Let's face it - we all know that President Bush is not the sharpest crayon in the box. He is intellectually lazy, actively hostile to differing opinions, and prefers to be spoon-fed by his staff rather than think for himself. But the latest evidence of that brought me to a slack-jawed halt, gaping in horrified amazement as I realized just how embarrassing and dangerous it is that this man is the leader of our nation.
As the New York Times reported, four scholars who recently met with Bush at the White House to discuss the Iraq War said that the President's main concern was not the seemingly endless line of American soldiers coming home in body bags, nor the Shi'a slaughtering the Sunnis, nor the Sunnis slaughtering the Shi'a, nor anything like that.
No, he was most frustrated over the fact "that the new Iraqi government -- and the Iraqi people -- had not shown greater public support for the American mission."
Um...what?
Is Bush really that shallow? Does he really believe that it's all a matter of getting the Iraqi people to say "thank you?" Does he really not understand that thanks to more than three years of incompetence and plunder combined with an increasingly brutal occupation, we are now only slightly more popular than bubonic plague over there?
And if that weren't enough, Peter Galbraith, the former US Ambassador to Croatia, now says that Bush had no idea that Iraq was composed of two different sects of Islam. During a meeting at the White House, three Iraqi-Americans spent some time explaining the Sunni-Shi'a divisions to the President, whereupon Bush said, "I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!"
That was just two months before he ordered the invasion.
With Iraq disintegrating into sectarian civil war and proof all around that the current Iraq strategy (whatever it is) just isn't working, Bush proclaims the only way is to "stay the course" with absolutely no change in anything. And this is the man itching to attack Iran, seeing as how our grand experiment in spreading freedom and democracy proved so effective in Iraq.
The thought of that much power in the hands of someone so ignorant of even the most basic facts should give us all nightmares. God help us all.
8/17/2006
1/18/2006
Just Plain Evil
The Swift Boats are setting sail again!
You may recall that during the 2004 election, a GOP front group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth made a lot of hay out of trashing Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam War record, saying that he didn't really deserve his decorations. President Bush (who was schmoozed into the Texas National Guard and promptly went AWOL) and Vice President Cheney (who defended his five Vietnam-era deferments by saying "I had more important things to do") remained noticeably silent as their minions smeared Kerry eight ways to Sunday. Indeed, the attacks and Kerry's weak response to them were a significant factor in his election loss.
Now it's happening all over again.
In November, Rep. John Murtha, a decorated Marine Corps veteran who fought in Vietnam, came out against the Iraq War, saying we had accomplished all we could over there and it was time to bring the troops home. Nor surprisingly, he was promptly attacked by war supporters as someone who, in the uproar-causing words of Rep. Jean Schmidt, would "cut and run." Murtha's long history of supporting the military combined with his weekly visits to military hospitals to visit wounded troops made him a difficult target for the swift-boating treatment that Kerry received.
Now they're trying.
The Cybercast News Service posted an article last week claiming that Murtha did not deserve the two Purple Hearts he won back in 1967 while fighting in Vietnam. CNS is a hard-right website run by David Thibault, an acolyte of Brent Bozell, the self-proclaimed "media critic" who says the media is filled with liberals, unreformed Communists, gays, lesbians, al Qaeda sympathizers, and so on.
There is, of course, no serious reason to doubt that Murtha earned his decorations honestly and honorably. Demonstrating admirable restraint, Murtha said that "questions about my record are clearly an attempt to distract attention from the real issue" and that "my record is clear."
Thibault, to his (very small) credit, doesn't even try to pretend that his smear is unrelated to Murtha's antiwar statements. "The congressman has really put himself in the forefront of the antiwar movement," he told the Washington Post. "He has been placed by the Democratic Party and antiwar activists as a spokesman against the war above reproach." In other words, if Murtha had just kept his opinions to himself, echoed whatever is the latest mantra for staying in Iraq, and not raised a peep, nothing would have been said.
Once again, we see how the Republicans, who claim to venerate military service above all else, won't hesitate to slur any veteran who fails to toe the line. Max Cleland, who dared to dissent from the Bush Administration's war plans, lost his Senate seat in 2002 thanks to GOP ads smearing him as an ideological comrade of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. John McCain, the fiercely independent Republican senator who was a POW in Vietnam for five years, was attacked by his own party during the 2000 primaries. Not only was he called a possibly traitorous nutcase, but he was the target of a truly despicable whispering campaign saying there was something wrong with him because he and his wife adopted their daughter from Bangladesh.
