Anyone who knows me knows I have no particular love for Islam. It ranks right up there with Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity and any other organized magical thinking you can list as far as I'm concerned. However, I do have a fondness for facts.
From Huffington Post:
"The 'Ground Zero mosque' is a genuine proposal," Brooker notes, "but it's slightly less provocative than its critics' nickname makes it sound. For one thing, it's not at Ground Zero. Also, it isn't a mosque."
Brooker goes on to note, correctly, that the project is a "cultural centre" with a "basketball court," whose purpose is to "improve interfaith relations."
And, to repeat, it's not at Ground Zero!
Perhaps spatial reality functions differently on the other side of the Atlantic, but here in London, something that is "two minutes' walk and round a corner" from something else isn't actually "in" the same place at all. I once had a poo in a pub about two minutes' walk from Buckingham Palace. I was not subsequently arrested and charged with crapping directly onto the Queen's pillow. That's how "distance" works in Britain. It's also how distance works in America, of course, but some people are currently pretending it doesn't, for daft political ends.
Read the rest from Charlie Brooker at Huffington Post after the click.
Showing posts with label US Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Constitution. Show all posts
Monday, August 30, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Nixon's Lawyer on Torture
by John Dean
Remarkably, the confirmation of President Obama's Attorney General nominee, Eric Holder, is being held up by Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn, who apparently is unhappy that Holder might actually investigate and prosecute Bush Administration officials who engaged in torture. Aside from this repugnant new Republican embrace of torture (which might be a winning issue for the lunatic fringe of the party and a nice way to further marginalize the GOP), any effort to protect Bush officials from legal responsibility for war crimes, in the long run, will not work.
It is difficult to believe that Eric Holder would agree not to enforce the law, like his recent Republican predecessors. Indeed, if he were to do so, President Obama should withdraw his nomination. But as MSNBC "Countdown" anchor Keith Olbermann stated earlier this week, even if the Obama Administration for whatever reason does not investigate and prosecute these crimes, this still does not mean that the Bush Administration officials who were involved in torture are going to get a pass.
With few exceptions, the discussion about what the Obama Administration will do regarding the torture of detainees during the Bush years has been framed as a domestic matter, and the fate of those involved in torturing has been largely viewed as a question of whether the Department of Justice will take action. In fact, not only is the world watching what the Obama Administration does regarding Bush's torturers, but other countries are very likely to take action if the United States fails to do so.
... read the rest, and there IS more, after the click.
My comment: The whole world is watching. What an unholy, unmitigated, intergalactic, everlasting embarrassment it would be if someone should take the responsibility for cleaning up the mess WE, in a panic, allowed.
Until this minor detail is addressed, we can no longer claim to be a nation governed by laws (not men). We can no longer claim that "no man is above the law" for we will have made exceptions. Our mouthed platitudes about respect for the law will be greeted by international snickers. We will have demonstrated that when the going gets rough, we are just another comic opera banana republic willing to prosecute others for crimes against civilization (see the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, the prosecution of Augusto Pinochet and the trial of Slobodan Milošević) but totally unwilling to take responsibility for our own transgressions. We will have become a nation that believes laws are for other people and don't apply to us ... and that there are those among us to whom no laws apply what-so-ever.
It won't be the end of the world as we know it, but it will be the beginning of the end. We will have sacrificed our stated principles embodied in our laws for the sake of domestic political expediency - for the fear that those supporting this lawlessness might interpret the pursuit of justice under the law as somehow being petty political revenge.
To say that we believe in the rule of law while ignoring fundamental crimes against civilization would be the ultimate hypocracy.
I love my country ... I'm just not particularly proud of some of the things done in her name.
Remarkably, the confirmation of President Obama's Attorney General nominee, Eric Holder, is being held up by Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn, who apparently is unhappy that Holder might actually investigate and prosecute Bush Administration officials who engaged in torture. Aside from this repugnant new Republican embrace of torture (which might be a winning issue for the lunatic fringe of the party and a nice way to further marginalize the GOP), any effort to protect Bush officials from legal responsibility for war crimes, in the long run, will not work.
It is difficult to believe that Eric Holder would agree not to enforce the law, like his recent Republican predecessors. Indeed, if he were to do so, President Obama should withdraw his nomination. But as MSNBC "Countdown" anchor Keith Olbermann stated earlier this week, even if the Obama Administration for whatever reason does not investigate and prosecute these crimes, this still does not mean that the Bush Administration officials who were involved in torture are going to get a pass.
With few exceptions, the discussion about what the Obama Administration will do regarding the torture of detainees during the Bush years has been framed as a domestic matter, and the fate of those involved in torturing has been largely viewed as a question of whether the Department of Justice will take action. In fact, not only is the world watching what the Obama Administration does regarding Bush's torturers, but other countries are very likely to take action if the United States fails to do so.
... read the rest, and there IS more, after the click.
My comment: The whole world is watching. What an unholy, unmitigated, intergalactic, everlasting embarrassment it would be if someone should take the responsibility for cleaning up the mess WE, in a panic, allowed.
Until this minor detail is addressed, we can no longer claim to be a nation governed by laws (not men). We can no longer claim that "no man is above the law" for we will have made exceptions. Our mouthed platitudes about respect for the law will be greeted by international snickers. We will have demonstrated that when the going gets rough, we are just another comic opera banana republic willing to prosecute others for crimes against civilization (see the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, the prosecution of Augusto Pinochet and the trial of Slobodan Milošević) but totally unwilling to take responsibility for our own transgressions. We will have become a nation that believes laws are for other people and don't apply to us ... and that there are those among us to whom no laws apply what-so-ever.
It won't be the end of the world as we know it, but it will be the beginning of the end. We will have sacrificed our stated principles embodied in our laws for the sake of domestic political expediency - for the fear that those supporting this lawlessness might interpret the pursuit of justice under the law as somehow being petty political revenge.
To say that we believe in the rule of law while ignoring fundamental crimes against civilization would be the ultimate hypocracy.
I love my country ... I'm just not particularly proud of some of the things done in her name.
Friday, January 02, 2009
The Law of Unintended Consequences
The New Second Amendment: A Bark Worse Than Its Right
In June, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, D.C. v. Heller. For over 70 years, the federal courts had read that amendment to protect only a state's right to organize militias, like the National Guard. In a long-awaited victory for the gun rights movement, the Court reversed course and held that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to own guns for personal self-defense.
