was a "shining city on a hill" it is a revolting development to find that we are hated throughout the world and can only find "allies" with the payment of sufficient amounts of money. And, yes, there is the problem of money! The entire cost of the Bush misadventure has been charged to our children, grandchildren, ad infinitum, and the American dollar is no longer an advantage on the world markets. Tourists from all over the world can come here to find bargains in our stores, but Americans cannot share in their pursuits because Americans have no money!
We lose our jobs, we lose our homes, we lose our sons in the war without end, and now many of us are losing our tempers! Some are old enough to remember the miseries of the Great Depression and we feel another one coming on as history is repeating itself. It seems that Herbert Hoover was also unconcerned about the plight of the ordinary American and intent on following his own Pied Piper. When the world-wide drought and food shortage hit, the United States was virtually destroyed. Now we are reading about food riots and shortages in other nations and the scientists are warning that another drought is in the making. I don't know about Pennsylvania, Senator Obama, but I know about America and we are not only bitter. We are also sick and tired of elected officials who are lying to us as they betray our trust and their oaths of office
We're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it any more!
The author is a very "with-it" old lady who aspires to bring a bit of truth, justice, and common sense to a nation that has lost touch with its humanity in the search for "societal perfection".
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Another Smoking Gun on Terror War Torture
Written by Chris Floyd
Thursday, 10 April 2008
http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1480/135/
From ABC:
In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News....
Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.
The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic...
At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
This is not just a smoking gun -- it's a MOAB dropped right on the White House, confirming, yet again, what any sentient being should already know: the illegal torture tactics (yes, they are torture; and yes, they are illegal, no matter what "the Attorney General says") used on George W. Bush's Terror War captives were approved by the highest officials of the government, all of whom knew -- in exacting, sickening detail -- just what they were inflicting.
These cold-blooded atrocities were not restricted to "high value al Qaeda suspects" - the demure fiction that the ABC report, like most others in the mainstream media that have begun, gingerly, to delve into these crimes, still retains. As mountains of evidence has already shown, these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were used throughout the Terror War prison system, from top to bottom, on prisoners rounded up at random in mass raids in Iraq and Afghanistan, on innocent people sold into captivity by bounty hunters, on innocent people snatched off the streets in Asia, Africa, Europe. They've been used on "low-level prisoners" in Bagram, Diego Garcia, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, in the brig at the Naval Weapons Station in Charleston, South Carolina, and all the other "secret prisons" and holding pens of the Terror War regime.
All of the atrocities and murders that have thus far come to light from the hellish pit of the Bush gulag are the direct responsibility of the "Principals," the inner circle, the Privy Council, the Star Chamber of the real American government: the "National Security State" that operates outside all law, all oversight, all constitutional legitimacy.
Yet even as the media digs out the workings of this junta, they feel compelled to offer what they believe is a fig leaf that will allow all good and decent folk to retain their sacred faith in American exceptionalism: "Hey, we're not evil; we only torture the really bad guys, the worst of the worst, the high value al Qaeda scum. Torture's too good for the likes of them!"
And the sad fact is, the media mandarins are right. American society has become so degenerate that the majority of people -- and the entirety of the American Establishment -- will now countenance torture, as long as they can convince themselves it is used only against "the bad guys." At one time, the leaders of this nation condemned and punished the torture even of proven Nazis, on the principle that we must uphold our own humanity, and not descend to the brutish level of the most degraded among us.
But no more. We are the degraded now, ruled by brutes: by deliberate torturers, military aggressors and mass murderers who walk the streets freely, live in wealth and comfort, receive public honors, and will never face justice, never have to answer for their crimes against humanity. If this were not so, these evil counsellors and their leader would already be subjected to the workings of the law: impeachment proceedings, criminal investigations, arrest, trial. The fact that they are not is yet another crime -- a crime in which the entire political establishment is deeply complicit.
We'll say it again: anyone in public life who accords these criminals the slightest legitimacy is an accomplice to their crimes. It's really that simple. You can move toward the light or you can hang back with the brutes.
Thursday, 10 April 2008
http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1480/135/
From ABC:
In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News....
Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.
The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic...
At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
This is not just a smoking gun -- it's a MOAB dropped right on the White House, confirming, yet again, what any sentient being should already know: the illegal torture tactics (yes, they are torture; and yes, they are illegal, no matter what "the Attorney General says") used on George W. Bush's Terror War captives were approved by the highest officials of the government, all of whom knew -- in exacting, sickening detail -- just what they were inflicting.
These cold-blooded atrocities were not restricted to "high value al Qaeda suspects" - the demure fiction that the ABC report, like most others in the mainstream media that have begun, gingerly, to delve into these crimes, still retains. As mountains of evidence has already shown, these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were used throughout the Terror War prison system, from top to bottom, on prisoners rounded up at random in mass raids in Iraq and Afghanistan, on innocent people sold into captivity by bounty hunters, on innocent people snatched off the streets in Asia, Africa, Europe. They've been used on "low-level prisoners" in Bagram, Diego Garcia, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, in the brig at the Naval Weapons Station in Charleston, South Carolina, and all the other "secret prisons" and holding pens of the Terror War regime.
All of the atrocities and murders that have thus far come to light from the hellish pit of the Bush gulag are the direct responsibility of the "Principals," the inner circle, the Privy Council, the Star Chamber of the real American government: the "National Security State" that operates outside all law, all oversight, all constitutional legitimacy.