It seems that some veterans are more worthy of praise than others. If you shut up and salute at the right times, you are held up as a paragon of military virtue. If you dare express any dissenting opinion, you are smeared as a fake hero, a fifth columnist, an enemy within. Insisting that veterans are required to hold certain political beliefs while attacking anyone who thinks differently is wrong, and smearing veterans who don't fall into line is just plain evil.
You may recall that during the 2004 election, a GOP front group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth made a lot of hay out of trashing Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam War record, saying that he didn't really deserve his decorations. President Bush (who was schmoozed into the Texas National Guard and promptly went AWOL) and Vice President Cheney (who defended his five Vietnam-era deferments by saying "I had more important things to do") remained noticeably silent as their minions smeared Kerry eight ways to Sunday. Indeed, the attacks and Kerry's weak response to them were a significant factor in his election loss.
Now it's happening all over again.
In November, Rep. John Murtha, a decorated Marine Corps veteran who fought in Vietnam, came out against the Iraq War, saying we had accomplished all we could over there and it was time to bring the troops home. Nor surprisingly, he was promptly attacked by war supporters as someone who, in the uproar-causing words of Rep. Jean Schmidt, would "cut and run." Murtha's long history of supporting the military combined with his weekly visits to military hospitals to visit wounded troops made him a difficult target for the swift-boating treatment that Kerry received.
Now they're trying.
The Cybercast News Service posted an article last week claiming that Murtha did not deserve the two Purple Hearts he won back in 1967 while fighting in Vietnam. CNS is a hard-right website run by David Thibault, an acolyte of Brent Bozell, the self-proclaimed "media critic" who says the media is filled with liberals, unreformed Communists, gays, lesbians, al Qaeda sympathizers, and so on.
There is, of course, no serious reason to doubt that Murtha earned his decorations honestly and honorably. Demonstrating admirable restraint, Murtha said that "questions about my record are clearly an attempt to distract attention from the real issue" and that "my record is clear."
Thibault, to his (very small) credit, doesn't even try to pretend that his smear is unrelated to Murtha's antiwar statements. "The congressman has really put himself in the forefront of the antiwar movement," he told the Washington Post. "He has been placed by the Democratic Party and antiwar activists as a spokesman against the war above reproach." In other words, if Murtha had just kept his opinions to himself, echoed whatever is the latest mantra for staying in Iraq, and not raised a peep, nothing would have been said.
Once again, we see how the Republicans, who claim to venerate military service above all else, won't hesitate to slur any veteran who fails to toe the line. Max Cleland, who dared to dissent from the Bush Administration's war plans, lost his Senate seat in 2002 thanks to GOP ads smearing him as an ideological comrade of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. John McCain, the fiercely independent Republican senator who was a POW in Vietnam for five years, was attacked by his own party during the 2000 primaries. Not only was he called a possibly traitorous nutcase, but he was the target of a truly despicable whispering campaign saying there was something wrong with him because he and his wife adopted their daughter from Bangladesh.
It seems that some veterans are more worthy of praise than others. If you shut up and salute at the right times, you are held up as a paragon of military virtue. If you dare express any dissenting opinion, you are smeared as a fake hero, a fifth columnist, an enemy within. Insisting that veterans are required to hold certain political beliefs while attacking anyone who thinks differently is wrong, and smearing veterans who don't fall into line is just plain evil.
1/09/2006
Picking and Choosing
When Senator John McCain, a dedicated Vietnam War veteran and survivor of Viet Cong torture, introduced an amendment to the Defense Department funding bill banning all forms of torture by the American government, he was speaking from hard experience. Americans, he said loud and clear, are better than to stoop to torture. Displaying a truly stunning political tone-deafness, the White House fought hard to derail the amendment, claiming that Americans should be able to torture prisoners. Fortunately, the American people loudly disagreed, and President Bush was forced to back off and sign the bill.
Well, not quite. For Bush also issued a "signing statement" claiming:
"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005."
Translated into plain English, this means three things:
This is not new from this Administration. From warrantless spying on American citizens to secret overseas prisons to redefining torture to a host of other outrages, President Bush has always said he has the unilateral power to do whatever he wants, the law be damned. When Congress and the courts dare tell him what he can and cannot do, he just flips them off them and goes on his merry way.