So far, the victory hasn't turned out exactly as the gun rights folks had hoped.
As many legal scholars predicted, the Supreme Court's decision led to a tidal wave of Second Amendment challenges to gun control. Every person charged with a gun crime saw the Supreme Court's decision as a Get Out of Jail Free Card.
To date, the lower federal courts have ruled in over 60 different cases on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws. There have been suits against laws banning possession of firearms by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. The courts have ruled on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting particular types of weapons, including sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, and specific weapons attachments. Defendants have challenged laws barring guns in school zones and post offices, and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, the carrying of concealed weapons, possession of an unregistered firearm, and particular types of ammunition. The courts have upheld every one of these laws.
Since Heller, its Gun Control: 60, Individual Right: 0.
... there's more on HuffPo after the click.
My comment: Another case of "be careful what you wish for".
Anyway, this suggests some questions to me ... and I pass them along to you.
1.) Is this a case of "activist judges" that the right is so ... um ... up in arms about? And if it is, given the historic precedents (to wit: "For over 70 years, the federal courts had read that amendment to protect only a state's right to organize militias"), is it the lower court judges who are being "activists" by upholding the history of precedents or the hand picked and packed right wing Supreme Court, bucking the precedents that represent the dreaded "activism"?
2.) Or could this just be another of those right-wing despised situations of trial lawyers bringing frivolous lawsuits that waste the court's time and public's resources?
In June, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, D.C. v. Heller. For over 70 years, the federal courts had read that amendment to protect only a state's right to organize militias, like the National Guard. In a long-awaited victory for the gun rights movement, the Court reversed course and held that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to own guns for personal self-defense.
So far, the victory hasn't turned out exactly as the gun rights folks had hoped.
As many legal scholars predicted, the Supreme Court's decision led to a tidal wave of Second Amendment challenges to gun control. Every person charged with a gun crime saw the Supreme Court's decision as a Get Out of Jail Free Card.
To date, the lower federal courts have ruled in over 60 different cases on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws. There have been suits against laws banning possession of firearms by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. The courts have ruled on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting particular types of weapons, including sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, and specific weapons attachments. Defendants have challenged laws barring guns in school zones and post offices, and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, the carrying of concealed weapons, possession of an unregistered firearm, and particular types of ammunition. The courts have upheld every one of these laws.
Since Heller, its Gun Control: 60, Individual Right: 0.
... there's more on HuffPo after the click.
My comment: Another case of "be careful what you wish for".
Anyway, this suggests some questions to me ... and I pass them along to you.
1.) Is this a case of "activist judges" that the right is so ... um ... up in arms about? And if it is, given the historic precedents (to wit: "For over 70 years, the federal courts had read that amendment to protect only a state's right to organize militias"), is it the lower court judges who are being "activists" by upholding the history of precedents or the hand picked and packed right wing Supreme Court, bucking the precedents that represent the dreaded "activism"?
2.) Or could this just be another of those right-wing despised situations of trial lawyers bringing frivolous lawsuits that waste the court's time and public's resources?
Sunday, December 14, 2008
The Rule of Law ... and what ever happened to it?
GLENN GREENWALD: ... Let’s just quickly describe in the most dispassionate terms, as few of euphemisms, as possible, where we are and what has happened over the last eight years. We have a law in place that says it is a felony offense punishable by five years in prison or a $10,000 fine to eavesdrop on American citizens without warrants. We have laws in place that say that it is a felony punishable by decades in prison to subject detainees in our custody to treatment that violates the Geneva Conventions or that is inhumane or coercive.
We know that the president and his top aides have violated these laws. The facts are indisputable that they’ve done so. And yet as a country, as a political class, we’re deciding basically in unison that the president and our highest political officials are free to break the most serious laws that we have, that our citizens have enacted, with complete impunity, without consequences, without being held accountable under the law.
And when you juxtapose that with the fact that we are a country that has probably the most merciless criminal justice system on the planet when it comes to ordinary Americans. We imprison more of our population than any country in the world. We have less than five percent of the world’s population. And yet 25 percent almost of prisoners worldwide are inside the United States.
What you have is a two-tiered system of justice where ordinary Americans are subjected to the most merciless criminal justice system in the world. They break the law. The full weight of the criminal justice system comes crashing down upon them. But our political class, the same elites who have imposed that incredibly harsh framework on ordinary Americans, have essentially exempted themselves and the leaders of that political class from the law.
They have license to break the law. That’s what we’re deciding now as we say George Bush and his top advisors shouldn’t be investigated let alone prosecuted for the laws that we know that they’ve broken. And I can’t think of anything more damaging to our country because the rule of law is the lynchpin of everything we have.
... video here.
We know that the president and his top aides have violated these laws. The facts are indisputable that they’ve done so. And yet as a country, as a political class, we’re deciding basically in unison that the president and our highest political officials are free to break the most serious laws that we have, that our citizens have enacted, with complete impunity, without consequences, without being held accountable under the law.
And when you juxtapose that with the fact that we are a country that has probably the most merciless criminal justice system on the planet when it comes to ordinary Americans. We imprison more of our population than any country in the world. We have less than five percent of the world’s population. And yet 25 percent almost of prisoners worldwide are inside the United States.
What you have is a two-tiered system of justice where ordinary Americans are subjected to the most merciless criminal justice system in the world. They break the law. The full weight of the criminal justice system comes crashing down upon them. But our political class, the same elites who have imposed that incredibly harsh framework on ordinary Americans, have essentially exempted themselves and the leaders of that political class from the law.
They have license to break the law. That’s what we’re deciding now as we say George Bush and his top advisors shouldn’t be investigated let alone prosecuted for the laws that we know that they’ve broken. And I can’t think of anything more damaging to our country because the rule of law is the lynchpin of everything we have.
... video here.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
If a tree falls in the forest ...
National Impeachment Movement Ignored by Corporate Media
By Peter Phillips
If a national movement calling for the impeachment of the President is rapidly emerging and the corporate media are not covering it, is there really a national movement for the impeachment of the President?