Yet even as the media digs out the workings of this junta, they feel compelled to offer what they believe is a fig leaf that will allow all good and decent folk to retain their sacred faith in American exceptionalism: "Hey, we're not evil; we only torture the really bad guys, the worst of the worst, the high value al Qaeda scum. Torture's too good for the likes of them!"
And the sad fact is, the media mandarins are right. American society has become so degenerate that the majority of people -- and the entirety of the American Establishment -- will now countenance torture, as long as they can convince themselves it is used only against "the bad guys." At one time, the leaders of this nation condemned and punished the torture even of proven Nazis, on the principle that we must uphold our own humanity, and not descend to the brutish level of the most degraded among us.
But no more. We are the degraded now, ruled by brutes: by deliberate torturers, military aggressors and mass murderers who walk the streets freely, live in wealth and comfort, receive public honors, and will never face justice, never have to answer for their crimes against humanity. If this were not so, these evil counsellors and their leader would already be subjected to the workings of the law: impeachment proceedings, criminal investigations, arrest, trial. The fact that they are not is yet another crime -- a crime in which the entire political establishment is deeply complicit.
We'll say it again: anyone in public life who accords these criminals the slightest legitimacy is an accomplice to their crimes. It's really that simple. You can move toward the light or you can hang back with the brutes.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Destroying Public Education in America
- by Stephen Lendman
4/7/08
http://tmars.iwarp.com/theMagazine/archive/08/lendman080408.html
Diogenes called education "the foundation of every state." Education reformer and "father of American education" Horace Mann went even further. He said: "The common school (meaning public ones) is the greatest discovery ever made by man." He called it the "great equalizer" that was "common" to all, and as Massachusetts Secretary of Education founded the first board of education and teacher training college in the state where the first (1635) public school was established. Throughout the country today, privatization schemes target them and threaten to end a 373 year tradition….
full article
4/7/08
http://tmars.iwarp.com/theMagazine/archive/08/lendman080408.html
Diogenes called education "the foundation of every state." Education reformer and "father of American education" Horace Mann went even further. He said: "The common school (meaning public ones) is the greatest discovery ever made by man." He called it the "great equalizer" that was "common" to all, and as Massachusetts Secretary of Education founded the first board of education and teacher training college in the state where the first (1635) public school was established. Throughout the country today, privatization schemes target them and threaten to end a 373 year tradition….
full article
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Lynne Stewart's Long Struggle for Justice
- by Stephen Lendman
4/3/08
On April 9, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft made a symbolic visit to "Ground Zero." While in New York, he held a well-publicized press conference at the US Attorney's Office and used the occasion for an indictment. Four individuals were named on charges of conspiracy and materially aiding a terrorist organization. One of them was long-time civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart. On the same day, FBI agents arrested her at her home and illegally seized documents there and from her office that are protected by attorney-client privilege.
In July 2003, Federal District Court Judge John Koeltl (a 1994 Clinton appointee) dismissed the original charges for being "unconstitutionally void for vagueness" and because they "revealed a lack of prosecutorial standards." Nonetheless, Stewart was symbolically re-indicted on November 22, 2003 (the 40th year anniversary of John F. Kennedy's assassination) on five counts of aiding and abetting a terrorist organization under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. Specific charges included:
-- "conspiring to defraud the United States;
-- conspiring to provide and conceal material support to terrorist activity;
-- providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity; and
-- two counts of making false statements."
Stewart was also accused of violating US Bureau of Prisons-imposed Special Administrative Measures (SAMS) that included a gag order on her client, Sheik Abdel Rahman. These measures are imposed on some prisoners to forbid discussion (even with an attorney) of topics DOJ claims are outside the scope of their "legal representation." It's all very vague, does more to harass and obstruct justice than protect state secrets, yet Stewart was forced to accept them to gain access to her client.
In her case, police state-type attorney-client monitored conversations provided the basis for her indictment. However, engaging in this practice stretches the limit of the law, gives DOJ sole authority to decide how far and for what purpose, and in this instance egregiously overstepped it by charging defense counsel with aiding and abetting terrorism for representing her client as required.
At former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark's request, Stewart agreed to join him as a member of Rahman's court-appointed defense team. He was convicted in his 1995 show trial and is now serving a life sentence for "seditious conspiracy" in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing despite evidence proving his innocence.
However, in what's now common practice, the government's case related more to his affiliations and anti-western views than specific evidence presented. Rahman was connected to the Egyptian-based Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group) - a 1997 State Department-designated "Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Ironically in the 1980s, he was handled much differently as a "valuable (CIA) asset" for his influential role in recruiting Mujahadeen fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It was no accident that he got a US visa, green card and State Department-CIA protection for as long as he was valued. When he wasn't, he became a target along with Lynne Stewart who represented him at trial.
Stewart's charges were trumped up, outrageous, and likely first time ever instance of a defense attorney in a terrorism case facing terrorism-related counts - for doing her job as the law requires and that renders attorney-client confidentiality sacrosanct under our criminal justice system. No matter, if convicted, she faced a possible 30 year sentence.
In America's "war on terrorism," her precedent-setting case is chilling, and president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Michael Ratner, explained it: Its "purpose....was to send a message to lawyers who represent alleged terrorists that it's dangerous to do so." It's also an effort to exploit the current atmosphere, incite fear and suspicions, stifle dissent, and make it just as risky for anyone with openly critical views of government policies. In Police State America, we're all Lynne Stewarts.
