Finally, we have a presidency that really listens to Americans.
The New York Times is unfolding this story after sitting on it for at least a year. (See my colleagues Syd Schanberg and Nat Hentoff for recent riffs on the subject.)
But here's something you may have forgotten: This scary threat to our civil liberties -- domestic eavesdropping without warrants -- is directly descended from the work of Jerry Bremer, later the Bush regime's preposterous pasha of Iraq.
You have to go back to the Clinton era, when Congress took time out from examining the president's semen stains to authorize a National Commission on Terrorism. Its chair was Jerry Bremer. Its final report, "Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism," was released in June 2000, long before 9-11.
Bremer urged the unleashing of our spy agencies. That happened. To his credit, he warned that unless there was "contingency planning," there would be a conflict with civil liberties. But he delivered that warning only verbally. To his discredit, there was no mention of civil liberties in the commission's final report.
In case you're wondering, the report warned of terrorist threats to the U.S. from Iran, Afghanistan, and Syria and even cautioned about Pakistan and Greece. But the words "Iraq" or "Saddam Hussein" are never mentioned once. At all. Never.
However, the National Security Agency, current focus of the unconstitutional spying on Americans, is mentioned. The report urged that we unshackle our spy agencies to gather more and more intelligence. Nowhere in the document is there a specific recommendation to authorize the NSA to spy on Americans.
The above was noted by Jonah and it's from Ward Harkavy's "They Really Bug Us" (Village Voice). It's indymedia roundup and this entry focuses on governmental spying. We also have another Village Voice highlight from Jonah at the end of the entry. The bulk of the e-mails I've read thus far speak of the depression over the Alito hearings.
I won't say, "Get over it." Feel what you're feeling. If you're feeling let down, I am too. When you've explored that, think about taking part in the fight that should have happened on the committee but didn't. (And check out this link which we'll highlight in the next entry as well.)
But win or lose on the Alito battle (and obviously, I'd like to see a win), their are other battles as well and maybe we can use our frustration over Alito to demand more from our elected officials on other issues. (And, quoting Laura Flanders, "Don't leave politics to the politicians.")
Rachel notes a victory in one aspect of government clampdowns on freedoms via FreeWheels' "Judge Finds NYC Parade Permit Law Unconstitutional: 'Critical Mass' Bikers' Charges Dismissed" (NYC Indymedia):
Yesterday, New York City Criminal Court Judge Gerald Harris decided that the City’s parade permit law is "hopelessly overbroad" and "'constitutes a burden on free expression that is more than the First Amendment can bear.'" Judge Harris's written Verdict in People v. Bezjak, et al. dismissed the parading without a permit charges against all of the 8 people who were arrested on the night of the January 2005 Critical Mass bicycle ride, but held each guilty of disorderly conduct, a verdict the cyclists may consider appealing.
"The City has arrested and prosecuted over 2,000 people since August of 2004 for violating a law this Decision clearly finds unconstitutional on its face," said Gideon Oliver, the cyclists' attorney.
Oliver "challenged the City to reconsider its aggressive stance toward policing First Amendment activities in general, and Critical Mass bicycle rides in particular" in light of the 17-page Verdict. According to Bruce Bentley of the National Lawyers Guild, the vast majority of the 1,806 Republican National Convention arrests resulted in parading without a permit prosecutions. Since the RNC, the City has arrested almost 350 bicyclists for parading without a permit, and sought injunctions in State and Federal Courts that would subject participants in future Critical Mass rides to criminal penalties of up to a year in jail. Yesterday's Verdict offered several examples of events that appear to require a permit under the law as written in order "to highlight the virtually unfettered discretion reposed in the Police Commissioner to determine when any particular event may be found to fall within the amorphous definition of parade or procession and, thus, requires a permit."
According to the Verdict, "a person promenading, or two persons racing, . . . a funeral procession, two or three cars displaying political posters traveling one behind the other, caravan style, or a small group of friends biking together" might be required to obtain permits under the law as written. The Verdict also found the permit law is unconstitutional because even a person who "unknowingly participates in a permitless march may be arrested, fined or imprisoned. Thus, bystanders or onlookers, stirred by the passion evoked by a political march, join in at their peril."
"While some Decisions from the Criminal Court over the course of the past year have upheld the constitutionality of the permit requirement," said Oliver, "this Verdict is the first to result from a full trial, at which the Court heard 3 days’ worth of testimony from 11 NYPD Officers which it said 'highlighted deficiencies in the City’s parade permit scheme.'"
Dave Rankin, a FreeWheels Board member who assisted during the trial, said that the 8 defendants were "pleased with the vindication of their First Amendment rights." However, Rankin noted that the trials of about 30 bicyclists arrested for "parading without a permit" in February, March, April, May, June, and July of 2005 are all currently scheduled to begin later this month, and said it was "unclear whether the District Attorney's Office would consider declining to prosecute the parading without a permit charges in those cases in light of the Court's ruling."
Who's standing up while elected officials turn meek? Steve notes Mike Rhodes' "Peace Fresno Denounces Government Spying" (San Francisco Indymedia):
On the first day (January 9, 2006) of the US Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, Peace Fresno held a press conference denouncing the NSA/Executive Branch Violation of Civil Liberties. Peace Fresno also announced that they expect the report from the California Attorney General, about the infiltration by law enforcement of their group, to be released this week.
Below is the text of the Peace Fresno press conference held at the new Federal Courthouse in downtown Fresno. A video of the press conference can also be viewed. The following statement was read by Peace Fresno president Lisa Solomon:
PRESS CONFERENCE
All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse. (Benjamin Franklin)
The executive branch of this government, maintaining its attitude and belief that it is superior to all other branches of government and the will of the people, has admitted that it has engaged in the monitoring of communications made by American citizens. Such actions have been taken in the President's ongoing "war on terror" and criticisms of such actions have been denounced as statements made by those who support the "enemy".
Yet contrary to the opinions of constitutional scholars, members of Congress and the judiciary, the President does not believe that he or his administration has engaged in any illegal or unconstitutional activity.
Those in power have tried to convince us that such violation of standing federal laws is necessary to protect American citizens from future attacks, that they are only focusing on people of interest and communications involving individuals contacting others in the Middle East. Yet, by the administration's own stated belief, this is supposedly a world-wide war on terror, which leads many people to believe that such monitoring of communications could be expanded to involve anyone who talks, writes or emails anyone anywhere in the world. How many of us living in the Central Valley today have friends or relatives living or traveling abroad? How willing are we to have our conversations monitored by the government?
We are here today to add our voices to those calling for an end to such actions, demanding that the checks and balances between the branches of government written into our constitution be used to protect the rights of all citizens, that the government act in a transparent and legal manner demanded by reasonable citizens of this country.
It is the process of checks and balances that has maintained our level of freedom and the continuation of a democratic form of government in this country for over 218 years. The concept that no one branch of government could be, or would be, more powerful than the other two, is a process that this administration has been advocating for other countries around the world, yet refuses to abide by here at home.
Brandon asked that we note this section from Elizabeth Holtzman's "The Impeachment of George W. Bush" (The Nation):
While many facts about these wiretaps are unknown, it now appears that thousands of calls were monitored and that the information obtained may have been widely circulated among federal agencies. It also appears that a number of government officials considered the warrantless wiretaps of dubious legality. Reportedly, several people in the National Security Agency refused to participate in them, and a deputy attorney general even declined to sign off on some aspects of these wiretaps. The special FISA court has raised concerns as well, and a judge on that court has resigned, apparently in protest.
FISA was enacted in 1978, against the backdrop of Watergate, to prevent the widespread abuses in domestic surveillance that were disclosed in Congressional hearings. Among his other abuses of power, President Nixon ordered the FBI to conduct warrantless wiretaps of seventeen journalists and White House staffers. Although Nixon claimed the wiretaps were done for national security purposes, they were undertaken for political purposes and were illegal. Just as Bush's warrantless wiretaps grew out of the 9/11 attacks, Nixon's illegal wiretaps grew out of the Vietnam War and the opposition to it. In fact, the first illegal Nixon wiretap was of a reporter who, in 1969, revealed the secret bombing of Cambodia, a program that President Nixon wanted to hide from the American people and Congress. Nixon's illegal wiretaps formed one of the many grounds for the articles of impeachment voted against him by a bipartisan majority of the House Judiciary Committee.