Impeachment advocates are widely mobilizing in the U.S. Over 1,000 letters to the editors of major newspapers have been printed in the past six months asking for impeachment. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette letter writer George Matus says, “I am still enraged over unasked questions about exit polls, touch-screen voting, Iraq, the cost of the new Medicare…who formulated our energy policy, Jack Abramoff, the Downing Street Memos, and impeachment.” David Anderson in McMinnville, Oregon pens to the Oregonian, “Where are the members of our congressional delegation now in demanding the current president’s actions be investigated to see if impeachment or censure are appropriate actions?” William Dwyer’s letter in the Charleston Gazette says, “Congress will never have the courage to start the impeachment process without a groundswell of outrage from the people.”
City councils, boards of supervisors, and local and state level Democrat central committees have voted for impeachment. Arcata, California voted for impeachment on January 6. The City and County of San Francisco, voted Yes on February 28. The Sonoma County Democrat Central Committee (CA) voted for Impeachment on March 16. The townships of Newfane, Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro and Putney in Vermont all voted for impeachment the first week of March. The New Mexico State Democrat party convention rallied on March 18 for the ”impeachment of George Bush and his lawful removal from office.” The national Green Party called for impeachment on January 3. Op-ed writers at the St. Petersburg Times, Newsday, Yale Daily News, Barrons, Detroit Free Press, and the Boston Globe have called for impeachment. The San Francisco Bay Guardian (1/25/06) The Nation (1/30/06) and Harpers (3/06) published cover articles calling for impeachment. As of March 16, thirty-two US House of Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors to House Resolution 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bush’s impeachment.
... the rest after the jump.
By Peter Phillips
If a national movement calling for the impeachment of the President is rapidly emerging and the corporate media are not covering it, is there really a national movement for the impeachment of the President?
Impeachment advocates are widely mobilizing in the U.S. Over 1,000 letters to the editors of major newspapers have been printed in the past six months asking for impeachment. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette letter writer George Matus says, “I am still enraged over unasked questions about exit polls, touch-screen voting, Iraq, the cost of the new Medicare…who formulated our energy policy, Jack Abramoff, the Downing Street Memos, and impeachment.” David Anderson in McMinnville, Oregon pens to the Oregonian, “Where are the members of our congressional delegation now in demanding the current president’s actions be investigated to see if impeachment or censure are appropriate actions?” William Dwyer’s letter in the Charleston Gazette says, “Congress will never have the courage to start the impeachment process without a groundswell of outrage from the people.”
City councils, boards of supervisors, and local and state level Democrat central committees have voted for impeachment. Arcata, California voted for impeachment on January 6. The City and County of San Francisco, voted Yes on February 28. The Sonoma County Democrat Central Committee (CA) voted for Impeachment on March 16. The townships of Newfane, Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro and Putney in Vermont all voted for impeachment the first week of March. The New Mexico State Democrat party convention rallied on March 18 for the ”impeachment of George Bush and his lawful removal from office.” The national Green Party called for impeachment on January 3. Op-ed writers at the St. Petersburg Times, Newsday, Yale Daily News, Barrons, Detroit Free Press, and the Boston Globe have called for impeachment. The San Francisco Bay Guardian (1/25/06) The Nation (1/30/06) and Harpers (3/06) published cover articles calling for impeachment. As of March 16, thirty-two US House of Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors to House Resolution 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bush’s impeachment.
... the rest after the jump.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Sunday, April 06, 2008
A useful reminder
"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism."
-- George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
My comment:
Is anyone favoring a "unified presidency" listening?
-- George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
My comment:
Is anyone favoring a "unified presidency" listening?
Oh When the Troops / Come Marching In...
from Jesus' General
If you found the military knocking on your door in the middle of the night, what would you do? You might not have many choices about what to do if the president has authorized them to sweep your neighborhood because Bush has assumed the authority to use the military in "anti-terrorism" efforts without the oversight of the courts. Your home could be searched and you can be taken into custody without warrant. You wouldn't be able to assume that you'd be provided with the niceties of civilized societies like lawyers, a judge, or a court of law.
Perhaps if the military appears at your door, you should be thankful that they are knocking and haven't already knocked the door in. It wasn't that long ago — ah, the good old days — when speculations about sending the military to conduct warrantless searches and arrests would have been limited to just the the farthest extremes of nutty conspiracy theorists. In today's climate, such speculations sound almost conservative in nature.
We don't have a Congress that is quite craven enough to pass a law giving Bush dictatorial powers, but we have a president arrogant and authoritarian enough to ignore the parts of the laws he doesn't like, to amend them to his liking, and to interpret them in whatever manner is most consistent with his desire to act without checks, balances, or oversight. How so? According to a footnote in a John Yoo memo, his office had concluded that "the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations."
More after the click ...
If you found the military knocking on your door in the middle of the night, what would you do? You might not have many choices about what to do if the president has authorized them to sweep your neighborhood because Bush has assumed the authority to use the military in "anti-terrorism" efforts without the oversight of the courts. Your home could be searched and you can be taken into custody without warrant. You wouldn't be able to assume that you'd be provided with the niceties of civilized societies like lawyers, a judge, or a court of law.
Perhaps if the military appears at your door, you should be thankful that they are knocking and haven't already knocked the door in. It wasn't that long ago — ah, the good old days — when speculations about sending the military to conduct warrantless searches and arrests would have been limited to just the the farthest extremes of nutty conspiracy theorists. In today's climate, such speculations sound almost conservative in nature.
We don't have a Congress that is quite craven enough to pass a law giving Bush dictatorial powers, but we have a president arrogant and authoritarian enough to ignore the parts of the laws he doesn't like, to amend them to his liking, and to interpret them in whatever manner is most consistent with his desire to act without checks, balances, or oversight. How so? According to a footnote in a John Yoo memo, his office had concluded that "the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations."
More after the click ...
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Another dumb comment ...
Portsmouth (NH) Seacosst OnLine
OK ... So now I'm confused. Does that mean McCain DOESN'T want to be Commander-in-Chief? He doesn't even have the job yet and already he's trying to duck responsibility.
Here's a guy who is supposed to be a serious contender and he doesn't even know what the job description is!
The military gives orders to the civilian authorities in all those right-wing, banana republic, dictatorships we've been propping up for the last century. In our democracy the military takes its orders from the civilian authorities. At least that's the way it was structured in OUR Constitution.