When the President says he can override any law at will, regardless of the justifications, that is not democracy. That is a dicatorship in the making.
This is why Democrats have to take back the Senate and the House this year. Once we have a Democratic Congress in place, we can impeach both President Bush and Vice President Cheney for flagrant abuse of power and have the Democratic Speaker of the House become President.
Well, not quite. For Bush also issued a "signing statement" claiming:
"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005."
Translated into plain English, this means three things:
- The President has the unilateral power to ignore this law as he sees fit.
- Anyone who claims to have been tortured in violation of this law cannot go to court for redress.
- Federal courts are barred from taking the case of anyone declared by the President to be an "enemy combatant," even for habeas corpus (wrongful imprisonment) petitions.
This is not new from this Administration. From warrantless spying on American citizens to secret overseas prisons to redefining torture to a host of other outrages, President Bush has always said he has the unilateral power to do whatever he wants, the law be damned. When Congress and the courts dare tell him what he can and cannot do, he just flips them off them and goes on his merry way.
When the President says he can override any law at will, regardless of the justifications, that is not democracy. That is a dicatorship in the making.
This is why Democrats have to take back the Senate and the House this year. Once we have a Democratic Congress in place, we can impeach both President Bush and Vice President Cheney for flagrant abuse of power and have the Democratic Speaker of the House become President.
1/04/2006
If At First You Don't Succeed...
Even having filled his Administration with cronies and yes-men, it appears President Bush had a hard time getting his own people to sign off on his plan to secretly wiretap Americans' communications without the legally required court orders. According to the New York Times, the White House in 2004 asked the Justice Department to approve the continuation of its secret spying program, but Deputy Attorney General James Comey balked, saying the program was most likely illegal.
In response, chief of staff Andrew Card and counsel (now Attorney General) Alberto Gonzales went to Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital bedside - he was recovering from gall bladder surgery - to get him to overrule his deputy and approve the wiretapping. Ashcroft also said no.
While neither Ashcroft and Comey have commented on the story, neither one is a particular friend of terrorists and neither one would have given it a second thought. Indeed, Ashcroft has publicly called antiwar activists terrorists, and he would not have hesitated for a moment in giving his approval to spying on them.
The fact that both of them refused to approve the wholesale spying should raise the serious question of just who was being tapped. Rumors are flying that the program's target was not al Qaeda sympathizers or even antiwar activists, but prominent Democrats and the Kerry campaign.
Where will this lead?
In response, chief of staff Andrew Card and counsel (now Attorney General) Alberto Gonzales went to Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital bedside - he was recovering from gall bladder surgery - to get him to overrule his deputy and approve the wiretapping. Ashcroft also said no.
While neither Ashcroft and Comey have commented on the story, neither one is a particular friend of terrorists and neither one would have given it a second thought. Indeed, Ashcroft has publicly called antiwar activists terrorists, and he would not have hesitated for a moment in giving his approval to spying on them.
The fact that both of them refused to approve the wholesale spying should raise the serious question of just who was being tapped. Rumors are flying that the program's target was not al Qaeda sympathizers or even antiwar activists, but prominent Democrats and the Kerry campaign.
Where will this lead?
1/03/2006
Just a Piece of Paper?
"It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
According to three witnesses, that's what President Bush called the United States Constitution in November. Republican congressional leaders had gone to the White House to talk with Bush about the difficulties involved in renewing the USA Patriot Act. In the four years since the law's post-9/11 passage, some conservative leaders have joined with prominent liberals in expressing uneasiness about the Act's reach and its effect on civil liberties. In general, the Administration's relationship with the GOP right wing has been strained of late, most notably in Bush's doomed attempt to nominate the highly unqualified (and insufficiently conservative) crony Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
In the meeting, GOP leaders reportedly told Bush that his high-pressure sales pitch to renew the Patriot Act was pushing more conservatives further away.
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush said. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one lone brave aide piped up, "there is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush shot back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
If Bill Clinton had called the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper" or called political dissenters "motherf---ing traitors," Congress and Fox News would be building a bonfire on the White House lawn. But since it's George W. Bush we're talking about, such revelations are barely mentioned, if at all, and quickly allowed to be forgotten.
In his actions as President, from classifying everything possible to his warrantless spying on the American people, Bush doesn't strike me as someone who has a lot of respect for the Constitution. It is, after all, only the bedrock of our civil society. And since he feels the need to spit all over everything this country was founded upon, you'd think he'd hold back on invoking the Constitution in his speeches all the time.