At the time of her indictment, her attorney, Michael Tigar, explained what was at stake:
"This case (still ongoing) is an attack on a gallant, charismatic and effective fighter for justice (and has) at least three fundamental faults: (it) attack(s) the First Amendment right of free speech, free press and petition; (it) attack(s)....the right to effective assistance of counsel ....chills the defense....(and) the 'evidence' in this case was gathered by wholesale invasion of private conversations, private attorney-client meetings, faxes, letters and e-mails. I have never seen such an abuse of government power." In America's "war on terrorism," many other defense attorneys can cite similar instances of lawlessness and injustice today.
However, in targeting Stewart, DOJ may have gotten more than it bargained for. Whatever the outcome, her case shamed the government, gave her worldwide recognition, made her a powerful symbolic figure, and elevated her to iconic stature. For her honor, devotion to principles, and lifetime of service to society's most abused, she deserves it and more.
Throughout her 30 year career, she never shunned controversy or her choice of or duty to clients. She represented the poor, the underprivileged and society's underdogs and unwanted who never get due process unless they're lucky enough to have an advocate like her. She knew the risks and understood the state uses every underhanded trick possible to convict these type defendants and overwhelm, outspend and/or discredit their counsel doing it.
Nonetheless, she did what the American Bar Association's Model Rules state all lawyers are obligated to do: "devote professional time and resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice for all those who because of economic or social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel."
Defending Sheik Rahman was especially risky, and Stewart knew it. His case was so high-profile, it made her a target, and she remains one today. It was the beginning of her long struggle (six years and running) that included a battle against breast cancer that's now in remission.
Her trial played out in the same Foley Square courtroom where Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were unjustly framed, convicted and sentenced to death in April 1951 on charges of conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act. It was an earlier time of hysteria when "communism" was the "threat," national security again the issue, and, in Stewart's case, she's the victim.
Her trial was a travesty and gross miscarriage of justice with echoes of the worst type McCarthyist tactics. Inflammatory terrorist images were displayed in court to prejudice the jurors, and prosecutors vilified Stewart as a traitor with "radical" political views. In fact, she always embraced the rule of law with equity and justice for everyone under it. Nonetheless, prosecutors falsely accused her of saying violence may be justified to overthrow oppressive governments and claimed she advocated regime change in Egypt under its president, ruling despot, and close US ally Hosni Mubarak.
In addition, just days before the verdict, the extremist pro-Israel Jewish Defense Organization put up flyers near the courthouse displaying Stewart's home address, threatened to "drive her out of her home and out of the state," and said she "needs to be put out of business legally and effectively." Prosecutors ignored it. It was all part of a government-orchestrated scheme inside and outside the courtroom to heighten fear, convict Stewart, and tell other defense attorneys to expect the same treatment if they represent "unpopular" clients.
It worked on the jury, and on February 10, 2005 (after a seven month trial and 13 days of deliberation) Stewart was convicted on all five counts. Key now would be sentencing for a decisive DOJ victory. If gotten it would seriously weaken First Amendment free expression rights and Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. It would also destroy fundamental ones under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees all US citizens won't be deprived of their right of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In addition, it would challenge the landmark 1963 Supreme Court Gideon v. Wainwright decision that affirmed defendants' Sixth Amendment rights "in all criminal prosecutions (to) the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury....to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
October 17, 2006 was Stewart's sentencing date. Prosecutors asked for 30 years and hoped getting it would set a precedent. Instead, the same Judge Koeltl, who dismissed Stewart's first indictment, again defied DOJ. He sentenced Stewart to 28 months, let her remain free on bail pending appeal, implied it might be overturned as a gross miscarriage of justice, effectively rebuked the government, and handed them a major defeat.
The trial ended with Stewart proud and vindicated. Next came her chance for a full exoneration before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit three judge panel. Defense attorney Joshua Dratel represented her on January 29, 2008 in a packed courtroom of mostly Stewart supporters with many others denied admittance for lack of space.
Dratel's job was to convince the court that Stewart had First Amendment protected speech rights to release her client's statement to his followers and other interested parties. He also cited Judge Koeltl's unconstitutional use of US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, 2339 (a) relating to "harboring or concealing terrorists" because he "failed to abide by his promise to impose a specific intent requirement" when he charged the jury.
In addition, Dratel argued that evidence against Stewart amounted to no more than three meetings with her client over a two year period. He further said that she was charged for "isolated and sporadic conduct" in an alleged plot where no "violent acts were planned or occurred," and, in fact, there was no plot.
In response to one judge's question about her allegedly saying Rahman withdrew his support for a cease fire, Dratel stated the "cease fire was not abrogated. It remained in effect." He insisted that Rahman merely said it was time to "reevaluate" the cease fire because of the Egyptian government's oppression and recalcitrance. Dratel stressed that with no intent to "incite imminent unlawful conduct or violence," the First Amendment protected Stewart's statements.
So does the Supreme Court's unanimous 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio decision that overturned Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism statute. The Court ruled that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation and only can do so in instances of directly inciting "imminent lawless actions." Dratel referenced the "Brandenburg standard" that's the law of the land and under which Stewart was within her rights.
Assistant US attorney in the Southern District Anthony Barkow, who was part of the prosecutorial team, argued for the government before a potentially sympathetic court. It's at a time two-thirds of all federal judges are from or affiliated with the extremist Federalist Society. It advocates rolling back civil liberties; ending New Deal social policies; opposing reproductive choice, government regulations, labor rights and environment protections; and subverting justice in defense of privilege.
This is what Stewart is up against as she awaits the decision that can go either way in an age of police state justice. Under New York state law, she was automatically disbarred, and the state Supreme Court's Appellate Division denied her petition to resign voluntarily. Adding insult to her unjust conviction, it ruled that "federal convictions provide a proper predicate for automatic disbarment."