As for pulling out of Iraq, McCain said there is only one man who will determine when that is appropriate and the name he mentioned was not his own.
“There is only one man who should decide when to withdraw from Iraq and that is (General) David Petraeus,” the Arizona Senator said.
OK ... So now I'm confused. Does that mean McCain DOESN'T want to be Commander-in-Chief? He doesn't even have the job yet and already he's trying to duck responsibility.
Here's a guy who is supposed to be a serious contender and he doesn't even know what the job description is!
The military gives orders to the civilian authorities in all those right-wing, banana republic, dictatorships we've been propping up for the last century. In our democracy the military takes its orders from the civilian authorities. At least that's the way it was structured in OUR Constitution.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
HR 847
RESOLUTION
Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.
Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world;
Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population;
Whereas there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians throughout the world, making Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of the world population;
Whereas Christians identify themselves as those who believe in the salvation from sin offered to them through the sacrifice of their savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and who, out of gratitude for the gift of salvation, commit themselves to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible;
Whereas Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization;
Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its roots in Christianity;
Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ;
Whereas for Christians, Christmas is celebrated as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and
Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others: Now, therefore be it
1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
2 (1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the
3 great religions of the world;
1 (2) expresses continued support for Christians
2 in the United States and worldwide;
3 (3) acknowledges the international religious and
4 historical importance of Christmas and the Christian
5 faith;
6 (4) acknowledges and supports the role played
7 by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the
8 United States and in the formation of the western
9 civilization;
10 (5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed
11 against Christians, both in the United States and
12 worldwide; and
13 (6) expresses its deepest respect to American
14 Christians and Christians throughout the world
Dec 11, 2007: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 372 - 9, 10 Present (Roll no. 1143)
My comment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
For those who don't recognize it, that's the full text of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. It specifically prohibits Congress from making laws that favor one religion over another. It used to be called the separation of church and state and it served our country well for more than 200 years ... until now.
It would appear that only 9 Representatives in the House have actually read it.
Who stands for the Constitution now that Congress no longer does?
Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans, members of other religions to numerous to list and those of no particular "faith" at all have all been put on notice. The United States is not what it used to be. The Constitution doesn't mean what it used to mean.
Congress has now singled out a specific religious orientation for special recognition. It is not a great leap from there to special treatment.
This may seem a small, insignificant thing ... it is not. The waters have been tested. If there is no protest, another step will be taken ... and then another and another. Never again? This is how it happens ... and it's happening here.
Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.
Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world;
Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population;
Whereas there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians throughout the world, making Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of the world population;
Whereas Christians identify themselves as those who believe in the salvation from sin offered to them through the sacrifice of their savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and who, out of gratitude for the gift of salvation, commit themselves to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible;
Whereas Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization;
Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its roots in Christianity;
Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ;
Whereas for Christians, Christmas is celebrated as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and
Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others: Now, therefore be it
1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
2 (1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the
3 great religions of the world;
1 (2) expresses continued support for Christians
2 in the United States and worldwide;
3 (3) acknowledges the international religious and
4 historical importance of Christmas and the Christian
5 faith;
6 (4) acknowledges and supports the role played
7 by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the
8 United States and in the formation of the western
9 civilization;
10 (5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed
11 against Christians, both in the United States and
12 worldwide; and
13 (6) expresses its deepest respect to American
14 Christians and Christians throughout the world
Dec 11, 2007: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 372 - 9, 10 Present (Roll no. 1143)
My comment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
For those who don't recognize it, that's the full text of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. It specifically prohibits Congress from making laws that favor one religion over another. It used to be called the separation of church and state and it served our country well for more than 200 years ... until now.
It would appear that only 9 Representatives in the House have actually read it.
Who stands for the Constitution now that Congress no longer does?
Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans, members of other religions to numerous to list and those of no particular "faith" at all have all been put on notice. The United States is not what it used to be. The Constitution doesn't mean what it used to mean.
Congress has now singled out a specific religious orientation for special recognition. It is not a great leap from there to special treatment.
This may seem a small, insignificant thing ... it is not. The waters have been tested. If there is no protest, another step will be taken ... and then another and another. Never again? This is how it happens ... and it's happening here.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
A Cost of Doing Business
Robert L. Borosage on HuffPo
Markets self-regulate, conservatives tell us. Just get government off our backs, companies tell us (after we pocket whatever subsidies we can grab).
The Washington Post reports today on the safety of theme parks that feature rides that can whirl kids at speeds reaching 100 miles an hour. Most parents think the government makes certain the rides are safe. Think again.
Under President Jimmy Carter, the Consumer Product Safety Commission probed ride accidents at Marriott theme parks. In 1981, with the election of Ronald Reagan, the industry carried the fight to the Congress, complaining that government policing was creating "economic hardship," and would "make the rides worthless." Legislators, awash in industry campaign contributions, exempted permanent parks from CPSC oversight. The only regulation comes at the state level which is scattershot at best. For the most part, the industry now polices itself.
So accidents are simply a cost of doing business. Last year, four people lost their lives in theme park rides; many more were injured and maimed. The companies make a simple calculation because markets do self-regulate. If the number of unnecessary deaths and injuries is small enough that it costs more to put in safety equipment than to pay the costs of litigation with the victims and lobbying the legislature, then the deaths of a few kids is simply written off as a cost of doing business.
More after the click ...
My comment:
The point isn't about theme park rides ... though its a graphic example. It's about the way corporations, directed toward profits, view actual people. In product liability discussions throughout corporations everywhere the costs of doing nothing are weighed against the costs of doing something. It's the same formula that drug companies use. It's the same formula that tobacco companies have used for years. It's the same formula that every corporation that ever existed used or uses when calculating how to deal with a given problem. It's called "Cost Benefit Analysis".
Now, I'd be among the first to say that "cost benefit analysis" is not in itself a bad thing. It's an extremely useful tool. However, it is limited because it only considers the dollars involved ... and not common human sense. If you believe that human life is precious and sacrosanct; that one cannot put a price on human life ... then you must demand that corporations consider more than just the dollars involved. That is where government regulation comes in (and remember, government in this country is We, the People). Without government regulation, We the People have no protection from corporations and their pursuit of profits.