But then again, it's apparently just a goddamned piece of paper.
According to three witnesses, that's what President Bush called the United States Constitution in November. Republican congressional leaders had gone to the White House to talk with Bush about the difficulties involved in renewing the USA Patriot Act. In the four years since the law's post-9/11 passage, some conservative leaders have joined with prominent liberals in expressing uneasiness about the Act's reach and its effect on civil liberties. In general, the Administration's relationship with the GOP right wing has been strained of late, most notably in Bush's doomed attempt to nominate the highly unqualified (and insufficiently conservative) crony Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
In the meeting, GOP leaders reportedly told Bush that his high-pressure sales pitch to renew the Patriot Act was pushing more conservatives further away.
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush said. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one lone brave aide piped up, "there is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush shot back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
If Bill Clinton had called the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper" or called political dissenters "motherf---ing traitors," Congress and Fox News would be building a bonfire on the White House lawn. But since it's George W. Bush we're talking about, such revelations are barely mentioned, if at all, and quickly allowed to be forgotten.
In his actions as President, from classifying everything possible to his warrantless spying on the American people, Bush doesn't strike me as someone who has a lot of respect for the Constitution. It is, after all, only the bedrock of our civil society. And since he feels the need to spit all over everything this country was founded upon, you'd think he'd hold back on invoking the Constitution in his speeches all the time.
But then again, it's apparently just a goddamned piece of paper.
12/29/2005
Mea Culpa
Last week, I wrote of a University of Massachusetts student who claimed to have been visited by federal agents for borrowing Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung (better known as Mao's "Little Red Book") from the library. After being confronted with inconsistencies in his story, he has now confessed to making the whole thing up, saying he liked getting all the attention.
It's people like this who make trying to get to the truth harder. I apologize for highlighting a false story here and will do my best to make sure it doesn't happen again.
It's people like this who make trying to get to the truth harder. I apologize for highlighting a false story here and will do my best to make sure it doesn't happen again.
You Mean the Law Applies to Us Too?
"No man is above the law and no man is below the law. That is the principle that we all hold dear in this country. The President has many responsibilities and many privileges. His chief responsibility is to uphold the laws of this land. He does not have the privilege to break the law."
Then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay - who has been conspicuously silent on lawbreaking by the Bush Administration - urging the House of Representatives on 10/8/98 to impeach President Bill Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky
I Know What I Said, But I Didn't Really Mean It
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
President Bush in a 4/20/04 speech, at the same time he was approving wholesale spying on American citizens without any court orders whatsoever
Deeper and Deeper
Despite heroic efforts on the part of the Bush Administration and its allies in the conservative media to get past the warrantless-spying scandal, it's not going anywhere. On the contrary, every new revelation only deepens the sense of public outrage at the President's Big Brother act.
To recap: it was revealed two weeks ago that after 9/11, President Bush unilaterally ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap the international communications of hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans, ignoring the constitutional and statutory requirements that all wiretap requests must be approved by a court. As the White House responded by claiming Bush has "inherent power" to do whatever he wants and blamed the media for breaking the story, more revelations came out.
Purely domestic calls were tapped as well as international ones. A FISA judge quit in protest of the secret spying operation. The nation's telecommunications companies acquiesced in allowing the NSA to tap wide swathes of domestic communications in what amounted to a massive data-mining operation, searching huge amounts of data for buzzwords to prompt more active listening and intervention.
Bush's defenders claim that the spying stopped terrorist plots and besides, only people with something to hide would object to this indiscriminate warrantless searching. As for the first claim, we have only the Administration's word that plots were exposed and, to put it mildly, their word is worthless. They have abused the public trust so many times that their credibility is completely shot.
And as for the second claim - well, with that attitude, how long will it take before all our telephone calls, E-mails and other communications are subject to permanent tap by an Administration whose motives might not be pure? Will such defenders of an unfettered right to spy on anyone at any time be comfortable with the knowledge that someone is always listening?
Indeed, the White House's motives might not be pure already. There are disturbing rumors that the secret FISA court, which almost always approves wiretap requests, expressed misgivings at Bush's first list of targets for surveillance. This supposedly prompted Bush to make his end run around the law and order the secret spying. If that is the case, who was on the list? And since the spying continues to this day, who is on the list now?