Congress explicitly intended FISA to strike a balance between the legitimate requirements of national security on the one hand and the need both to protect against presidential abuses and to safeguard personal privacy on the other. From Watergate, Congress knew that a President was fully capable of wiretapping under a false claim of national security. That is why the law requires court review of national security wiretaps. Congress understood that because of the huge invasion of privacy involved in wiretaps, there should be checks in place on the executive branch to protect against overzealous and unnecessary wiretapping. At the same time, Congress created special procedures to facilitate obtaining these warrants when justified. Congress also recognized the need for emergency action: The President was given the power to start a wiretap without a warrant as long as court permission was obtained within three days.
FISA can scarcely be claimed to create any obstacle to justified national security wiretaps. Since 1978, when the law was enacted, more than 10,000 national security warrants have been approved by the FISA court; only four have been turned down.
Two legal arguments have been offered for the President's right to violate the law, both of which have been seriously questioned by members of Congress of both parties and by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service in a recent analysis. The first--highly dangerous in its sweep and implications--is that the President has the constitutional right as Commander in Chief to break any US law on the grounds of national security. As the CRS analysis points out, the Supreme Court has never upheld the President's right to do this in the area of wiretapping, nor has it ever granted the President a "monopoly over war-powers" or recognized him as "Commander in Chief of the country" as opposed to Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. If the President is permitted to break the law on wiretapping on his own say-so, then a President can break any other law on his own say-so--a formula for dictatorship. This is not a theoretical danger: President Bush has recently claimed the right as Commander in Chief to violate the McCain amendment banning torture and degrading treatment of detainees. Nor is the requirement that national security be at stake any safeguard. We saw in Watergate how President Nixon falsely and cynically used that argument to cover up ordinary crimes and political misdeeds.
Ours is a government of limited power. We learn in elementary school the concept of checks and balances. Those checks do not vanish in wartime; the President's role as Commander in Chief does not swallow up Congress's powers or the Bill of Rights. Given the framers' skepticism about executive power and warmaking--there was no functional standing army at the beginning of the nation, so the President's powers as Commander in Chief depended on Congress's willingness to create and expand an army--it is impossible to find in the Constitution unilateral presidential authority to act against US citizens in a way that violates US laws, even in wartime. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recently wrote, "A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
That's the second time we've noted Elizabeth Holtzman's article. If you found a section of it that especially spoke to you, please note it and we'll provide another excerpt. It's an important article.
Lastly, back to Jonah for his second pick, Nat Hentoff's "George Bush: Master Spy" (Village Voice):
Abraham Lincoln publicly suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War and was told posthumously by the Supreme Court (Ex parte Milligan, 1866) that he had acted unconstitutionally. George W. Bush, in the war on terrorism, has secretly suspended the Fourth Amendment, with the complicity of private telecommunications companies. With John Roberts on the Supreme Court and Samuel Alito likely to be confirmed, it may be a long time before this administration is held accountable for this and other pillaging of the Bill of Rights. If the next administration continues in this vein, more of our liberties will turn into relics.
The Democratic Party has a huge responsibility in its choice of a candidate for the presidency in 2008.
As Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer of Counterpane Internet Security--and the author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World--wrote in the December 21 Minneapolis Star Tribune:
"Unchecked presidential power has nothing to do with how much you either love or hate George W. Bush. You have to imagine this power in the hands of the person you most don't want to be president, whether it be Dick Cheney or Hillary Rodham Clinton . . . "
Meanwhile, the president and his apologists keep insisting that Bush had the approval of Congress for this omnivorous spying--even though his "inherent executive power" as commander in chief presumably didn't require that courtesy. After all, right after 9-11, Bush claimed, Congress gave him the authority to use military force against the terrorists. But as Democratic senator Russ Feingold, of Wisconsin, instructed him, and us, in a letter in the December 29 Wall Street Journal:
"Members of Congress, even in the shadow of Sept. 11, did not think that the military force resolution was giving the president blanket authority to order warrantless wiretaps of American citizens on American soil. Congress has not granted the president that power, nor has he requested it [of Congress]."
But, says Bush--in due respect to the separation of powers—he did consult certain members of Congress about unfettered NSA spying. Answers Russ Feingold:
"Informing a handful of congressional leaders who are prohibited from discussing what they have been told is not oversight, and congressional inaction under these extraordinary circumstances is not approval."
How about Russ Feingold for president? Or if that seems too precipitous a step, it would be very useful for the Democratic Party and the nation to have a debate on the extent of constitutional executive powers -- between Russ Feingold and Hillary Rodham Clinton!
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. (Yes, it's supposedly working again.)
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
nsa
fbi
elizabeth holtzman
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Indymedia roundup focus on the war
Yesterday Mr. Bush warned U.S. citizens of more violence in Iraq…again.
He called it the "price of progress" as Iraq "moves toward democracy."
In the shady, smoke and mirror filled world of Mr. Bush where violence is progress and Iraq inches ever closer to their elusive "democracy," truth remains ever distant from the rhetoric of his speech writers.
Mr. Bush referred to "a good deal of political turmoil" in Iraq as "freedom in action."
If only reality matched his hallucinatory projections…
If only Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim, the most influential politician in Iraq and leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, hadn't issued a not-so-veiled warning yesterday to Sunni Arab Iraqis that the ruling Shiites would not allow significant amendments to the country's new constitution…
If only…
The commander-in-chief of the U.S. military, speaking to members of Veterans of Foreign Wars also stated yesterday, "We will continue to hand over territory to the Iraqis so they can defend their democracy, so they can do the hard work, and our troops will be able to come home with the honor they have earned."
Like Brandon Bare from North Carolina.
The 19 year-old soldier returned from Iraq last April, wounded with cuts and other injuries from a grenade attack. Three months after his return home young Brandon Bare found it necessary to kill his 18 year-old wife by stabbing her 71 times. He was obviously traumatized by his time in Iraq which found him engaged in combat in both Mosul and Fallujah.
"Pacified" Fallujah, the "City of Hope," as FOX "News" likes to call it, where three more U.S. soldiers were killed yesterday when their Humvee was destroyed by a roadside bomb…and a fourth soldier, like Brandon Bare, was wounded in action.
Yet, the land of hallucinations is a nice place to be for someone like Mr. Bush, who also said yesterday that most Iraqis are upbeat about their future.
Despite rampant kidnappings, unemployment soaring to well over 50%, little electricity, no potable water and violence continuing unabated, Bush said, "The vast majority of Iraqis prefer freedom with intermittent power to life in the permanent darkness of tyranny and terror."
The security is so bad in Baghdad now that many people now don't leave their homes unless it is absolutely necessary. Rampant abductions of Iraqis are symptomatic of the escalating lawlessness in Iraq which is of course aggravated by the political turmoil that has engulfed the country since the December 15 polls.
Iraqi officials say as many as 30 Iraqis a day are reported kidnapped in Baghdad. The abductions are part of the rising lawlessness accompanying the country's political turmoil/"freedom in action."
The above is from Dahr Jamail's "Freedom in action" (Iraq Dispatches) and was noted by Mia.
It's Thursday, time for indymedia roundup and this entry focuses on the invasion/occupation of Iraq. There are two activism highlights as well as another report on Iraq.
Protest Against Rep. Nancy Pelosi's Continuous Funding of the War in Iraq
Saturday January 14, 2006
9:30am
Marina Middle School Auditorium
3500 Fillmore Street (between Bay and Chestnut) San Francisco, CA
Stand with us as we say, "Nancy, Stop Funding War!"
Nancy Pelosi will hold a Town Hall meeting the morning of Saturday January 14th to discuss National Security, meanwhile we'll be outside protesting her continuous support for a military war chest. While she has personally supported Rep. John Murtha's call for withdrawal from the ground war, she explicitly refuses to use her power as house minority leader to move the Democratic Party Caucus towards supporting even Murtha's resolution; she will not support HR 4232, the bill introduced by Representative James McGovern, to prohibit the use of funds to deploy United States Armed Forces to Iraq. Nancy Pelosi consistently votes to spend billions of dollars per year on the war in Iraq while vital public services are being cut at home!
That's a call to action noted by Brenda, CODEPINK's "Protest Against Rep. Nancy Pelosi's Continuous Funding of the War in Iraq" (San Francisco Bay Area Indymedia).