It was the fourth injustice against a woman who spent a lifetime advocating for society's most disadvantaged. It followed two falsified indictments, a kangaroo court proceeding, and an unjustifiable conviction on all counts. Combined they represent an outrageous miscarriage of justice.
An appeals verdict is due any time, and legions of Stewart supporters hope justice delayed won't be denied to her. She deserves full exoneration, readmittance to the state bar, and to be able again to represent society's most unwanted who need her advocacy and remain hopeful. So does everyone who respects the law at a time it's being desecrated.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research New Hour on RepublicBrroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8477
4/3/08
On April 9, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft made a symbolic visit to "Ground Zero." While in New York, he held a well-publicized press conference at the US Attorney's Office and used the occasion for an indictment. Four individuals were named on charges of conspiracy and materially aiding a terrorist organization. One of them was long-time civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart. On the same day, FBI agents arrested her at her home and illegally seized documents there and from her office that are protected by attorney-client privilege.
In July 2003, Federal District Court Judge John Koeltl (a 1994 Clinton appointee) dismissed the original charges for being "unconstitutionally void for vagueness" and because they "revealed a lack of prosecutorial standards." Nonetheless, Stewart was symbolically re-indicted on November 22, 2003 (the 40th year anniversary of John F. Kennedy's assassination) on five counts of aiding and abetting a terrorist organization under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. Specific charges included:
-- "conspiring to defraud the United States;
-- conspiring to provide and conceal material support to terrorist activity;
-- providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity; and
-- two counts of making false statements."
Stewart was also accused of violating US Bureau of Prisons-imposed Special Administrative Measures (SAMS) that included a gag order on her client, Sheik Abdel Rahman. These measures are imposed on some prisoners to forbid discussion (even with an attorney) of topics DOJ claims are outside the scope of their "legal representation." It's all very vague, does more to harass and obstruct justice than protect state secrets, yet Stewart was forced to accept them to gain access to her client.
In her case, police state-type attorney-client monitored conversations provided the basis for her indictment. However, engaging in this practice stretches the limit of the law, gives DOJ sole authority to decide how far and for what purpose, and in this instance egregiously overstepped it by charging defense counsel with aiding and abetting terrorism for representing her client as required.
At former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark's request, Stewart agreed to join him as a member of Rahman's court-appointed defense team. He was convicted in his 1995 show trial and is now serving a life sentence for "seditious conspiracy" in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing despite evidence proving his innocence.
However, in what's now common practice, the government's case related more to his affiliations and anti-western views than specific evidence presented. Rahman was connected to the Egyptian-based Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group) - a 1997 State Department-designated "Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Ironically in the 1980s, he was handled much differently as a "valuable (CIA) asset" for his influential role in recruiting Mujahadeen fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It was no accident that he got a US visa, green card and State Department-CIA protection for as long as he was valued. When he wasn't, he became a target along with Lynne Stewart who represented him at trial.
Stewart's charges were trumped up, outrageous, and likely first time ever instance of a defense attorney in a terrorism case facing terrorism-related counts - for doing her job as the law requires and that renders attorney-client confidentiality sacrosanct under our criminal justice system. No matter, if convicted, she faced a possible 30 year sentence.
In America's "war on terrorism," her precedent-setting case is chilling, and president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Michael Ratner, explained it: Its "purpose....was to send a message to lawyers who represent alleged terrorists that it's dangerous to do so." It's also an effort to exploit the current atmosphere, incite fear and suspicions, stifle dissent, and make it just as risky for anyone with openly critical views of government policies. In Police State America, we're all Lynne Stewarts.
At the time of her indictment, her attorney, Michael Tigar, explained what was at stake:
"This case (still ongoing) is an attack on a gallant, charismatic and effective fighter for justice (and has) at least three fundamental faults: (it) attack(s) the First Amendment right of free speech, free press and petition; (it) attack(s)....the right to effective assistance of counsel ....chills the defense....(and) the 'evidence' in this case was gathered by wholesale invasion of private conversations, private attorney-client meetings, faxes, letters and e-mails. I have never seen such an abuse of government power." In America's "war on terrorism," many other defense attorneys can cite similar instances of lawlessness and injustice today.
However, in targeting Stewart, DOJ may have gotten more than it bargained for. Whatever the outcome, her case shamed the government, gave her worldwide recognition, made her a powerful symbolic figure, and elevated her to iconic stature. For her honor, devotion to principles, and lifetime of service to society's most abused, she deserves it and more.
Throughout her 30 year career, she never shunned controversy or her choice of or duty to clients. She represented the poor, the underprivileged and society's underdogs and unwanted who never get due process unless they're lucky enough to have an advocate like her. She knew the risks and understood the state uses every underhanded trick possible to convict these type defendants and overwhelm, outspend and/or discredit their counsel doing it.
Nonetheless, she did what the American Bar Association's Model Rules state all lawyers are obligated to do: "devote professional time and resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice for all those who because of economic or social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel."
Defending Sheik Rahman was especially risky, and Stewart knew it. His case was so high-profile, it made her a target, and she remains one today. It was the beginning of her long struggle (six years and running) that included a battle against breast cancer that's now in remission.
Her trial played out in the same Foley Square courtroom where Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were unjustly framed, convicted and sentenced to death in April 1951 on charges of conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act. It was an earlier time of hysteria when "communism" was the "threat," national security again the issue, and, in Stewart's case, she's the victim.