No matter how much the White House and the right wing try to fudge the issue, the controversy is not about wiretapping in and of itself. Wiretapping has long been an accepted and valued part of law enforcement, and tapping criminal suspects with a court order is perfectly legitimate. The issue is that the President ordered the wholesale surveillance of possibly millions of people in willful defiance of the Constitution and federal statute law.
With even some Congressional Republicans aghast at the White House's arrogant power grab, both parties are demanding an investigation and some serious reining-in. Even the once-dreaded word "impeachment" is starting to be whispered in the halls of Congress.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney believe themselves to be above the law, once again exploiting 9/11 to give them an excuse. This cannot be allowed to continue.
To recap: it was revealed two weeks ago that after 9/11, President Bush unilaterally ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap the international communications of hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans, ignoring the constitutional and statutory requirements that all wiretap requests must be approved by a court. As the White House responded by claiming Bush has "inherent power" to do whatever he wants and blamed the media for breaking the story, more revelations came out.
Purely domestic calls were tapped as well as international ones. A FISA judge quit in protest of the secret spying operation. The nation's telecommunications companies acquiesced in allowing the NSA to tap wide swathes of domestic communications in what amounted to a massive data-mining operation, searching huge amounts of data for buzzwords to prompt more active listening and intervention.
Bush's defenders claim that the spying stopped terrorist plots and besides, only people with something to hide would object to this indiscriminate warrantless searching. As for the first claim, we have only the Administration's word that plots were exposed and, to put it mildly, their word is worthless. They have abused the public trust so many times that their credibility is completely shot.
And as for the second claim - well, with that attitude, how long will it take before all our telephone calls, E-mails and other communications are subject to permanent tap by an Administration whose motives might not be pure? Will such defenders of an unfettered right to spy on anyone at any time be comfortable with the knowledge that someone is always listening?
Indeed, the White House's motives might not be pure already. There are disturbing rumors that the secret FISA court, which almost always approves wiretap requests, expressed misgivings at Bush's first list of targets for surveillance. This supposedly prompted Bush to make his end run around the law and order the secret spying. If that is the case, who was on the list? And since the spying continues to this day, who is on the list now?
No matter how much the White House and the right wing try to fudge the issue, the controversy is not about wiretapping in and of itself. Wiretapping has long been an accepted and valued part of law enforcement, and tapping criminal suspects with a court order is perfectly legitimate. The issue is that the President ordered the wholesale surveillance of possibly millions of people in willful defiance of the Constitution and federal statute law.
With even some Congressional Republicans aghast at the White House's arrogant power grab, both parties are demanding an investigation and some serious reining-in. Even the once-dreaded word "impeachment" is starting to be whispered in the halls of Congress.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney believe themselves to be above the law, once again exploiting 9/11 to give them an excuse. This cannot be allowed to continue.
12/21/2005
Less Preaching, More Teaching
"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause... The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones, rejecting the Dover, Pennsylvania school board's attempts to include "intelligent design" (reallly just warmed-over creationism with a word change here and there) in public school biology classes
12/20/2005
L'Etat, C'est Moi
During his press conference yesterday, President Bush angrily claimed that he has absolute power to spy on anyone at any time, warrants and the Constitution be damned. He asked rhetorically, "Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely." He said he will continue the spying program "so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens."
In other words, forever.
As Bush spoke, I swear I could hear Richard Nixon speaking from beyond the grave. During a 1977 interview, Nixon said that "when the President does it, that means that it's not illegal." The White House should remember that his downfall was triggered by illegal surveillance not unlike what we're now seeing.
The Bush Administration has closed ranks behind its leader, but it hasn't been easy. After all, the notion that the President has the power to disregard federal law and the Constitution to eavesdrop on anyone he feels like is kind of hard to defend.
Not that they didn't try. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, ostensibly the nation's chief law enforcement officer, said that the FISA law governing national-security searches "involves looping paperwork around, even in the case of emergency authorizations from the Attorney General." But FISA allows for wiretapping on an emergency basis, with retroactive warrants allowed up to 72 hours after the tap is conducted. Even if that isn't sufficient, why not work with Congress to change the law instead of just ignoring it? Gonzales said an amendment "was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore killing the program."
Yeah, those pesky laws do tend to get in the way of doing anything you like just for the heck of it.