Second call to action is noted by Heath, "A Call to Conscience for the U.S. Congress" (Oklahoma Independent Media Center):
A campaign of nonviolent action to compel our elected representatives in Congress to meet the demands of justice and peace
Despite the voices and actions of millions of Americans, it is clear that President Bush has neither the desire nor the wisdom to end the war in Iraq - a war based on lies from its inception.As the death toll in this war continues to mount - having taken the lives of more than 2,000 U.S. soldiers and over 100,000 Iraqis - and as the monetary cost of the Iraq war closes in on a staggering half trillion dollars, nonviolent activists must take the next step and demand that our Representatives and Senators in Congress who approved the beginning of this war now bring it to an end. There is neither victory nor stability to be had in our continued military occupation of a foreign country - only more death, more destruction, more fear and more hatred.
The National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance - which organized the "Remember and Resist" September 26th mass action at the White House and the November 18th "National Stand Down Day" actions at recruiting centers across the country - is organizing "A Call to Conscience for the U.S. Congress." Starting during the celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King's birth, and continuing through the third commemoration of the beginning of the Iraq War, we ask that concerned activists across the country join us in a campaign of nonviolent sit-ins and related actions at Congressional offices, demanding that they vote and act to bring the war and U.S. military occupation to an end..
As we recognize the great risks and danger that civilians and soldiers are exposed to in Iraq every day, so it is our moral responsibility to assume risks, through nonviolent action, that might expose the injustice of this war and help bring it to an end. Our willingness to engage in these actions is grounded in the spirit of nonviolence and love, with compassion and respect for all we encounter. But our nonviolence will not be mistaken for lack of resolve. We will stand up, and speak out, and sit-in, as needed, until our elected leaders in Congress take action.
More materials will be produced shortly for the campaign. We understand that some groups have well-developed, ongoing campaigns involving nonviolent direct action at congressional offices, while for others this is fairly new. We will share information and resources, including success stories from groups who have organized effective actions, to help those just getting started to plan their actions, and to figure out their political demands of their Congresspeople, and/or their message to the media. We do urge your organization to get started as soon as possible, though, by asking your Representative or Senator for a meeting - the House, at least, is in recess for all of January, so your Representatives should be available in their district offices.
We look forward to working with hundreds of groups across the nation to build a powerful campaign of nonviolent resistance against the war in Iraq - please join us! For more information and to join the campaign, please contact us at http://www.iraqpledge.org or mailto:pledgecoordinator@starpower.net
Read further: http://www.iraqpledge.org
Doug's highlight takes us back to Iraq, Brian Conley and Isam Rashid's "Another Raid Brings Further Alienation" (IPS):
BAGHDAD, Jan 12 (IPS) - The Association of Muslim Scholars, a Sunni organisation that was created in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, was again targeted by the United States military last Sunday. The raid on its mosque served only to alienate Sunnis further. The Association of Muslim Scholars, now considered the highest Sunni authority in Iraq, has been working to support those who have lost their families, or the unemployed.
It is also a strong critic of the United States occupation. Its stand has provoked several raids by the U.S. army and continuing conflict with the Shia-dominated interim government. This most recent raid appears to have been related to the kidnapping of American journalist Jill Carroll. No one has yet claimed responsibility for her abduction.
The Association of Muslim Scholars has been accused of links with resistance groups in the past, but there is no known connection between the organisation and such groups, or with the abduction of Jill Carroll. The U.S. forces apparently acted on a tip-off from one Iraqi.
The U.S. forces raided the Umm Al Qura Mosque in the early morning, just two days before Eid al Adha, which concludes the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. The Association offices are based at this mosque.
"At 3:30am the U.S. troops and the Iraqi army raided the mosque," Akram Ahmed, a guard at the mosque told IPS. "Some of the U.S. troops came down from helicopters. They arrested seven guards and Sheikh Yunis Al Ugaidi."
The Sheikh is a Sunni religious leader. U.S. troops were evidently looking for Jill Carroll.
"They were looking for secret places in the mosque, and they asked about the American journalist," Ahmed said. "But they didn't find anything about that."
It is difficult to understand why the United States would single out the Association of Muslim Scholars as an initial target in the investigation of Jill Carroll's abduction. The organisation has condemned the taking of hostages in Iraq. It has opposed the political process under the occupation, but has continued to call for peace.
Melinda advises us about the lead up to next week's tribunal on Bully Boy (Riverside Church, NYC, Friday and Saturday, Columbia University on Sunday -- see Ruth's entry for more information) via her highlight, mjb's "International citizen's commission attempts to serve indictments at White House" (DC Indymedia):
Activists representing the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed By the Bush Administration tried to deliver an indictment against George W. Bush today at the White House. While the papers -- carried to the gate by former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern -- were ultimately not accepted, about two dozen participants and supporters attracted the attention of media, tourists, and the secret service as they held a press conference and then approached the White House's Northwest Appointment Gate.
Larry Everest, author of Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda, described the Commission as a project that evolved out of the Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience. He said that "when people of conscience suspect that crimes against humanity have happened they have a responsibility to look into them," nearly quoting the commision's charter. "It considers itself international because "we invite the participation of people around the world." Everest also said that he believes "this country has an enormous impact" on the rest of the world in areas of "pollution, arms control, human rights, women's health." Everest continued, "We are carrying out our work with a sense of responsibility internationally."
On Pennsylvania Avenue today Everest gathered with Ray McGovern, Ruby Dee, former State Department employee and journalist William Blum, and representatives of Progressive Democrats of America, Democracy Rising, the World Can't Wait organization, Code Pink and others. They denounced the Bush White House for "Wars of Aggression," "Torture and Indefinite Detention," "Destruction of the Planet," "Attacks on Public Health," and "Criminal Neglect after [Hurricane] Katrina."
Kevin Zeese of Democracy Rising, and a candidate from Maryland for the U.S. Senate, said that based on these allegations and other overt violations of civil liberties "we have the most impeachable president" in history. William Blum replied to the broad question of "how can they can get away with this" with admonishment not to give leaders "credit for having good intentions" and to stop "assuming they're bumblers," alluding to a history of stated motivations and intentions not being supported by actions or results.
Lastly, Doug asked that we try to note MLK each day in the lead up to the 16th. Members have taken up the challenge. A number of you e-mailed with event schedules and news articles on events. I worked every one of those into my column for the gina & krista round-robin that gets sent out tomorrow. So please check to see if there are events in your areas.
Dallas found a highlight that provides audio and video. "Honor The Memory of Martin Luther King - Get Active." We've offered various text highlights or I wouldn't be providing a link that has no text basis. I know that some members are on older and/or slower computers (and that some, either due to using a public computer or not having a sound card) aren't able to watch or listen online. If we weren't providing something each day to note MLK, I probably wouldn't provide the link because I know it won't be available to all members. But since there have been many highlights (and we've got some more coming), I'm going to offer this one. If this is a problem, please let me know. I don't intend to offer any link that isn't potentially available to all members in the future. I can't imagine doing that unless we were highlighting a theme daily. If my decision has upset anyone, I apologize to you. Blame it on my being tired, very tired, and enjoying the link myself. The link takes you to audio and video "brought to you by" CODEPINK, Global Exchange and Black Voices for Peace.
The e-mail address for this site (fingers crossed) is common_ills@yahoo.com. (And members can return to using the members' e-mail address as well.)
mlk
iraq pledge of resistance
anti-war
iraq
peace
dahr jamail
codepink
global exchange
black voices for peace
isam rashid
brian conley
indymedia
He called it the "price of progress" as Iraq "moves toward democracy."
In the shady, smoke and mirror filled world of Mr. Bush where violence is progress and Iraq inches ever closer to their elusive "democracy," truth remains ever distant from the rhetoric of his speech writers.
Mr. Bush referred to "a good deal of political turmoil" in Iraq as "freedom in action."
If only reality matched his hallucinatory projections…
If only Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim, the most influential politician in Iraq and leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, hadn't issued a not-so-veiled warning yesterday to Sunni Arab Iraqis that the ruling Shiites would not allow significant amendments to the country's new constitution…
If only…
The commander-in-chief of the U.S. military, speaking to members of Veterans of Foreign Wars also stated yesterday, "We will continue to hand over territory to the Iraqis so they can defend their democracy, so they can do the hard work, and our troops will be able to come home with the honor they have earned."
Like Brandon Bare from North Carolina.
The 19 year-old soldier returned from Iraq last April, wounded with cuts and other injuries from a grenade attack. Three months after his return home young Brandon Bare found it necessary to kill his 18 year-old wife by stabbing her 71 times. He was obviously traumatized by his time in Iraq which found him engaged in combat in both Mosul and Fallujah.
"Pacified" Fallujah, the "City of Hope," as FOX "News" likes to call it, where three more U.S. soldiers were killed yesterday when their Humvee was destroyed by a roadside bomb…and a fourth soldier, like Brandon Bare, was wounded in action.