Her trial was a travesty and gross miscarriage of justice with echoes of the worst type McCarthyist tactics. Inflammatory terrorist images were displayed in court to prejudice the jurors, and prosecutors vilified Stewart as a traitor with "radical" political views. In fact, she always embraced the rule of law with equity and justice for everyone under it. Nonetheless, prosecutors falsely accused her of saying violence may be justified to overthrow oppressive governments and claimed she advocated regime change in Egypt under its president, ruling despot, and close US ally Hosni Mubarak.
In addition, just days before the verdict, the extremist pro-Israel Jewish Defense Organization put up flyers near the courthouse displaying Stewart's home address, threatened to "drive her out of her home and out of the state," and said she "needs to be put out of business legally and effectively." Prosecutors ignored it. It was all part of a government-orchestrated scheme inside and outside the courtroom to heighten fear, convict Stewart, and tell other defense attorneys to expect the same treatment if they represent "unpopular" clients.
It worked on the jury, and on February 10, 2005 (after a seven month trial and 13 days of deliberation) Stewart was convicted on all five counts. Key now would be sentencing for a decisive DOJ victory. If gotten it would seriously weaken First Amendment free expression rights and Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. It would also destroy fundamental ones under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees all US citizens won't be deprived of their right of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In addition, it would challenge the landmark 1963 Supreme Court Gideon v. Wainwright decision that affirmed defendants' Sixth Amendment rights "in all criminal prosecutions (to) the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury....to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
October 17, 2006 was Stewart's sentencing date. Prosecutors asked for 30 years and hoped getting it would set a precedent. Instead, the same Judge Koeltl, who dismissed Stewart's first indictment, again defied DOJ. He sentenced Stewart to 28 months, let her remain free on bail pending appeal, implied it might be overturned as a gross miscarriage of justice, effectively rebuked the government, and handed them a major defeat.
The trial ended with Stewart proud and vindicated. Next came her chance for a full exoneration before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit three judge panel. Defense attorney Joshua Dratel represented her on January 29, 2008 in a packed courtroom of mostly Stewart supporters with many others denied admittance for lack of space.
Dratel's job was to convince the court that Stewart had First Amendment protected speech rights to release her client's statement to his followers and other interested parties. He also cited Judge Koeltl's unconstitutional use of US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, 2339 (a) relating to "harboring or concealing terrorists" because he "failed to abide by his promise to impose a specific intent requirement" when he charged the jury.
In addition, Dratel argued that evidence against Stewart amounted to no more than three meetings with her client over a two year period. He further said that she was charged for "isolated and sporadic conduct" in an alleged plot where no "violent acts were planned or occurred," and, in fact, there was no plot.
In response to one judge's question about her allegedly saying Rahman withdrew his support for a cease fire, Dratel stated the "cease fire was not abrogated. It remained in effect." He insisted that Rahman merely said it was time to "reevaluate" the cease fire because of the Egyptian government's oppression and recalcitrance. Dratel stressed that with no intent to "incite imminent unlawful conduct or violence," the First Amendment protected Stewart's statements.
So does the Supreme Court's unanimous 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio decision that overturned Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism statute. The Court ruled that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation and only can do so in instances of directly inciting "imminent lawless actions." Dratel referenced the "Brandenburg standard" that's the law of the land and under which Stewart was within her rights.
Assistant US attorney in the Southern District Anthony Barkow, who was part of the prosecutorial team, argued for the government before a potentially sympathetic court. It's at a time two-thirds of all federal judges are from or affiliated with the extremist Federalist Society. It advocates rolling back civil liberties; ending New Deal social policies; opposing reproductive choice, government regulations, labor rights and environment protections; and subverting justice in defense of privilege.
This is what Stewart is up against as she awaits the decision that can go either way in an age of police state justice. Under New York state law, she was automatically disbarred, and the state Supreme Court's Appellate Division denied her petition to resign voluntarily. Adding insult to her unjust conviction, it ruled that "federal convictions provide a proper predicate for automatic disbarment."
It was the fourth injustice against a woman who spent a lifetime advocating for society's most disadvantaged. It followed two falsified indictments, a kangaroo court proceeding, and an unjustifiable conviction on all counts. Combined they represent an outrageous miscarriage of justice.
An appeals verdict is due any time, and legions of Stewart supporters hope justice delayed won't be denied to her. She deserves full exoneration, readmittance to the state bar, and to be able again to represent society's most unwanted who need her advocacy and remain hopeful. So does everyone who respects the law at a time it's being desecrated.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research New Hour on RepublicBrroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8477
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Just Tell Us What You Really Think
by Mary Pitt
4/1/08
As we watch and listen to the candidates for President, we find ourselves befuddled by what they say from week to week. Senator Clinton wants to be thought the best leader for the Democratic Party while she has repeatedly compromises her democratic principles in an effort to gain the votes of dissatisfied Republicans. The only issue on which she has spoken clearly and unequivocally is the management of the health care crises. There again, she appears to be wary of alienating any stray Republicans by recommending requirement for everybody to buy insurance rather than by suggesting ways to either lower the cost or to set up a program for the poor that will really work.
At the same time, Senator Obama can only second the Clinton plan with a bit of softening around the harsh edges. Of course, Senator McCain has not even addressed the problem since he "prefers to concentrate on national security" by becoming a virtual echo chamber for the Bush/Cheney propaganda. It does seem odd that a man who has prided himself on his reputation as a "maverick" should be strutting around with the war dogs and snarling at the very people whom he is asking to vote for him. Even in his speech regarding the economy, he advocates doing virtually nothing whereas on the war, he promises only to stay in Iraq for generations.