Gonzales also said that when Congress voted post-9/11 to let Bush attack al Qaeda, by using the words "all necessary and appropriate force" they also implicitly gave him the authority to spy on anyone the Administration believes to be connected with al Qaeda - a rationale heatedly rejected by many in Congress.
It is, to put it mildly, highly doubtful that in giving Bush the green light to retaliate against al Qaeda, Congress also gave him the authority to overturn statute law and indeed the Constitution. What else does the President think he can simply do away with at the stroke of a pen?
Having already dispensed with the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against warrantless searches, Bush is now targeting the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, telling everyone, "The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy." So pointing out that the President is acting like a dictator is not protecting democracy, but helping Osama bin Laden? Someone should point out to Bush that hiding behind bluster and accusing people who question him of borderline treason doesn't help his case.
The Bush Administration is out of control. Its previous abuses - indefinite imprisonment, secret jails, torture, et cetera - may not have felt like they applied to us, to American citizens. Instead, they always happen to other people, to bad people, to terrorists, and anything that happens to terrorists can't be bad enough.
But now the monster we unleashed to destroy the enemy is turning on us. When we pick up the phone to call family or friends, how can we be certain that no one is listening in? If we talk politics via E-mail, can we be sure that someone somewhere is not combing over our messages and looking for buzzwords to trigger further investigation? If we write a letter to the editor, or attend a political meeting, or subscribe to a certain publication, or borrow a particular library book, or post to a political-opinion blog, will our names go down on a list of people deemed worthy of increased surveillance?
Laws exist for a reason. The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution with a framework of checks and balances precisely to prevent just this sort of power trip by any one branch of government. The United States is a nation of laws and not of men, and no matter what Bush thinks, he cannot do anything he wants just because he's the President. He has to follow the same laws as everyone else. No exceptions.
President Bush says that everything he does in his Global War on Terror is to defeat the terrorists who want to destroy our way of life. But his reckless abuses in pursuit of this goal threaten to do the job for them by destroying the very freedoms we cherish. Congress and the public must act immediately to put an end to this power grab, by impeachment if needed.
In other words, forever.
As Bush spoke, I swear I could hear Richard Nixon speaking from beyond the grave. During a 1977 interview, Nixon said that "when the President does it, that means that it's not illegal." The White House should remember that his downfall was triggered by illegal surveillance not unlike what we're now seeing.
The Bush Administration has closed ranks behind its leader, but it hasn't been easy. After all, the notion that the President has the power to disregard federal law and the Constitution to eavesdrop on anyone he feels like is kind of hard to defend.
Not that they didn't try. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, ostensibly the nation's chief law enforcement officer, said that the FISA law governing national-security searches "involves looping paperwork around, even in the case of emergency authorizations from the Attorney General." But FISA allows for wiretapping on an emergency basis, with retroactive warrants allowed up to 72 hours after the tap is conducted. Even if that isn't sufficient, why not work with Congress to change the law instead of just ignoring it? Gonzales said an amendment "was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore killing the program."
Yeah, those pesky laws do tend to get in the way of doing anything you like just for the heck of it.
Gonzales also said that when Congress voted post-9/11 to let Bush attack al Qaeda, by using the words "all necessary and appropriate force" they also implicitly gave him the authority to spy on anyone the Administration believes to be connected with al Qaeda - a rationale heatedly rejected by many in Congress.
It is, to put it mildly, highly doubtful that in giving Bush the green light to retaliate against al Qaeda, Congress also gave him the authority to overturn statute law and indeed the Constitution. What else does the President think he can simply do away with at the stroke of a pen?
Having already dispensed with the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against warrantless searches, Bush is now targeting the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, telling everyone, "The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy." So pointing out that the President is acting like a dictator is not protecting democracy, but helping Osama bin Laden? Someone should point out to Bush that hiding behind bluster and accusing people who question him of borderline treason doesn't help his case.
The Bush Administration is out of control. Its previous abuses - indefinite imprisonment, secret jails, torture, et cetera - may not have felt like they applied to us, to American citizens. Instead, they always happen to other people, to bad people, to terrorists, and anything that happens to terrorists can't be bad enough.
But now the monster we unleashed to destroy the enemy is turning on us. When we pick up the phone to call family or friends, how can we be certain that no one is listening in? If we talk politics via E-mail, can we be sure that someone somewhere is not combing over our messages and looking for buzzwords to trigger further investigation? If we write a letter to the editor, or attend a political meeting, or subscribe to a certain publication, or borrow a particular library book, or post to a political-opinion blog, will our names go down on a list of people deemed worthy of increased surveillance?