In the example above, the corporations involved made the case that "government regulation" created an "economic hardship" for them. Let's look at that statement for a moment. It says that when We, the People, sought to protect ourselves from the consequences of corporate actions, the corporations claimed that our desire to protect ourselves (and our children) from their quest for buckaroos, we created a situation that made it difficult for them to maximize profits. In short, the claim was that profits were more important than people.
Whenever a corporation or group of corporations claim that "government regulation" creates "economic hardship", try changing the word "government" to "We, the People of the United States of America" and see if you still think government regulation is a bad thing.
The claim was that "government regulation" would make the rides worthless. Reading between the lines, you have to ask yourself if people need protection from a product and protecting people from the dangers associated with the product makes the product worthless ... is that really a bad thing? What's your priority? People or Profit?
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Compare and Contrast
Fahrenheit 451 / Science Fiction by Ray Bradbury
Fahrenheit 451 takes place in an unspecified future time in a hedonistic and rabidly anti-intellectual America that has completely abandoned self-control and bans the reading of books. People are now only entertained by in-ear radio and an interactive form of television. The protagonist, Guy Montag, is a fireman, certain that his job -— burning books, and the houses that hold them, and persecuting those who own them -— is the right thing to do.
In Fahrenheit 451, the job of firefighter had morphed from putting out fires to a kind of "thought police" who were charged with ferreting out people who owned contraband books or other proscribed materials or who might harbor "thoughts" that were deemed hostile to or critical of the state -- which maintained constant surveillance of its citizens.
with ... current headlines
Firefighters Being Trained To Notice Terror Planning
City firefighters are being trained to fight terrorism, but that's not sitting well with many civil libertarians.
The Department of Homeland Security began testing a program with the FDNY last December where firefighters are trained to identify material or behavior that may point toward terrorist activity.
Unlike police, firefighters don't need warrants to get into homes and buildings, putting them in a unique position to be aware of possible terror planning. But some critics say the program is a step toward limiting people's privacy rights.
The American Civil Liberties Union says the program is similar to a White House proposal from 2002 to have workers with access to private homes, like postal workers, report suspicious behavior to the FBI.
My comment: The future is here. 9/11 changed everything. We are sacrificing everything that has made us a great nation in order to preserve our greatness? "They" hate us for our freedoms? So, the obvious thing is to eliminate those freedoms so then maybe "they" won't hate us? What a strange strategy.
If you haven't read Fahrenheit 451, you really should ... but if you do, destroy your copy after reading it ... before the fire department comes and finds it in your house.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Former Aide Blames Bush for Leak Deceit
WASHINGTON (AP) --
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative.
In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby were ''not involved'' in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.
''There was one problem. It was not true,'' McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. ''I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself.''
More in the New York Times after the click ...
My Comment: You really have to ask yourself,
after herding American into a needless war with lies about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's connection to al Qaeda;
after violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel;
after violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant;
after subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus;
and now the light of day shines on the outing of an undercover agent of this country's intelligence service, not only jeopardizing that person's life but also a.) jeopardizing any foreign nationals who might have worked with her, b.) jeopardizing any other American intelligence agents who might have been seen in contact with her in a foreign country c.) compromising ongoing covert intelligence operations specifically related to Iran's nuclear program -- which, by the laws of this country constitute treason ...
WTF else has to happen before it is universally recognized that these people MUST be impeached?
If lying to Congress about an extra-marital affair constitutes sufficient "crimes and misdemeanors" to impeach a president, you can't tell me that lying to congress about the reasons for war, the subversion of the Constitution they're sworn to uphold and defend and the sabotaging of ongoing intelligence operations being conducted on behalf of this country don't reach that standard!
There are those who contend that Plame was merely a secretary who's greatest responsibility was to fetch coffee in the CIA's DC area offices, but if the CIA is any good at all in providing covers for its covert agents ... how the hell would those people know?
Review the sequence of events here on FactCheck.org.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
What I think it takes
In some quarters, party loyalty has trumped common sense. It happens on both sides of the aisle. It's what keeps me independent and suspicious of party politics - and allows me to always be throwing stones at the party in power without feeling I might be compromising my loyalty ... because, ya see, power really does corrupt. Always has, always will.
I believe the only "side" one should be on is the side of "We, the people". Both parties forget that on occasion. The Constitution is my guide - as it was written - not as some would re-write it. When that happens we end up with government abuse and that must be fought, tooth and nail.
Read the first ten amendments of the Constitution. They have one thing in common - and only one thing. Each is designed to protect the individual from the power of government - to protect the minority from the power of the majority.
I believe the Constitution of the United States of America is the single most brilliant, insightful and beautiful document in the history of politics, human relations and governance. I am very much against anyone who wants to monkey with it. My anger increases exponentially with their desire to alter it. The current administration has me absolutely livid!
We can disagree on virtually everything, but as long as we agree on the rules of disagreement ... and those rules are set down in the Constitution ... we can live together, work together, make progress together and even be friends.
I believe the only "side" one should be on is the side of "We, the people". Both parties forget that on occasion. The Constitution is my guide - as it was written - not as some would re-write it. When that happens we end up with government abuse and that must be fought, tooth and nail.
Read the first ten amendments of the Constitution. They have one thing in common - and only one thing. Each is designed to protect the individual from the power of government - to protect the minority from the power of the majority.
I believe the Constitution of the United States of America is the single most brilliant, insightful and beautiful document in the history of politics, human relations and governance. I am very much against anyone who wants to monkey with it. My anger increases exponentially with their desire to alter it. The current administration has me absolutely livid!
We can disagree on virtually everything, but as long as we agree on the rules of disagreement ... and those rules are set down in the Constitution ... we can live together, work together, make progress together and even be friends.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Does the FBI have a file on YOU?
If you're a convicted or suspected criminal, you already know that the FBI has a file on you. But the agency's files aren't just for criminals and bad people. If you've ever done anything to get the government's attention, like march in a civil rights protest or getting involved with political action committees, even if you've applied for a job that required a background check or security clearance, you may have an FBI file. If you've ever wondered whether you have an FBI file, and if so, what its contents are, GetMyFBIFile can help.
25 Stories You Might Have Missed
You might have missed them because they've been swept under the rug by the main stream media.
You can get the details here.
My Comment: A free society is a marketplace of ideas. Censorship is an anathema to a free society; it is the hallmark of dictatorships, tyranny and closed societies. If only one side of the news is presented, we get a distorted picture of the world in which we live. We are unable to make informed decisions as is our right in a democracy.