Yet, the land of hallucinations is a nice place to be for someone like Mr. Bush, who also said yesterday that most Iraqis are upbeat about their future.
Despite rampant kidnappings, unemployment soaring to well over 50%, little electricity, no potable water and violence continuing unabated, Bush said, "The vast majority of Iraqis prefer freedom with intermittent power to life in the permanent darkness of tyranny and terror."
The security is so bad in Baghdad now that many people now don't leave their homes unless it is absolutely necessary. Rampant abductions of Iraqis are symptomatic of the escalating lawlessness in Iraq which is of course aggravated by the political turmoil that has engulfed the country since the December 15 polls.
Iraqi officials say as many as 30 Iraqis a day are reported kidnapped in Baghdad. The abductions are part of the rising lawlessness accompanying the country's political turmoil/"freedom in action."
The above is from Dahr Jamail's "Freedom in action" (Iraq Dispatches) and was noted by Mia.
It's Thursday, time for indymedia roundup and this entry focuses on the invasion/occupation of Iraq. There are two activism highlights as well as another report on Iraq.
Protest Against Rep. Nancy Pelosi's Continuous Funding of the War in Iraq
Saturday January 14, 2006
9:30am
Marina Middle School Auditorium
3500 Fillmore Street (between Bay and Chestnut) San Francisco, CA
Stand with us as we say, "Nancy, Stop Funding War!"
Nancy Pelosi will hold a Town Hall meeting the morning of Saturday January 14th to discuss National Security, meanwhile we'll be outside protesting her continuous support for a military war chest. While she has personally supported Rep. John Murtha's call for withdrawal from the ground war, she explicitly refuses to use her power as house minority leader to move the Democratic Party Caucus towards supporting even Murtha's resolution; she will not support HR 4232, the bill introduced by Representative James McGovern, to prohibit the use of funds to deploy United States Armed Forces to Iraq. Nancy Pelosi consistently votes to spend billions of dollars per year on the war in Iraq while vital public services are being cut at home!
That's a call to action noted by Brenda, CODEPINK's "Protest Against Rep. Nancy Pelosi's Continuous Funding of the War in Iraq" (San Francisco Bay Area Indymedia).
Second call to action is noted by Heath, "A Call to Conscience for the U.S. Congress" (Oklahoma Independent Media Center):
A campaign of nonviolent action to compel our elected representatives in Congress to meet the demands of justice and peace
Despite the voices and actions of millions of Americans, it is clear that President Bush has neither the desire nor the wisdom to end the war in Iraq - a war based on lies from its inception.As the death toll in this war continues to mount - having taken the lives of more than 2,000 U.S. soldiers and over 100,000 Iraqis - and as the monetary cost of the Iraq war closes in on a staggering half trillion dollars, nonviolent activists must take the next step and demand that our Representatives and Senators in Congress who approved the beginning of this war now bring it to an end. There is neither victory nor stability to be had in our continued military occupation of a foreign country - only more death, more destruction, more fear and more hatred.
The National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance - which organized the "Remember and Resist" September 26th mass action at the White House and the November 18th "National Stand Down Day" actions at recruiting centers across the country - is organizing "A Call to Conscience for the U.S. Congress." Starting during the celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King's birth, and continuing through the third commemoration of the beginning of the Iraq War, we ask that concerned activists across the country join us in a campaign of nonviolent sit-ins and related actions at Congressional offices, demanding that they vote and act to bring the war and U.S. military occupation to an end..
As we recognize the great risks and danger that civilians and soldiers are exposed to in Iraq every day, so it is our moral responsibility to assume risks, through nonviolent action, that might expose the injustice of this war and help bring it to an end. Our willingness to engage in these actions is grounded in the spirit of nonviolence and love, with compassion and respect for all we encounter. But our nonviolence will not be mistaken for lack of resolve. We will stand up, and speak out, and sit-in, as needed, until our elected leaders in Congress take action.
More materials will be produced shortly for the campaign. We understand that some groups have well-developed, ongoing campaigns involving nonviolent direct action at congressional offices, while for others this is fairly new. We will share information and resources, including success stories from groups who have organized effective actions, to help those just getting started to plan their actions, and to figure out their political demands of their Congresspeople, and/or their message to the media. We do urge your organization to get started as soon as possible, though, by asking your Representative or Senator for a meeting - the House, at least, is in recess for all of January, so your Representatives should be available in their district offices.
We look forward to working with hundreds of groups across the nation to build a powerful campaign of nonviolent resistance against the war in Iraq - please join us! For more information and to join the campaign, please contact us at http://www.iraqpledge.org or mailto:pledgecoordinator@starpower.net
Read further: http://www.iraqpledge.org
Doug's highlight takes us back to Iraq, Brian Conley and Isam Rashid's "Another Raid Brings Further Alienation" (IPS):
BAGHDAD, Jan 12 (IPS) - The Association of Muslim Scholars, a Sunni organisation that was created in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, was again targeted by the United States military last Sunday. The raid on its mosque served only to alienate Sunnis further. The Association of Muslim Scholars, now considered the highest Sunni authority in Iraq, has been working to support those who have lost their families, or the unemployed.
It is also a strong critic of the United States occupation. Its stand has provoked several raids by the U.S. army and continuing conflict with the Shia-dominated interim government. This most recent raid appears to have been related to the kidnapping of American journalist Jill Carroll. No one has yet claimed responsibility for her abduction.
The Association of Muslim Scholars has been accused of links with resistance groups in the past, but there is no known connection between the organisation and such groups, or with the abduction of Jill Carroll. The U.S. forces apparently acted on a tip-off from one Iraqi.
The U.S. forces raided the Umm Al Qura Mosque in the early morning, just two days before Eid al Adha, which concludes the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. The Association offices are based at this mosque.
"At 3:30am the U.S. troops and the Iraqi army raided the mosque," Akram Ahmed, a guard at the mosque told IPS. "Some of the U.S. troops came down from helicopters. They arrested seven guards and Sheikh Yunis Al Ugaidi."
The Sheikh is a Sunni religious leader. U.S. troops were evidently looking for Jill Carroll.
"They were looking for secret places in the mosque, and they asked about the American journalist," Ahmed said. "But they didn't find anything about that."
It is difficult to understand why the United States would single out the Association of Muslim Scholars as an initial target in the investigation of Jill Carroll's abduction. The organisation has condemned the taking of hostages in Iraq. It has opposed the political process under the occupation, but has continued to call for peace.
Melinda advises us about the lead up to next week's tribunal on Bully Boy (Riverside Church, NYC, Friday and Saturday, Columbia University on Sunday -- see Ruth's entry for more information) via her highlight, mjb's "International citizen's commission attempts to serve indictments at White House" (DC Indymedia):
Activists representing the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed By the Bush Administration tried to deliver an indictment against George W. Bush today at the White House. While the papers -- carried to the gate by former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern -- were ultimately not accepted, about two dozen participants and supporters attracted the attention of media, tourists, and the secret service as they held a press conference and then approached the White House's Northwest Appointment Gate.
Larry Everest, author of Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda, described the Commission as a project that evolved out of the Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience. He said that "when people of conscience suspect that crimes against humanity have happened they have a responsibility to look into them," nearly quoting the commision's charter. "It considers itself international because "we invite the participation of people around the world." Everest also said that he believes "this country has an enormous impact" on the rest of the world in areas of "pollution, arms control, human rights, women's health." Everest continued, "We are carrying out our work with a sense of responsibility internationally."
On Pennsylvania Avenue today Everest gathered with Ray McGovern, Ruby Dee, former State Department employee and journalist William Blum, and representatives of Progressive Democrats of America, Democracy Rising, the World Can't Wait organization, Code Pink and others. They denounced the Bush White House for "Wars of Aggression," "Torture and Indefinite Detention," "Destruction of the Planet," "Attacks on Public Health," and "Criminal Neglect after [Hurricane] Katrina."
Kevin Zeese of Democracy Rising, and a candidate from Maryland for the U.S. Senate, said that based on these allegations and other overt violations of civil liberties "we have the most impeachable president" in history. William Blum replied to the broad question of "how can they can get away with this" with admonishment not to give leaders "credit for having good intentions" and to stop "assuming they're bumblers," alluding to a history of stated motivations and intentions not being supported by actions or results.