While Senator Clinton has spent years in the Senate, complaining about the Iraq War and the arrogance of President Bush, she now professes to believe that we cannot end the war without leaving troops in place for the indeterminate future. She laments the fact that she did not know then what she knows now when she voted to give the President the authority to use force against Iraq, or she "might have voted differently." Perhaps she now knows that no member of a legislative should ever vote for any measure without having thoroughly read it first. The same is true with the Patriot Act for which she has dutifully marched in lockstep to renew on command.
She professes great experience that fits her for the supreme command. It would seem that most of her experience is in campaigning for public office, largely on behalf of her husband. Your friendly neighborhood neurologist is probably married but would you ask his wife to do your brain surgery? If that sort of experience counts, I can recall several former First Ladies who would have made much better candidates. As for Barrack Obama, his brief experience in public office is troubling but it is easy to believe that his heart is in the concerns that he expresses. His demand for "change" is well received but the specifics will have to wait until we learn to what "experts" he intends to listen in formulating his own policies.
We would really like to know what their specific ideas are for re-forming and re-regulating our economic system in order to correct the madness which has brought the entire nation to the brink of bankruptcy. We would appreciate it if Senator Clinton would explain why she is so determined that it is necessary to keep troops in Iraq to "protect out Embassy", that huge municipal complex which many of us believe should be left as reparations for the Iraqis in return for the cities and the homes that we have destroyed in this ill-begotten adventure. What would be the attitude of Senator Obama to that proposal?
We, the voters, want to know what they think of the usurpation of powers by the current president; whether they would restore the constitutional division of power among the three branches of government; whether they would take advantage of the measures that have been taken by George W. Bush which would make the new president a virtual dictator; whether they would take steps to end the loss of our civil rights as to wire-tapping, internet monitoring, and other intrusions into our personal lives. These are vital questions to many of us and the answers are extremely important, not only in the general election but now, in the primaries.
For years, we have gritted our teeth as the Republicans challenged the Democrats to "present a plan" as they opposed the policies of the Bush administration. Now we, the people, would like to suggest the same thing. Regardless of the ultimate winner of the Democratic Convention, these questions will be asked and there must be some answers. The voters have a right to know what to expect the next President to do once he/she takes office and we could use the same information while making our choice as to whom to support in their primary candidacy.
Failure to do so could cause quite a stir as the Christian right finds that their prayers are having to "take a number" as the Most High is busy fielding all the prayers from the Democrats that someone they can trust will appear as the leader of a viable third party who can beat them all and steer our country out of the shame of the last seven years and return it to the honorable nation which we have loved so dearly.
The author is a very "with-it" old lady who aspires to bring a bit of truth, justice, and common sense to a nation that has lost touch with its humanity in the search for "societal perfection".
4/1/08
As we watch and listen to the candidates for President, we find ourselves befuddled by what they say from week to week. Senator Clinton wants to be thought the best leader for the Democratic Party while she has repeatedly compromises her democratic principles in an effort to gain the votes of dissatisfied Republicans. The only issue on which she has spoken clearly and unequivocally is the management of the health care crises. There again, she appears to be wary of alienating any stray Republicans by recommending requirement for everybody to buy insurance rather than by suggesting ways to either lower the cost or to set up a program for the poor that will really work.
At the same time, Senator Obama can only second the Clinton plan with a bit of softening around the harsh edges. Of course, Senator McCain has not even addressed the problem since he "prefers to concentrate on national security" by becoming a virtual echo chamber for the Bush/Cheney propaganda. It does seem odd that a man who has prided himself on his reputation as a "maverick" should be strutting around with the war dogs and snarling at the very people whom he is asking to vote for him. Even in his speech regarding the economy, he advocates doing virtually nothing whereas on the war, he promises only to stay in Iraq for generations.
While Senator Clinton has spent years in the Senate, complaining about the Iraq War and the arrogance of President Bush, she now professes to believe that we cannot end the war without leaving troops in place for the indeterminate future. She laments the fact that she did not know then what she knows now when she voted to give the President the authority to use force against Iraq, or she "might have voted differently." Perhaps she now knows that no member of a legislative should ever vote for any measure without having thoroughly read it first. The same is true with the Patriot Act for which she has dutifully marched in lockstep to renew on command.
She professes great experience that fits her for the supreme command. It would seem that most of her experience is in campaigning for public office, largely on behalf of her husband. Your friendly neighborhood neurologist is probably married but would you ask his wife to do your brain surgery? If that sort of experience counts, I can recall several former First Ladies who would have made much better candidates. As for Barrack Obama, his brief experience in public office is troubling but it is easy to believe that his heart is in the concerns that he expresses. His demand for "change" is well received but the specifics will have to wait until we learn to what "experts" he intends to listen in formulating his own policies.
We would really like to know what their specific ideas are for re-forming and re-regulating our economic system in order to correct the madness which has brought the entire nation to the brink of bankruptcy. We would appreciate it if Senator Clinton would explain why she is so determined that it is necessary to keep troops in Iraq to "protect out Embassy", that huge municipal complex which many of us believe should be left as reparations for the Iraqis in return for the cities and the homes that we have destroyed in this ill-begotten adventure. What would be the attitude of Senator Obama to that proposal?
We, the voters, want to know what they think of the usurpation of powers by the current president; whether they would restore the constitutional division of power among the three branches of government; whether they would take advantage of the measures that have been taken by George W. Bush which would make the new president a virtual dictator; whether they would take steps to end the loss of our civil rights as to wire-tapping, internet monitoring, and other intrusions into our personal lives. These are vital questions to many of us and the answers are extremely important, not only in the general election but now, in the primaries.