The First Amendment of the Constituton of the United States of America reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
[Emphasis added]
It is the portion of the Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
I cannot vouch for the truth in any of the stories listed above but they represent a point of view that requires our consideration as citizens of a free society. (However, my own personal research strongly suggests that #24 is very true and we should be aware of it in the run-up to a war in Iran. I discussed this news item in an earlier post.) That these stories were not included in main stream media coverage should raise a red flag and spike our collective curiosity about them.
- No Habeas Corpus for “Any Person”
- Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
- AFRICOM: US Military Control of Africa’s Resources
- Frenzy of Increasingly Destructive Trade Agreements
- Human Traffic Builds US Embassy in Iraq
- Operation FALCON Raids
- Behind Blackwater Inc.
- KIA: The US Neoliberal Invasion of India
- Privatization of America’s Infrastructure
- Vulture Funds Threaten Poor Nations’ Debt Relief
- The Scam of “Reconstruction” in Afghanistan
- Another Massacre in Haiti by UN Troops
- Immigrant Roundups to Gain Cheap Labor for US Corporate Giants
- Impunity for US War Criminals
- Toxic Exposure Can Be Transmitted to Future Generations on a “Second Genetic Code”
- No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11
- Drinking Water Contaminated by Military and Corporations
- Mexico’s Stolen Election
- People’s Movement Challenges Neoliberal Agenda (Free Trade through Central and South America)
- Terror Act Against Animal Activists
- US Seeks WTO Immunity for Illegal Farm Payments
- North Invades Mexico
- Feinstein’s Conflict of Interest in Iraq
- Media Misquotes Threat From Iran’s President
- Who Will Profit from Native Energy?
You can get the details here.
My Comment: A free society is a marketplace of ideas. Censorship is an anathema to a free society; it is the hallmark of dictatorships, tyranny and closed societies. If only one side of the news is presented, we get a distorted picture of the world in which we live. We are unable to make informed decisions as is our right in a democracy.
The First Amendment of the Constituton of the United States of America reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
[Emphasis added]
It is the portion of the Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
I cannot vouch for the truth in any of the stories listed above but they represent a point of view that requires our consideration as citizens of a free society. (However, my own personal research strongly suggests that #24 is very true and we should be aware of it in the run-up to a war in Iran. I discussed this news item in an earlier post.) That these stories were not included in main stream media coverage should raise a red flag and spike our collective curiosity about them.
Monday, November 05, 2007
When is Detention Not Detention?
by Naomi Wolf
I have argued that in the closing stages of a `fascist shift', events cascade. I am hearing about them, even across the globe. Here in Australia I hear from the nation's best-know feminist activist, and former adviser to Paul Keating, Anne Summers, who was also at the time this took place Chair of the Board of Greenpeace International. Summers was detained by armed agents for FIVE HOURS each way in LAX on her way to and from the annual meeting of the board of Greenpeace International in Mexico, and her green card was taken away from her. `I want to call a lawyer', she told TSA agents. `Ma'am, you do not have a right to call an attorney,' they replied. `You have not entered the United States.'
Apparently a section of LAX just beyond the security line is asserted to be `not in the United States' -- though it is squarely inside the airport -- so the laws of the US do not apply. (This assertion, by the way, should alarm any US citizen who is aware of how the White House argued that Guantanamo is not `in the United States' - is a legal no-man's land -- so the laws of the US do not apply.) Toward the end of her second five-hour detention she asked, `Why am I being detained?' `Lady, this is not detention,' the TSA agent told her. `Detention is when I take you to the cells out back and lock you up.'
More after the click ...
My comment: Of course, if you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about. Right?
No ... wait ... that's only if someone has to prove you broke a law. That's no longer the case. And having to prove anything is soooooo pre-9/11!
Wolf continues with some questions that you should be asking yourself. They're very important questions:
Don't kid yourself. Fascism is always a possibility. I know you're thinking "It can't happen here." It can.
I have argued that in the closing stages of a `fascist shift', events cascade. I am hearing about them, even across the globe. Here in Australia I hear from the nation's best-know feminist activist, and former adviser to Paul Keating, Anne Summers, who was also at the time this took place Chair of the Board of Greenpeace International. Summers was detained by armed agents for FIVE HOURS each way in LAX on her way to and from the annual meeting of the board of Greenpeace International in Mexico, and her green card was taken away from her. `I want to call a lawyer', she told TSA agents. `Ma'am, you do not have a right to call an attorney,' they replied. `You have not entered the United States.'
Apparently a section of LAX just beyond the security line is asserted to be `not in the United States' -- though it is squarely inside the airport -- so the laws of the US do not apply. (This assertion, by the way, should alarm any US citizen who is aware of how the White House argued that Guantanamo is not `in the United States' - is a legal no-man's land -- so the laws of the US do not apply.) Toward the end of her second five-hour detention she asked, `Why am I being detained?' `Lady, this is not detention,' the TSA agent told her. `Detention is when I take you to the cells out back and lock you up.'
More after the click ...
My comment: Of course, if you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about. Right?
No ... wait ... that's only if someone has to prove you broke a law. That's no longer the case. And having to prove anything is soooooo pre-9/11!
Wolf continues with some questions that you should be asking yourself. They're very important questions:
- Is building a US Embassy in Baghdad the size of eighty football fields and at a cost of well more than half a BILLION dollars evidence of short- or long-term thinking?
- These walls would crumble if the next legitimate president independently ends the war. How about defending and expanding the basis for FISA violations at this late stage -- after all, these folks will be gone in a year?
- How about the decision to fight so hard for a US attorney who will defend the view that the President is above the law?
- Why would that matter so much in an administration folding its tents?
- Why the rush to establish Guantanamo as a permanent part of the landscape and even seek money at one point to double its size -- if the next President, a truly independent Republican or Democrat, might just close it down?
- Why the push to expand a war that makes no military or popular sense, rush through military tribunals that the next President might just disband, and, by the way, drum up a fresh new World War III?
- Do the neo-cons advising Giuliani look like a fresh page for an independent, transparent election or an ideological continuity of government in themselves?
- Do these look like the short-term tactics of a fading administration -- or the institutional strategic bases for some kind of new long-term beginning?