Lastly, Doug asked that we try to note MLK each day in the lead up to the 16th. Members have taken up the challenge. A number of you e-mailed with event schedules and news articles on events. I worked every one of those into my column for the gina & krista round-robin that gets sent out tomorrow. So please check to see if there are events in your areas.
Dallas found a highlight that provides audio and video. "Honor The Memory of Martin Luther King - Get Active." We've offered various text highlights or I wouldn't be providing a link that has no text basis. I know that some members are on older and/or slower computers (and that some, either due to using a public computer or not having a sound card) aren't able to watch or listen online. If we weren't providing something each day to note MLK, I probably wouldn't provide the link because I know it won't be available to all members. But since there have been many highlights (and we've got some more coming), I'm going to offer this one. If this is a problem, please let me know. I don't intend to offer any link that isn't potentially available to all members in the future. I can't imagine doing that unless we were highlighting a theme daily. If my decision has upset anyone, I apologize to you. Blame it on my being tired, very tired, and enjoying the link myself. The link takes you to audio and video "brought to you by" CODEPINK, Global Exchange and Black Voices for Peace.
The e-mail address for this site (fingers crossed) is common_ills@yahoo.com. (And members can return to using the members' e-mail address as well.)
mlk
iraq pledge of resistance
anti-war
iraq
peace
dahr jamail
codepink
global exchange
black voices for peace
isam rashid
brian conley
indymedia
Democracy Now: Alito hearings, Margaret Kimberley, Eleanor Smeal, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Elizabeth Holtzman, Juan Gonzalez
Abu Ghraib Commander Takes 5th Amendment At Trial
The Washington Post is reporting a high-ranking US army official has invoked his right not to incriminate himself while testifying in the military tribunal of two soldiers accused of using dogs to intimidate detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The decision by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller -- who helped set up interrogations at Abu Ghraib -- comes shortly after Col. Thomas Pappas, the commanding officer at Abu Ghraib, accepted immunity from prosecution this week and was ordered to testify at an upcoming military trial. According to the Post, Col. Pappas, could be asked how abusive tactics emerged, who ordered their use and their possible connection to officials in Washington. Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said: "It's a steppingstone going up the chain of command, and that's positive. It might demonstrate that it wasn't just a few rotten apples."
Alito Refuses To Affirm Roe v. Wade Is Settled Law
Confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito continued for a third day Wednesday. Alito's view on abortion remained a key point of debate. Democrats criticized Alito for not doing something that Chief Justice John Roberts did just four months ago during his confirmation hearings -- state that Roe v. Wade was the settled law of the land. Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, or CAP, also drew criticism. In 1985, in a job application to become an assistant attorney general, Alito noted that he was a member of the group along with the Federal Society. By 1985 the Concerned Alumni of Princeton was already a highly controversial group because it opposed equal educational opportunities for women, minorities and the disabled.
Israel Suspends Talks With Robertson Over Biblical Theme Park
Meanwhile, the Israeli government says it has suspended talks on a tourism project with evangelical leader Pat Robertson. This in response to Robertson's suggestion Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine punishment for pulling out of the Gaza Strip. As Democracy Now reported last week, Robertson was heading a consortium in talks with the Israeli government to build a sprawling biblical theme park by the Sea of Galilee. Israel Tourism spokesperson Ido Hartuv said Robertson's comments had offended many Israelis, but added: "Evangelicals are the best friends of Israel and they are very, very welcome here."
The above three items are from today's Democracy Now! Headlines and were selected by Liang, Keesha and Jonah. Democracy Now! ("always informing you," as Marcia says):
Headlines for January 12, 2006
- Alito Refuses To Affirm Roe v. Wade Is Settled Law
- Pressure Builds On Iran Over Nuclear Activities
- 24 Haitian Migrants Found Dead in Dominican Republic
- Schwarzenegger Budget Targets Welfare Recipients
- South Carolina Teens Convicted of Lynching Black Youth
- Cuban-American Couple Arrested of Spying for Cuba
- Abu Ghraib Commander Takes 5th Amendment At Trial
- Leading Polluters Refuse Gas Targets At Inaugural Meeting
Los Titulares de Hoy: Democracy Now!'s daily news summary translated into Spanish
Senators Grill Alito on Membership and Involvement in Discriminatory Group
Senators fought over Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton and whether the panel should subpoena records from the group that opposed the acceptance of blacks or women at Princeton. [includes rush transcript]
Alito Refuses to State Whether Roe v. Wade is Settled Law
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito refuses to state that Roe v. Wade was the settled law of the land -- a statement made by John Roberts four months ago during his confirmation hearings to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. [includes rush transcript]
Alito Dismisses Foreign Law as Not "Appropriate or Useful"
When questioned by Sen. Tom Coburn (R - OK) about the citation of foreign law, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito said, "I don't think it's appropriate or useful to look to foreign law in interpreting the provisions of our Constitution." [includes rush transcript - partial]
Feinstein Grills Alito on Rulings in Key Environmental Cases
Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court has also raised concerns among environmentalists. Greenpeace, the National Environmental Trust, Earthjustice, Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club have all publicly opposed Alito's confirmation. [includes rush transcript - partial]
It's Thursday and Carl was the first to note the latest from Margaret Kimberley, "Lynn Swann and Black Republicans" (Freedom Rider, The Black Commentator):
Former football star Lynn Swann recently announced his candidacy for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Pennsylvania. Swann has no qualifications to be a Governor. In fairness, that makes him no different from Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose only qualification to govern California was movie stardom. If unqualified white people can run for office and win, it is hard to argue against unqualified black people doing the same.
Athletes have always made attractive political candidates. They have instant name recognition and popularity. Voters have warm and fuzzy feelings for them. Swann was a legendary player with the Pittsburgh Steelers when they won four Super Bowls in the 1970s. He is good looking and articulate. Those are solid political credentials in this country.
In recent years Swann began earning his Republican bona fides. He is Chairman of the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. While campaigning for George W. Bush he actually called him "the most qualified and credible candidate" and managed to keep a straight face.
Swann hasn't said very much about what he plans to do should he be elected. He is in favor of "responsible" tax cuts, sounds like "compassionate" conservatism, and is against abortion. He also says that Democrats take black voters for granted. He clearly knows the GOP mantra by heart.
Swann was a Democrat until he saw the light and joined the GOP. Who knows if he had a change of heart or if he saw the political light. If he is being cynical then he has made a sensible move.
Ah the Democrats .. .
Before we get to today, let's remember yesterday (a powerful day) via Maria's highlight, Eleanor Smeal's "Alito Hearings Day 3: Things Are Heating Up" (The Smeal Report From Inside Washington, Ms. Magazine):
Interestingly, CAP was one of only two memberships Alito included on his 1985 job application for a promotion in the Reagan Administration (the other was the Federalist Society). It seems no coincidence that he included an organization co-founded by Rusher, when Reagan had professed that the National Review was his favorite magazine.
Alito seemingly wasn't careful enough to know that CAP had already been disgraced by 1985. He said that he did not recall reading about the very public resignations of former Senator Bill Bradley in 1973 and current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in 1974.
The whole situation is very puzzling and very worrisome for people who are concerned about women's rights and civil rights.
Meanwhile, Alito continued to refuse to answer questions about whether the Constitution protects a woman's right to choose. Instead of answers, we are hearing a familiar refrain that Alito is a judge with "No Agenda" who will examine the issue of a woman's right to choose abortion with an "Open Mind."
We heard the exact same words from Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings. Just months after his confirmation to the high court, he joined a dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that made his position clear: "We believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled consistently with our traditional approach to stare decisis in constitutional cases."
By refusing to tell us his view on the Constitution regarding abortion, Judge Alito is letting stand his 1985 position that he does not believe the Constitution protects a woman's right to an abortion.
Click here for Ms. magazine's complete coverage of the Alito hearings.
Also on yesterday's hearing, Brandon notes Wally's "Alito: 'I'll say anything to be confirmed'" which brings you up to date on community sites:
Rebecca's got a funny thing comparing Lindsey Graham to a character in a Tennessee Williams play. Kat's tired of Diane Feinstein playing the "Little Lady of the Senate." (Me too.) Mike's proud of his senator (Ted Kennedy) but irriated by Feinstein. Elaine wonders if Feinstein's trying to be "Lily Tomlin's Tasteful Lady"? (Mom says it was an overly refined woman, one of the characters Lily Tomlin does but not as famous as Ernestine or Edith Ann.) And Betty weighs in on "The Tough Talking Thomas Friedman."