For years, we have gritted our teeth as the Republicans challenged the Democrats to "present a plan" as they opposed the policies of the Bush administration. Now we, the people, would like to suggest the same thing. Regardless of the ultimate winner of the Democratic Convention, these questions will be asked and there must be some answers. The voters have a right to know what to expect the next President to do once he/she takes office and we could use the same information while making our choice as to whom to support in their primary candidacy.
Failure to do so could cause quite a stir as the Christian right finds that their prayers are having to "take a number" as the Most High is busy fielding all the prayers from the Democrats that someone they can trust will appear as the leader of a viable third party who can beat them all and steer our country out of the shame of the last seven years and return it to the honorable nation which we have loved so dearly.
The author is a very "with-it" old lady who aspires to bring a bit of truth, justice, and common sense to a nation that has lost touch with its humanity in the search for "societal perfection".
The New York Times v Hugo Chavez
- by Stephen Lendman
4/1/08
Carly Simon's theme song from the 1977 James Bond film "The Spy Who Loved Me" says it all about The New York Times' agitprop skill - "Nobody Does It Better" nor have others in the media been at it longer. Most important is The Times influence and reach and what media critic Norman Solomon says about its front page. He calls it "the most valuable square inches of media real estate in the USA." It's read by government, business leaders and opinion-makers everywhere and for that reason is hugely important.
Hugo Chavez is its frequent target, and Simon Romero has the assignment as The Times' man in Caracas. His latest March 30 offering is headlined "Files Suggest Venezuela Bid to Aid Columbia Rebels," and it relates to the spurious claim that captured FARC-EP computers contained potentially smoking-gun evidence "tying Venezuela's government to efforts to secure arms for Colombia's largest insurgency" and is aiding its efforts through funding and other means to destabilize the Uribe government.
Romero states: "Officials taking part in Columbia's investigation....provided (NYT) with copies of more than 20 files, some of which also showed contributions from the rebels to the 2006 campaign of Ecuador's leftist president, Rafael Correa." One piece of correspondence from November 21, 2006 "describes a $100,000 donation to (Correa's) campaign." Alvaro Uribe noted it and others but so far hasn't released them. For his part, Correa vigorously denies the charge and said the files lacked "technical and legal" validity.
Romero stops short of claiming the files are legitimate, but refuses to suggest they're not. He also ignores Chavez's mediating role to secure prisoner releases on both sides. He does, however, quite suggestively accuse Chavez and Correa of links to the FARC-EP "which the United States says is a terrorist group and has fought to overthrow Colombia's government for four decades."
Romero, like his mainstream colleagues, never lets facts interfere with his mission. Here he claims "Colombian officials who provided the computer files adamantly vouched for them (and they) contained touches that suggested authenticity:....revolutionary jargon, passages in numerical code, missives about American policy in Latin America and even brief personal reflections" by FARC-EP commanders. Moreover, "files made public so far only scratched the surface of the captured archives" without a hint from him that they're simple to fake (or invent) and Washington and Bogota have every incentive to do it as a way to vilify FARC-EP and Chavez as part of their imperial project.
Romero quotes Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos saying Colombia retrieved more than 16,000 files from three computers belonging to Luis Edgar Devia Silva, aka FARC-EP commander Raul Reyes who was killed in the Ecuadorian cross-border incursion. In addition, claims of two other hard drives captured were also made. Santos said "Everything has been accessed and everything is being validated by Interpol (that's pretty closely tied to western interests and functions to serve them as called on). According to Santos, "a great deal of information" was gotten "that is extremely valuable and important."
He further claimed (plausible or not) that the computers survived the bombing raid intact "because they were in metal casing" and emphasized that he didn't regret a thing about Colombia's aggression against its neighbor.
For his part, Chavez responded and Romero at least quoted him, no doubt because it was from a meeting with foreign journalists who did as well. Chavez mocked the supposed evidence saying: "The main weapon they have now is the computer, the supposed computer of Paul Reyes. This computer is like a la carte service, giving you whatever you want. You want steak? or fried fish? How would you like it prepared? You'll get it however the empire decides."
"Desert" may have been a January 25, 2007 letter by Ivan Marquez, a member of the FARC-EP's seven-member secretariat discussing a meeting with a Venezuelan official named "Carvajal," apparently referring to General Hugo Carvajal, Venezuela's military intelligence director. Its contents were claimed to state a "pledge (to bring FARC-EP) an arms dealer from Panama."
Still another offering was correspondence from January 18, 2007 suggesting Chavez would provide a $250 million loan to buy arms and would be repaid "when we take power."
Romero then attacks the FARC-EP with familiar innuendoes that appear throughout the major media to smear it unjustly. He also suggests the possibility of Washington designating Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism but considers it unlikely because of its importance as a major US oil supplier.
Even so, California Republican Darrell Issa (and 22 co-sponsors) introduced House Resolution (HR) 965 in February condemning Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism, and Florida Republicans Connie Mack and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (and 8 co-sponsors) introduced a similar HR 1049 in March that "condemned the Venezuelan government for its support of terrorist organizations" with direct reference to the FARC-EP. These efforts won't likely get far, and for now at least, view them as politics as usual in a year when all House members are up for reelection and need to rev up their constituencies for support. It makes Chavez a favorite target with a complicit media going along.
In sum, Romero and others like him in the mainstream, keep at their appointed mission - attacking the most model democracy in the region with a clear and purposeful aim - to destabilize, destroy and transform Venezuela into the alternate model Uribe represents: uncompromising hard right; hugely repressive; linked to Colombia's death squads and drug cartels; a supporter of state terrorism; a government riddled with corruption and scandal; and George Bush's favorite Latin America leader because of all of the above.