Laws exist for a reason. The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution with a framework of checks and balances precisely to prevent just this sort of power trip by any one branch of government. The United States is a nation of laws and not of men, and no matter what Bush thinks, he cannot do anything he wants just because he's the President. He has to follow the same laws as everyone else. No exceptions.
President Bush says that everything he does in his Global War on Terror is to defeat the terrorists who want to destroy our way of life. But his reckless abuses in pursuit of this goal threaten to do the job for them by destroying the very freedoms we cherish. Congress and the public must act immediately to put an end to this power grab, by impeachment if needed.
12/19/2005
Step Away from the Book
"My instinct is that there is a lot more monitoring than we think."
University of Massachusetts professor Brian Williams on the government investigating a student for borrowing Mao Zedong's "Little Red Book" from the library for a class on fascism and totalitarianism
Big Brother Is Listening
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It's basic knowledge to anyone who took history class in school: if the government wants to search your house or listen in on your phone calls or read your E-mail, they have to explain to a judge why it should be allowed and to get a warrant. It's what separates America from a police state in which the government can search anyone and wiretap anything just because they feel like it.
The revelation that the Bush Administration routinely taps the private communications of hundreds and possibly thousands of American citizens without bothering to get warrants as required by the very bedrock of our civil society should scare the pants off anyone who cares about democracy.
After a bit of hemming and hawing, President Bush admitted to ordering the secret spying and rolled out his usual litany of excuses:
Bush insisted that all this snooping was done on (unnamed) terrorist suspects in line with (secret) legal opinions, so it's all right. But why should we believe him? After all, he said he has the authority to do whatever he wants in this regard, including:
Bush has shown us over and over again what contempt he has for the basic rule of law in America. If the law prevents him from doing whatever he wants, he doesn't try to amend the law, he just breaks it.
The really frightening part of this latest exposure stems from the fact that the Administration already has a process in place for approving security-related wiretaps. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court exists for examining government requests for tapping suspects in national-security cases; indeed, it is a virtual rubber stamp for such requests. But Bush ignored the FISA court entirely, instead ordering the spying unilaterally and giving the job to the National Security Agency - which, by the way, is legally barred from doing such things domestically. So why didn't Bush go to FISA? The unsettling suspicion is that the wiretaps have nothing at all to do with terrorism or al Qaeda or national security.
If that is indeed the case, who is he spying on? Antiwar groups? Political dissenters? Prominent Democrats? The Kerry campaign? Does anyone in the White House remember that this is how Watergate started?
Bush and his minions claim they are protecting American freedom by their actions. In addition to spitting on the Constitution, they appear to have forgotten the words of Benjamin Franklin, one of our most prominent Founding Fathers: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Amendment IV, United States Constitution
It's basic knowledge to anyone who took history class in school: if the government wants to search your house or listen in on your phone calls or read your E-mail, they have to explain to a judge why it should be allowed and to get a warrant. It's what separates America from a police state in which the government can search anyone and wiretap anything just because they feel like it.
The revelation that the Bush Administration routinely taps the private communications of hundreds and possibly thousands of American citizens without bothering to get warrants as required by the very bedrock of our civil society should scare the pants off anyone who cares about democracy.
After a bit of hemming and hawing, President Bush admitted to ordering the secret spying and rolled out his usual litany of excuses:
- It was because of 9/11.
- It was done to protect American lives.
- It's all the media's fault for blowing the whistle on the scheme.
Bush insisted that all this snooping was done on (unnamed) terrorist suspects in line with (secret) legal opinions, so it's all right. But why should we believe him? After all, he said he has the authority to do whatever he wants in this regard, including:
- Jailing suspects indefinitely without bothering to prove their guilt
- Shredding the Geneva Conventions and simple humanity to sanction the torture and even murder of prisoners
- Exporting suspects to other countries to have confessions tortured out of them
- Setting up secret prisons in other countries to make suspects "disappear"
- Compiling intelligence files from spying on antiwar groups, then maintaining such files in violation of laws requiring their destruction 90 days after determination that the subject is not a threat
Bush has shown us over and over again what contempt he has for the basic rule of law in America. If the law prevents him from doing whatever he wants, he doesn't try to amend the law, he just breaks it.