So what has today been like? Not as lively as yesterday. "Enough of that. Let me move on." Who said that? Which Democrat? Does it matter? Doesn't that seem like those two sentences summed up much of what's gone on so far today? (Diane Feinstein said it today to Alito, for those who missed it.)
Who's worthy of applause in these hearings? Pacifica. They provided America with "gavel to gavel" coverage. (Coverage is still going on so if you're listening, keep listening. If you're not, consider listening via Pacifica.) With prospects very likely that Alito will be the second Supreme Court Justice appointed in less than a year by the Bully Boy, NPR decided that what America really needed was . . . so-called Fresh Air.
Does NPR do live coverage anymore? National Corporate Radio, as two CDs BuzzFlash offered not all that long ago proclaimed. (Dallas noted the CDs in March.)
Well they certainly demonstrated that they weren't interested in informing the public this week. Where does all the Krock money go anyway? Into training on air personalities to speak in the same bland voice? In editing costs so that all those pre-recorded bits (a huge amount) play as though no host or guest ever says "uh" or worse. (Diane Rehm's show is broadcast live. She also has a non-bland voice. But she got in on the ground floor and NPR hasn't seen the need to replicate her all over their programming schedule.)
So note and be thankful for Pacifica.
The hearings? No real follow ups for Alito. He's still allowed to pick and choose what he'll respond to. "I don't think that's settled" was popular this morning. Has anyone pointed out that he tossed that rule aside when he weighed in on public displays of worship the day before?
Schumer was the strongest from where I sat. Dick Durbin did well (I thought). I'm not sure on Kohl. I had trouble hearing him but I think he was laying groundwork. (Supposedly some are laying groundwork for the witnesses that will testify later. Whether that's true or not, who knows.)
It's more sedate. The life seems to have gone out of the hearings. Even Jeff Sessions seemed to have trouble kissing Alito's ass today. Everyone looks tired and it seems like a sense of resignation just hangs over everything. Which may be why the fact that Alito followed the law by providing employment to men and women is somehow seen as some amazing, trailblazing thing he did. I also think Alito completely screwed up the war powers issue.
Tonight, we'll have the indymedia spotlights. Ruth may have a report. You should have read one this morning; however, I overslept. I slept through the ringing cell phone, the wake up call, all but the banging on the door. (At which time I quickly pulled together this morning's entries which I'm sure show it.) I was supposed to call Ruth. Due to the mail problems, she's dictated her entries this week to me over the phone and then I farm the text out to Dallas who gathers the necessary links. So my apologies to Ruth and everyone for her not having an entry up this morning. Depending upon how long the roundtable lasts tonight, there will be an entry from Ruth up here tonight. (If it's not tonight, Ruth thinks she'll probably wait and do her regular Saturday entry.)
The hearings appear done. (Though there's supposedly some amazing witnesses coming up. I'm sure they are worth listening to, but I'm not sure any witnesses will have any impact.) But there are other issues involving the nation. Such as the issue of impeachment.
Tracey (Ruth's granddaughter) notes Katrina vanden Heuvel's "Elizabeth Holtzman: Nixon to Bush & the Case for Impeachment" (Editor's Cut, The Nation):
A few days before the New Year, soon after the New York Times reported that Bush had authorized the warrantless wiretapping of thousands of Americans, I called Elizabeth Holtzman. I remembered that Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons. And memories of Holtzman as a young leader on the House Judiciary Committee, during Watergate, made me sure she'd be a rigorous, thoughtful voice on this gravest of issues.
I reached Holtzman at her New York city law office. Anyone who knows Holtzman respects her level-headed, no-nonsense manner. That afternoon, however, her voice rose as she expressed outrage about the recent revelations of Bush's wiretapping, and she was quick to drew parallels to Watergate-era abuses. But Holtzman hesitated before agreeing to take on this assignment, asking for a few days to pull together her material and arguments. A few days later, she sent me an e-mail saying I'd have it a few days after the new year.
As promised, Holtzman got us the piece. Over the course of a week, working with senior editor Betsy Reed, Holtzman revised the article--adding more facts, reviewing arguments with legal colleagues, and updating (for example, the Pentagon study disclosing that proper bulletproof vests would have saved hundreds of lives came out just days before press date).
So, today, some thirty years after Watergate, a leader in the impeachment of Richard Nixon--former member of the House Judiciary Committee Elizabeth Holtzman--returns to the national stage, with her cover story in this week's Nation, to make the case for impeachment again: this time against President George W. Bush.
The article is especially powerful because of its sober tone, its rigorous argumentation and fastidious documentation. It is also moving because it is informed by Holtzman's personal experience and political history.
Which acts as a strong lead in to Rod's hightlight, Elizabeth Holtzman's "The Impeachment of George W. Bush" (The Nation):
Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush--not in hushed whispers but openly, in newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in Congress. As a former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, I believe they are right to do so.
I can still remember the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach during those proceedings, when it became clear that the President had so systematically abused the powers of the presidency and so threatened the rule of law that he had to be removed from office. As a Democrat who opposed many of President Nixon's policies, I still found voting for his impeachment to be one of the most sobering and unpleasant tasks I ever had to undertake. None of the members of the committee took pleasure in voting for impeachment; after all, Democrat or Republican, Nixon was still our President.
At the time, I hoped that our committee's work would send a strong signal to future Presidents that they had to obey the rule of law. I was wrong.
Like many others, I have been deeply troubled by Bush's breathtaking scorn for our international treaty obligations under the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions. I have also been disturbed by the torture scandals and the violations of US criminal laws at the highest levels of our government they may entail, something I have written about in these pages [see Holtzman, "Torture and Accountability," July 18/25, 2005]. These concerns have been compounded by growing evidence that the President deliberately misled the country into the war in Iraq. But it wasn't until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)--and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interests of national security to override our country's laws--that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate.
As a matter of constitutional law, these and other misdeeds constitute grounds for the impeachment of President Bush. A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law--and repeatedly violates the law--thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal from office. A high crime or misdemeanor is an archaic term that means a serious abuse of power, whether or not it is also a crime, that endangers our constitutional system of government.
And on the issue of the war, Bonnie notes Dennis Kucinich's "Democrats: It's the War" (In These Times):
National Democratic leaders have already tried, and tried again, to ignore the war, and it didn't work politically. During the 2002 election cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side--the president's party always loses seats in the mid-term election--the Democratic leadership in Congress cut a deal with the president to bring the war resolution to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden ceremony. "Let no light show" between Democrats and President Bush on foreign policy was the leadership's strategy, and it yielded a historic result: For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt, a president increased his majorities in both houses of Congress during a recession.
Then, in 2004, with the president vulnerable on the war, the Democratic Party again sacrificed the opportunity to distinguish itself from Bush. Members avoided the issue of withdrawal from Iraq in the Party platform, omitted it from campaign speeches and deleted it from the national convention.
Why is it an unconscionable political blunder to sweep the war and occupation of Iraq under the rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals of all time, and it has energized grassroots activity all over the country.
President Bush led the country into war based on false information, falsified threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war and the continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want to kill Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim world.
Bush's war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the world for America after our 9/11 losses. He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he diverted our attention and abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the 9/11 attack. Instead, we are mired in an occupation which has already cost over 2,000 American lives and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis.
Noting the editorial at The Third Estate Sunday Review (which spotlights the strong work of Juan Gonzalez), Zach notes Juan Gonzalez's "Pension 'Crisis' is A Myth" (New York Daily News via Common Dreams):
Pension plans have suddenly become a major battleground for America's labor movement.
Government leaders and the CEOs of big companies keep claiming pension costs are skyrocketing. Many are rushing to cut back or eliminate plans and replace them with 401(k) plans.
New York's first transit strike in 25 years was touched off by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's attempt to create a more costly pension tier for new workers. The three-day strike by the Transport Workers Union successfully beat back the MTA's pension demand.
But the fights have just started. Mayor Bloomberg has made pension reform a key issue in City Hall's new round of negotiations with municipal unions.
There are a few big holes in this "pension crisis," however.
To begin with, it doesn't exist.
Second, the bulk of city pension costs come from a small portion of the city's workforce that no one wants to tackle - cops and firefighters.
The average annual pension cost for a firefighter last year, for example, was more than $43,000, while for a civilian city worker it was $4,600 - nearly 10 times less.
Don't take my word for it. Just look at the financial reports of the city's own actuary, Robert North.
Sure, City Hall and the MTA are right to claim that during the past two years employer contributions to pension plans jumped dramatically.