- Why work so hard to make sure that the man who defended the infamous "enemy combatant" concept will be the new Attorney General?
Don't kid yourself. Fascism is always a possibility. I know you're thinking "It can't happen here." It can.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
The Power of the Words "We, the People"
a piece by Dave Johnson on Huffington Post
As an experiment, try substituting the words, "We, the People" every time you read or use the word "government." Or use the word "our" instead of "the" when you say "the government." Our government, us, we, the people. This really does change the way we understand the relationship between our government and ourselves, doesn't it?
The other day I brought up the example of Ronald Reagan's famous saying, "Government is the problem." When you look at that saying in this new way, he is saying "We, The People are the problem." Doesn't that sound like he is expressing a profoundly anti-democratic sentiment? Is that really what we want our leaders to be promoting?
How many other places do we discover similar anti-democratic sentiments? How about when we hear about "limited government?" Are conservatives saying that they want to limit the power of the people? What about when they talk about getting rid of government regulations? Do conservatives want to stop the people from regulating what corporations do? When you think about what their words really mean, it sure starts to sound that way.
Conservatives have worked hard to make "government" a bad word. They complain about "big government." They complain about "government schools." But what happens when we substitute a form of "We, the People" into their slogans? The whole meaning seems to change.
More following the click ...
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Dodd Speaks About FISA Hold on Floor of U.S. Senate
Mr. President, for 6 years the President has demonstrated time and again that he doesn't respect the role of Congress, nor does he respect the rule of law. It is the latter point that I want to address this morning because it is the rule of law which draws us all together, regardless of politics, ideology, or party. It is the rule of law, not of men, which we swear to uphold when we take the oath of office in this Chamber, as Members do in the other Chamber, and certainly as the President does on January 20 every 4 years.
For 6 years this President has used scare tactics to prevent the Congress from reining in his abuse of authority. A case in point is the current direction this body appears to be headed in as we prepare to reform and extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Many of the unprecedented rollbacks to the rule of law by this administration have been made in the name of national security. The Bush administration has relentlessly focused our Nation's resources and manpower on a war of choice in Iraq. That ill-conceived war has broken our military, squandered our resources, and emboldened our enemies.
The President's wholesale disregard of the rule of law has compounded the damage done in Iraq, made our Nation less secure, and as a direct consequence of these acts, we are far less secure, far more vulnerable, and certainly far more isolated in the world today.
Consider the scandal at Abu Ghraib, where Iraqi prisoners were subjected to inhumane, humiliating acts by U.S. personnel charged with guarding them.
Consider Guantanamo Bay. Rather than helping to protect the Nation by aggressively prosecuting prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, these individuals have instead become the symbol of our weakened moral standing in the world. Who would have ever imagined it?
Consider the secret prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency and the practice of extraordinary rendition that allows them to evade U.S. law regarding torture.
Consider the shameful actions of our outgoing Attorney General who politicized prosecutions in the U.S. Attorney's Office, who was more committed to serving the President who appointed him than laws he was sworn to uphold as Attorney General.
Consider the Military Commissions Act, a law that allows evidence obtained through torture to be admitted into evidence.
It denies individuals the right to counsel.
It denies them the right to invoke the Geneva Conventions.
And it denies them the single most important and effective safeguard of liberty man has ever known, the right of habeas corpus, permitting prisoners to be brought before a court to determine whether their detainment is lawful.
Warrantless wiretapping, torture, the list goes on.
Each of these policies share two things in common.
First, they have severely weakened our ability to prosecute the global war on terrorism, if for no other reason than they have made it harder, if not impossible, to build the kind of international support and cooperation we absolutely need to succeed in our efforts against stateless terrorism.
And second, each has only been possible because the U.S. Congress has not been able to stop the President in his unprecedented expansion of executive power; although I might add, some in this body have certainly tried.
Whether these policies were explicitly authorized is beside the point. In every instance, Congress has been unable to hold this administration to account for violating the rule of law and our Constitution. In each instance, Republicans in the Congress have prevented this body from telling this administration that a state of war is not a blank check.
And those are not my words. Those are the words of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, nominated by President Ronald Reagan.
Today, it appears that we are prepared to consider the proposed renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a law that whatever form it eventually takes will almost certainly permit the Bush administration to broadly eavesdrop on American citizens.
Legislation, as currently drafted, that would grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that helped this administration violate the civil liberties of Americans and the law of this Nation.
While it may be true that the proposed legislation is an improvement over existing law, it remains fundamentally flawed because it fails to protect the privacy rights of Americans or hold the Executive or the private sector accountable if they choose to ignore the law.
That is why I will not stand on the floor of the Senate and be silent about the direction we are about to take.
It is time to say: No more.
No more trampling on our Constitution.
No more excusing those who violate the rule of law.
These are fundamental, basic, eternal principles. They have been around, some of them, for as long as the Magna Carta.
They are enduring.
What they are not is temporary.
And what we do not do in a time where our country is at risk is abandon them.
My father served as executive trial counsel at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals in 1945 and 1946. What America accomplished at those historic trials was not a foregone conclusion. It took courage.
When Joseph Stalin and even a leader as great and noble as Winston Churchill wanted to simply execute the Nazi leaders, we didn't back down in this country from our belief that these men, as terrible as they were -- some of the worst violators in the court of history of mankind -- ought to have a trial. We did not give in to vengeance.
As then, the issue before us today is the same.
Does America stand for all that is still right with our world. Or do we retreat in fear?
Do we stand for justice that secures America, or do we act out of vengeance that weakens us?
I am well aware this issue is seen as political. I believe Democrats were elected to help strengthen our Nation, elected to help restore our standing in the world. I believe we were elected to ensure that this Nation adheres to the rule of law and to stop the administration's assault on our Constitution.
But the rule of law is not the province of any one political party. It is the province of each and every one of us as American citizens, on our watch and our generation, to make sure we are safer because of its inviolable provisions.
Mr. President, I know this bill has not been reported out of the Judiciary Committee yet.
But I am here today because if I have learned anything in my 26 years in this body, particularly over the last 7 years, it is that if you wait until the end to voice your concerns, you will have waited too long. That is why I have written the majority leader informing him that I will object to any effort to bring the legislation to the Senate floor for consideration.