Expect lots more Romero commentaries like this one that are part of what Eva Golinger calls America's "asymmetric - 4th Generation War - against President Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution." The dark forces Romero represents won't quit so more enlightened ones like Golinger and others must keep exposing their schemes to protect Venezuela's glorious experiment that's working.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on Republic Broadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting edge discussions with distinguished guests.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8477
4/1/08
Carly Simon's theme song from the 1977 James Bond film "The Spy Who Loved Me" says it all about The New York Times' agitprop skill - "Nobody Does It Better" nor have others in the media been at it longer. Most important is The Times influence and reach and what media critic Norman Solomon says about its front page. He calls it "the most valuable square inches of media real estate in the USA." It's read by government, business leaders and opinion-makers everywhere and for that reason is hugely important.
Hugo Chavez is its frequent target, and Simon Romero has the assignment as The Times' man in Caracas. His latest March 30 offering is headlined "Files Suggest Venezuela Bid to Aid Columbia Rebels," and it relates to the spurious claim that captured FARC-EP computers contained potentially smoking-gun evidence "tying Venezuela's government to efforts to secure arms for Colombia's largest insurgency" and is aiding its efforts through funding and other means to destabilize the Uribe government.
Romero states: "Officials taking part in Columbia's investigation....provided (NYT) with copies of more than 20 files, some of which also showed contributions from the rebels to the 2006 campaign of Ecuador's leftist president, Rafael Correa." One piece of correspondence from November 21, 2006 "describes a $100,000 donation to (Correa's) campaign." Alvaro Uribe noted it and others but so far hasn't released them. For his part, Correa vigorously denies the charge and said the files lacked "technical and legal" validity.
Romero stops short of claiming the files are legitimate, but refuses to suggest they're not. He also ignores Chavez's mediating role to secure prisoner releases on both sides. He does, however, quite suggestively accuse Chavez and Correa of links to the FARC-EP "which the United States says is a terrorist group and has fought to overthrow Colombia's government for four decades."
Romero, like his mainstream colleagues, never lets facts interfere with his mission. Here he claims "Colombian officials who provided the computer files adamantly vouched for them (and they) contained touches that suggested authenticity:....revolutionary jargon, passages in numerical code, missives about American policy in Latin America and even brief personal reflections" by FARC-EP commanders. Moreover, "files made public so far only scratched the surface of the captured archives" without a hint from him that they're simple to fake (or invent) and Washington and Bogota have every incentive to do it as a way to vilify FARC-EP and Chavez as part of their imperial project.
Romero quotes Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos saying Colombia retrieved more than 16,000 files from three computers belonging to Luis Edgar Devia Silva, aka FARC-EP commander Raul Reyes who was killed in the Ecuadorian cross-border incursion. In addition, claims of two other hard drives captured were also made. Santos said "Everything has been accessed and everything is being validated by Interpol (that's pretty closely tied to western interests and functions to serve them as called on). According to Santos, "a great deal of information" was gotten "that is extremely valuable and important."
He further claimed (plausible or not) that the computers survived the bombing raid intact "because they were in metal casing" and emphasized that he didn't regret a thing about Colombia's aggression against its neighbor.
For his part, Chavez responded and Romero at least quoted him, no doubt because it was from a meeting with foreign journalists who did as well. Chavez mocked the supposed evidence saying: "The main weapon they have now is the computer, the supposed computer of Paul Reyes. This computer is like a la carte service, giving you whatever you want. You want steak? or fried fish? How would you like it prepared? You'll get it however the empire decides."
"Desert" may have been a January 25, 2007 letter by Ivan Marquez, a member of the FARC-EP's seven-member secretariat discussing a meeting with a Venezuelan official named "Carvajal," apparently referring to General Hugo Carvajal, Venezuela's military intelligence director. Its contents were claimed to state a "pledge (to bring FARC-EP) an arms dealer from Panama."
Still another offering was correspondence from January 18, 2007 suggesting Chavez would provide a $250 million loan to buy arms and would be repaid "when we take power."
Romero then attacks the FARC-EP with familiar innuendoes that appear throughout the major media to smear it unjustly. He also suggests the possibility of Washington designating Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism but considers it unlikely because of its importance as a major US oil supplier.
Even so, California Republican Darrell Issa (and 22 co-sponsors) introduced House Resolution (HR) 965 in February condemning Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism, and Florida Republicans Connie Mack and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (and 8 co-sponsors) introduced a similar HR 1049 in March that "condemned the Venezuelan government for its support of terrorist organizations" with direct reference to the FARC-EP. These efforts won't likely get far, and for now at least, view them as politics as usual in a year when all House members are up for reelection and need to rev up their constituencies for support. It makes Chavez a favorite target with a complicit media going along.
In sum, Romero and others like him in the mainstream, keep at their appointed mission - attacking the most model democracy in the region with a clear and purposeful aim - to destabilize, destroy and transform Venezuela into the alternate model Uribe represents: uncompromising hard right; hugely repressive; linked to Colombia's death squads and drug cartels; a supporter of state terrorism; a government riddled with corruption and scandal; and George Bush's favorite Latin America leader because of all of the above.
Expect lots more Romero commentaries like this one that are part of what Eva Golinger calls America's "asymmetric - 4th Generation War - against President Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution." The dark forces Romero represents won't quit so more enlightened ones like Golinger and others must keep exposing their schemes to protect Venezuela's glorious experiment that's working.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on Republic Broadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting edge discussions with distinguished guests.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8477
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)