But they never tell you that employer contributions to all city pension funds plummeted steadily for more than 20 years, until they reached nearly zero.
Francisco wrote a lengthy note of praise for all the members contributing to the round-robins, for Krista and Gina for doing these special editions and for members with sites who've had new content this week. I'll second that and add a thank you to members who have provided outstanding highlights this week as well. And ___ who I'm dictating this entry to can swipe a listing of members with sites from The Third Estate Sunday Review and paste it below:
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot.
The e-mail address for this site, currently, is thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com.
democracy now
juan gonzalez
margaret kimberley
katrina vanden heuvel
eleanor smeal
pacificasamuel alitosupreme court
alito hearings
Dennis Kucinich
mikey likes it
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the third estate sunday review
cedrics big mix
thomas friedman is a great man
the daily jot
The Washington Post is reporting a high-ranking US army official has invoked his right not to incriminate himself while testifying in the military tribunal of two soldiers accused of using dogs to intimidate detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The decision by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller -- who helped set up interrogations at Abu Ghraib -- comes shortly after Col. Thomas Pappas, the commanding officer at Abu Ghraib, accepted immunity from prosecution this week and was ordered to testify at an upcoming military trial. According to the Post, Col. Pappas, could be asked how abusive tactics emerged, who ordered their use and their possible connection to officials in Washington. Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said: "It's a steppingstone going up the chain of command, and that's positive. It might demonstrate that it wasn't just a few rotten apples."
Alito Refuses To Affirm Roe v. Wade Is Settled Law
Confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito continued for a third day Wednesday. Alito's view on abortion remained a key point of debate. Democrats criticized Alito for not doing something that Chief Justice John Roberts did just four months ago during his confirmation hearings -- state that Roe v. Wade was the settled law of the land. Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, or CAP, also drew criticism. In 1985, in a job application to become an assistant attorney general, Alito noted that he was a member of the group along with the Federal Society. By 1985 the Concerned Alumni of Princeton was already a highly controversial group because it opposed equal educational opportunities for women, minorities and the disabled.
Israel Suspends Talks With Robertson Over Biblical Theme Park
Meanwhile, the Israeli government says it has suspended talks on a tourism project with evangelical leader Pat Robertson. This in response to Robertson's suggestion Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine punishment for pulling out of the Gaza Strip. As Democracy Now reported last week, Robertson was heading a consortium in talks with the Israeli government to build a sprawling biblical theme park by the Sea of Galilee. Israel Tourism spokesperson Ido Hartuv said Robertson's comments had offended many Israelis, but added: "Evangelicals are the best friends of Israel and they are very, very welcome here."
The above three items are from today's Democracy Now! Headlines and were selected by Liang, Keesha and Jonah. Democracy Now! ("always informing you," as Marcia says):
Headlines for January 12, 2006
- Alito Refuses To Affirm Roe v. Wade Is Settled Law
- Pressure Builds On Iran Over Nuclear Activities
- 24 Haitian Migrants Found Dead in Dominican Republic
- Schwarzenegger Budget Targets Welfare Recipients
- South Carolina Teens Convicted of Lynching Black Youth
- Cuban-American Couple Arrested of Spying for Cuba
- Abu Ghraib Commander Takes 5th Amendment At Trial
- Leading Polluters Refuse Gas Targets At Inaugural Meeting
Los Titulares de Hoy: Democracy Now!'s daily news summary translated into Spanish
Senators Grill Alito on Membership and Involvement in Discriminatory Group
Senators fought over Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton and whether the panel should subpoena records from the group that opposed the acceptance of blacks or women at Princeton. [includes rush transcript]
Alito Refuses to State Whether Roe v. Wade is Settled Law
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito refuses to state that Roe v. Wade was the settled law of the land -- a statement made by John Roberts four months ago during his confirmation hearings to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. [includes rush transcript]
Alito Dismisses Foreign Law as Not "Appropriate or Useful"
When questioned by Sen. Tom Coburn (R - OK) about the citation of foreign law, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito said, "I don't think it's appropriate or useful to look to foreign law in interpreting the provisions of our Constitution." [includes rush transcript - partial]
Feinstein Grills Alito on Rulings in Key Environmental Cases
Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court has also raised concerns among environmentalists. Greenpeace, the National Environmental Trust, Earthjustice, Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club have all publicly opposed Alito's confirmation. [includes rush transcript - partial]
It's Thursday and Carl was the first to note the latest from Margaret Kimberley, "Lynn Swann and Black Republicans" (Freedom Rider, The Black Commentator):
Former football star Lynn Swann recently announced his candidacy for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Pennsylvania. Swann has no qualifications to be a Governor. In fairness, that makes him no different from Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose only qualification to govern California was movie stardom. If unqualified white people can run for office and win, it is hard to argue against unqualified black people doing the same.
Athletes have always made attractive political candidates. They have instant name recognition and popularity. Voters have warm and fuzzy feelings for them. Swann was a legendary player with the Pittsburgh Steelers when they won four Super Bowls in the 1970s. He is good looking and articulate. Those are solid political credentials in this country.
In recent years Swann began earning his Republican bona fides. He is Chairman of the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. While campaigning for George W. Bush he actually called him "the most qualified and credible candidate" and managed to keep a straight face.
Swann hasn't said very much about what he plans to do should he be elected. He is in favor of "responsible" tax cuts, sounds like "compassionate" conservatism, and is against abortion. He also says that Democrats take black voters for granted. He clearly knows the GOP mantra by heart.
Swann was a Democrat until he saw the light and joined the GOP. Who knows if he had a change of heart or if he saw the political light. If he is being cynical then he has made a sensible move.
Ah the Democrats .. .
Before we get to today, let's remember yesterday (a powerful day) via Maria's highlight, Eleanor Smeal's "Alito Hearings Day 3: Things Are Heating Up" (The Smeal Report From Inside Washington, Ms. Magazine):
Interestingly, CAP was one of only two memberships Alito included on his 1985 job application for a promotion in the Reagan Administration (the other was the Federalist Society). It seems no coincidence that he included an organization co-founded by Rusher, when Reagan had professed that the National Review was his favorite magazine.
Alito seemingly wasn't careful enough to know that CAP had already been disgraced by 1985. He said that he did not recall reading about the very public resignations of former Senator Bill Bradley in 1973 and current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in 1974.
The whole situation is very puzzling and very worrisome for people who are concerned about women's rights and civil rights.
Meanwhile, Alito continued to refuse to answer questions about whether the Constitution protects a woman's right to choose. Instead of answers, we are hearing a familiar refrain that Alito is a judge with "No Agenda" who will examine the issue of a woman's right to choose abortion with an "Open Mind."
We heard the exact same words from Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings. Just months after his confirmation to the high court, he joined a dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that made his position clear: "We believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled consistently with our traditional approach to stare decisis in constitutional cases."
By refusing to tell us his view on the Constitution regarding abortion, Judge Alito is letting stand his 1985 position that he does not believe the Constitution protects a woman's right to an abortion.
Click here for Ms. magazine's complete coverage of the Alito hearings.
Also on yesterday's hearing, Brandon notes Wally's "Alito: 'I'll say anything to be confirmed'" which brings you up to date on community sites:
Rebecca's got a funny thing comparing Lindsey Graham to a character in a Tennessee Williams play. Kat's tired of Diane Feinstein playing the "Little Lady of the Senate." (Me too.) Mike's proud of his senator (Ted Kennedy) but irriated by Feinstein. Elaine wonders if Feinstein's trying to be "Lily Tomlin's Tasteful Lady"? (Mom says it was an overly refined woman, one of the characters Lily Tomlin does but not as famous as Ernestine or Edith Ann.) And Betty weighs in on "The Tough Talking Thomas Friedman."
So what has today been like? Not as lively as yesterday. "Enough of that. Let me move on." Who said that? Which Democrat? Does it matter? Doesn't that seem like those two sentences summed up much of what's gone on so far today? (Diane Feinstein said it today to Alito, for those who missed it.)
Who's worthy of applause in these hearings? Pacifica. They provided America with "gavel to gavel" coverage. (Coverage is still going on so if you're listening, keep listening. If you're not, consider listening via Pacifica.) With prospects very likely that Alito will be the second Supreme Court Justice appointed in less than a year by the Bully Boy, NPR decided that what America really needed was . . . so-called Fresh Air.
Does NPR do live coverage anymore? National Corporate Radio, as two CDs BuzzFlash offered not all that long ago proclaimed. (Dallas noted the CDs in March.)