I hope my colleague, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy is able to remove this language from the FISA bill. Pat Leahy is as strong a defender of the Constitution as any Member of this body.
But if he is unable to do so, I am prepared to filibuster this bill.
President Bush is right about one thing: The debate is about security but not in the way he imagines it.
He believes we have to give up certain rights to be safe.
I believe the choice between moral authority and security is a false choice. I believe it is precisely when you stand up and protect your rights that you become stronger, not weaker, as a nation.
The damage that was done to our country on 9/11 was stunning. It changed the world forever.
But when you start diminishing our rights as a people, you compound that tragedy. You cannot protect America in the long run if you fail to protect our Constitution. It is that simple.
History will likely judge this President harshly for his war of choice and for fighting it with a disregard for our most cherished principles.
But history is about tomorrow. We must act today and stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Mr. President, this is the moment. At long last, let us rise up to it.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.
Senator Chris Dodd
Congressional website
For 6 years this President has used scare tactics to prevent the Congress from reining in his abuse of authority. A case in point is the current direction this body appears to be headed in as we prepare to reform and extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Many of the unprecedented rollbacks to the rule of law by this administration have been made in the name of national security. The Bush administration has relentlessly focused our Nation's resources and manpower on a war of choice in Iraq. That ill-conceived war has broken our military, squandered our resources, and emboldened our enemies.
The President's wholesale disregard of the rule of law has compounded the damage done in Iraq, made our Nation less secure, and as a direct consequence of these acts, we are far less secure, far more vulnerable, and certainly far more isolated in the world today.
Consider the scandal at Abu Ghraib, where Iraqi prisoners were subjected to inhumane, humiliating acts by U.S. personnel charged with guarding them.
Consider Guantanamo Bay. Rather than helping to protect the Nation by aggressively prosecuting prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, these individuals have instead become the symbol of our weakened moral standing in the world. Who would have ever imagined it?
Consider the secret prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency and the practice of extraordinary rendition that allows them to evade U.S. law regarding torture.
Consider the shameful actions of our outgoing Attorney General who politicized prosecutions in the U.S. Attorney's Office, who was more committed to serving the President who appointed him than laws he was sworn to uphold as Attorney General.
Consider the Military Commissions Act, a law that allows evidence obtained through torture to be admitted into evidence.
It denies individuals the right to counsel.
It denies them the right to invoke the Geneva Conventions.
And it denies them the single most important and effective safeguard of liberty man has ever known, the right of habeas corpus, permitting prisoners to be brought before a court to determine whether their detainment is lawful.
Warrantless wiretapping, torture, the list goes on.
Each of these policies share two things in common.
First, they have severely weakened our ability to prosecute the global war on terrorism, if for no other reason than they have made it harder, if not impossible, to build the kind of international support and cooperation we absolutely need to succeed in our efforts against stateless terrorism.
And second, each has only been possible because the U.S. Congress has not been able to stop the President in his unprecedented expansion of executive power; although I might add, some in this body have certainly tried.
Whether these policies were explicitly authorized is beside the point. In every instance, Congress has been unable to hold this administration to account for violating the rule of law and our Constitution. In each instance, Republicans in the Congress have prevented this body from telling this administration that a state of war is not a blank check.
And those are not my words. Those are the words of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, nominated by President Ronald Reagan.
Today, it appears that we are prepared to consider the proposed renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a law that whatever form it eventually takes will almost certainly permit the Bush administration to broadly eavesdrop on American citizens.
Legislation, as currently drafted, that would grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that helped this administration violate the civil liberties of Americans and the law of this Nation.
While it may be true that the proposed legislation is an improvement over existing law, it remains fundamentally flawed because it fails to protect the privacy rights of Americans or hold the Executive or the private sector accountable if they choose to ignore the law.
That is why I will not stand on the floor of the Senate and be silent about the direction we are about to take.
It is time to say: No more.
No more trampling on our Constitution.
No more excusing those who violate the rule of law.
These are fundamental, basic, eternal principles. They have been around, some of them, for as long as the Magna Carta.
They are enduring.
What they are not is temporary.
And what we do not do in a time where our country is at risk is abandon them.
My father served as executive trial counsel at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals in 1945 and 1946. What America accomplished at those historic trials was not a foregone conclusion. It took courage.
When Joseph Stalin and even a leader as great and noble as Winston Churchill wanted to simply execute the Nazi leaders, we didn't back down in this country from our belief that these men, as terrible as they were -- some of the worst violators in the court of history of mankind -- ought to have a trial. We did not give in to vengeance.
As then, the issue before us today is the same.
Does America stand for all that is still right with our world. Or do we retreat in fear?
Do we stand for justice that secures America, or do we act out of vengeance that weakens us?
I am well aware this issue is seen as political. I believe Democrats were elected to help strengthen our Nation, elected to help restore our standing in the world. I believe we were elected to ensure that this Nation adheres to the rule of law and to stop the administration's assault on our Constitution.
But the rule of law is not the province of any one political party. It is the province of each and every one of us as American citizens, on our watch and our generation, to make sure we are safer because of its inviolable provisions.
Mr. President, I know this bill has not been reported out of the Judiciary Committee yet.
But I am here today because if I have learned anything in my 26 years in this body, particularly over the last 7 years, it is that if you wait until the end to voice your concerns, you will have waited too long. That is why I have written the majority leader informing him that I will object to any effort to bring the legislation to the Senate floor for consideration.
I hope my colleague, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy is able to remove this language from the FISA bill. Pat Leahy is as strong a defender of the Constitution as any Member of this body.
But if he is unable to do so, I am prepared to filibuster this bill.
President Bush is right about one thing: The debate is about security but not in the way he imagines it.
He believes we have to give up certain rights to be safe.
I believe the choice between moral authority and security is a false choice. I believe it is precisely when you stand up and protect your rights that you become stronger, not weaker, as a nation.
The damage that was done to our country on 9/11 was stunning. It changed the world forever.
But when you start diminishing our rights as a people, you compound that tragedy. You cannot protect America in the long run if you fail to protect our Constitution. It is that simple.
History will likely judge this President harshly for his war of choice and for fighting it with a disregard for our most cherished principles.
But history is about tomorrow. We must act today and stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Mr. President, this is the moment. At long last, let us rise up to it.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.
Senator Chris Dodd
Congressional website
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)