Well they certainly demonstrated that they weren't interested in informing the public this week. Where does all the Krock money go anyway? Into training on air personalities to speak in the same bland voice? In editing costs so that all those pre-recorded bits (a huge amount) play as though no host or guest ever says "uh" or worse. (Diane Rehm's show is broadcast live. She also has a non-bland voice. But she got in on the ground floor and NPR hasn't seen the need to replicate her all over their programming schedule.)
So note and be thankful for Pacifica.
The hearings? No real follow ups for Alito. He's still allowed to pick and choose what he'll respond to. "I don't think that's settled" was popular this morning. Has anyone pointed out that he tossed that rule aside when he weighed in on public displays of worship the day before?
Schumer was the strongest from where I sat. Dick Durbin did well (I thought). I'm not sure on Kohl. I had trouble hearing him but I think he was laying groundwork. (Supposedly some are laying groundwork for the witnesses that will testify later. Whether that's true or not, who knows.)
It's more sedate. The life seems to have gone out of the hearings. Even Jeff Sessions seemed to have trouble kissing Alito's ass today. Everyone looks tired and it seems like a sense of resignation just hangs over everything. Which may be why the fact that Alito followed the law by providing employment to men and women is somehow seen as some amazing, trailblazing thing he did. I also think Alito completely screwed up the war powers issue.
Tonight, we'll have the indymedia spotlights. Ruth may have a report. You should have read one this morning; however, I overslept. I slept through the ringing cell phone, the wake up call, all but the banging on the door. (At which time I quickly pulled together this morning's entries which I'm sure show it.) I was supposed to call Ruth. Due to the mail problems, she's dictated her entries this week to me over the phone and then I farm the text out to Dallas who gathers the necessary links. So my apologies to Ruth and everyone for her not having an entry up this morning. Depending upon how long the roundtable lasts tonight, there will be an entry from Ruth up here tonight. (If it's not tonight, Ruth thinks she'll probably wait and do her regular Saturday entry.)
The hearings appear done. (Though there's supposedly some amazing witnesses coming up. I'm sure they are worth listening to, but I'm not sure any witnesses will have any impact.) But there are other issues involving the nation. Such as the issue of impeachment.
Tracey (Ruth's granddaughter) notes Katrina vanden Heuvel's "Elizabeth Holtzman: Nixon to Bush & the Case for Impeachment" (Editor's Cut, The Nation):
A few days before the New Year, soon after the New York Times reported that Bush had authorized the warrantless wiretapping of thousands of Americans, I called Elizabeth Holtzman. I remembered that Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons. And memories of Holtzman as a young leader on the House Judiciary Committee, during Watergate, made me sure she'd be a rigorous, thoughtful voice on this gravest of issues.
I reached Holtzman at her New York city law office. Anyone who knows Holtzman respects her level-headed, no-nonsense manner. That afternoon, however, her voice rose as she expressed outrage about the recent revelations of Bush's wiretapping, and she was quick to drew parallels to Watergate-era abuses. But Holtzman hesitated before agreeing to take on this assignment, asking for a few days to pull together her material and arguments. A few days later, she sent me an e-mail saying I'd have it a few days after the new year.
As promised, Holtzman got us the piece. Over the course of a week, working with senior editor Betsy Reed, Holtzman revised the article--adding more facts, reviewing arguments with legal colleagues, and updating (for example, the Pentagon study disclosing that proper bulletproof vests would have saved hundreds of lives came out just days before press date).
So, today, some thirty years after Watergate, a leader in the impeachment of Richard Nixon--former member of the House Judiciary Committee Elizabeth Holtzman--returns to the national stage, with her cover story in this week's Nation, to make the case for impeachment again: this time against President George W. Bush.
The article is especially powerful because of its sober tone, its rigorous argumentation and fastidious documentation. It is also moving because it is informed by Holtzman's personal experience and political history.
Which acts as a strong lead in to Rod's hightlight, Elizabeth Holtzman's "The Impeachment of George W. Bush" (The Nation):
Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush--not in hushed whispers but openly, in newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in Congress. As a former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, I believe they are right to do so.
I can still remember the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach during those proceedings, when it became clear that the President had so systematically abused the powers of the presidency and so threatened the rule of law that he had to be removed from office. As a Democrat who opposed many of President Nixon's policies, I still found voting for his impeachment to be one of the most sobering and unpleasant tasks I ever had to undertake. None of the members of the committee took pleasure in voting for impeachment; after all, Democrat or Republican, Nixon was still our President.
At the time, I hoped that our committee's work would send a strong signal to future Presidents that they had to obey the rule of law. I was wrong.
Like many others, I have been deeply troubled by Bush's breathtaking scorn for our international treaty obligations under the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions. I have also been disturbed by the torture scandals and the violations of US criminal laws at the highest levels of our government they may entail, something I have written about in these pages [see Holtzman, "Torture and Accountability," July 18/25, 2005]. These concerns have been compounded by growing evidence that the President deliberately misled the country into the war in Iraq. But it wasn't until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)--and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interests of national security to override our country's laws--that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate.
As a matter of constitutional law, these and other misdeeds constitute grounds for the impeachment of President Bush. A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law--and repeatedly violates the law--thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal from office. A high crime or misdemeanor is an archaic term that means a serious abuse of power, whether or not it is also a crime, that endangers our constitutional system of government.
And on the issue of the war, Bonnie notes Dennis Kucinich's "Democrats: It's the War" (In These Times):
National Democratic leaders have already tried, and tried again, to ignore the war, and it didn't work politically. During the 2002 election cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side--the president's party always loses seats in the mid-term election--the Democratic leadership in Congress cut a deal with the president to bring the war resolution to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden ceremony. "Let no light show" between Democrats and President Bush on foreign policy was the leadership's strategy, and it yielded a historic result: For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt, a president increased his majorities in both houses of Congress during a recession.
Then, in 2004, with the president vulnerable on the war, the Democratic Party again sacrificed the opportunity to distinguish itself from Bush. Members avoided the issue of withdrawal from Iraq in the Party platform, omitted it from campaign speeches and deleted it from the national convention.
Why is it an unconscionable political blunder to sweep the war and occupation of Iraq under the rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals of all time, and it has energized grassroots activity all over the country.
President Bush led the country into war based on false information, falsified threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war and the continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want to kill Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim world.
Bush's war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the world for America after our 9/11 losses. He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he diverted our attention and abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the 9/11 attack. Instead, we are mired in an occupation which has already cost over 2,000 American lives and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis.
Noting the editorial at The Third Estate Sunday Review (which spotlights the strong work of Juan Gonzalez), Zach notes Juan Gonzalez's "Pension 'Crisis' is A Myth" (New York Daily News via Common Dreams):
Pension plans have suddenly become a major battleground for America's labor movement.
Government leaders and the CEOs of big companies keep claiming pension costs are skyrocketing. Many are rushing to cut back or eliminate plans and replace them with 401(k) plans.
New York's first transit strike in 25 years was touched off by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's attempt to create a more costly pension tier for new workers. The three-day strike by the Transport Workers Union successfully beat back the MTA's pension demand.
But the fights have just started. Mayor Bloomberg has made pension reform a key issue in City Hall's new round of negotiations with municipal unions.
There are a few big holes in this "pension crisis," however.
To begin with, it doesn't exist.
Second, the bulk of city pension costs come from a small portion of the city's workforce that no one wants to tackle - cops and firefighters.
The average annual pension cost for a firefighter last year, for example, was more than $43,000, while for a civilian city worker it was $4,600 - nearly 10 times less.
Don't take my word for it. Just look at the financial reports of the city's own actuary, Robert North.
Sure, City Hall and the MTA are right to claim that during the past two years employer contributions to pension plans jumped dramatically.
But they never tell you that employer contributions to all city pension funds plummeted steadily for more than 20 years, until they reached nearly zero.
Francisco wrote a lengthy note of praise for all the members contributing to the round-robins, for Krista and Gina for doing these special editions and for members with sites who've had new content this week. I'll second that and add a thank you to members who have provided outstanding highlights this week as well. And ___ who I'm dictating this entry to can swipe a listing of members with sites from The Third Estate Sunday Review and paste it below:
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot.
The e-mail address for this site, currently, is thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com.
democracy now
juan gonzalez
margaret kimberley
katrina vanden heuvel
eleanor smeal
pacificasamuel alitosupreme court
alito hearings
Dennis Kucinich
mikey likes it
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the third estate sunday review
cedrics big mix
thomas friedman is a great man
the daily jot
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)