The really frightening part of this latest exposure stems from the fact that the Administration already has a process in place for approving security-related wiretaps. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court exists for examining government requests for tapping suspects in national-security cases; indeed, it is a virtual rubber stamp for such requests. But Bush ignored the FISA court entirely, instead ordering the spying unilaterally and giving the job to the National Security Agency - which, by the way, is legally barred from doing such things domestically. So why didn't Bush go to FISA? The unsettling suspicion is that the wiretaps have nothing at all to do with terrorism or al Qaeda or national security.
If that is indeed the case, who is he spying on? Antiwar groups? Political dissenters? Prominent Democrats? The Kerry campaign? Does anyone in the White House remember that this is how Watergate started?
Bush and his minions claim they are protecting American freedom by their actions. In addition to spitting on the Constitution, they appear to have forgotten the words of Benjamin Franklin, one of our most prominent Founding Fathers: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
12/16/2005
Secret Spying, Just All in a Day's Work
"It's not the main story of the day... The main story of the day is the Iraqi election."
Defending Christmas in Congress
The United States has many problems. A dying city in Louisiana that the federal government shows no interest in saving. A seemingly endless war in Iraq. Skyrocketing energy prices. Housing, health care and college education increasingly unaffordable. A ruinous fiscal policy drowning us in debt. An ever-shrinking middle class. But never fear, Congress is taking action! Granted, it's not about any of these pressing issues, but Congress has taken a firm stand on - defending Christmas.
Yes, the "War on Christmas" campaign is now being fought on Capitol Hill. Throwing her support behind jolly old Saint Nick, Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA) introduced H. Res. 579 "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected."
"Christmas has been declared politically incorrect," Davis declared on the House floor on Wednesday, faithfully parroting the official Fox News talking points. "Any sign or even mention of Christmas in public can lead to complaints, litigation, protest, and threats. America's favorite holiday is being twisted beyond recognition. The push towards a neutered 'holiday' season is stronger than ever so that no one can be even the slightest bit offended."
Not surprisingly, she raised a few eyebrows. "Did something happen when I was not looking?" asked Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY). "Did somebody mug Santa Claus? Is somebody engaging in elf tossing? Did somebody shoot Bambi? If you eat venison, are you a suspect? What silliness we engage in, protecting symbols."
What Ackerman knows is that there is no "attack on Christmas," no matter what Davis and Fox News think. Christmas is in no danger; one can go pretty much anywhere in the country and encounter gobs of Christmas decorations, Santa statues, candy canes, and so on. We have freedom of religion in this country to worship as we please, which is exactly as it should be. But that doesn't matter, for there are points to be scored with people who can't function without something to hate and fear.
And scored they were. One would think that the Democrats would reject such nonsense, but they unfortunately showed their usual spine, falling in with Republicans to approve the resolution on a 401-22 vote.
"There are people around who need an enemy at all times to try to separate us one from the other as Americans in order to advance their own agenda," Ackerman said. "I do not think we should be playing into their hands."
Couldn't have put it better myself. Perhaps we can now get back to real business.
Yes, the "War on Christmas" campaign is now being fought on Capitol Hill. Throwing her support behind jolly old Saint Nick, Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA) introduced H. Res. 579 "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected."
"Christmas has been declared politically incorrect," Davis declared on the House floor on Wednesday, faithfully parroting the official Fox News talking points. "Any sign or even mention of Christmas in public can lead to complaints, litigation, protest, and threats. America's favorite holiday is being twisted beyond recognition. The push towards a neutered 'holiday' season is stronger than ever so that no one can be even the slightest bit offended."
Not surprisingly, she raised a few eyebrows. "Did something happen when I was not looking?" asked Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY). "Did somebody mug Santa Claus? Is somebody engaging in elf tossing? Did somebody shoot Bambi? If you eat venison, are you a suspect? What silliness we engage in, protecting symbols."
What Ackerman knows is that there is no "attack on Christmas," no matter what Davis and Fox News think. Christmas is in no danger; one can go pretty much anywhere in the country and encounter gobs of Christmas decorations, Santa statues, candy canes, and so on. We have freedom of religion in this country to worship as we please, which is exactly as it should be. But that doesn't matter, for there are points to be scored with people who can't function without something to hate and fear.
And scored they were. One would think that the Democrats would reject such nonsense, but they unfortunately showed their usual spine, falling in with Republicans to approve the resolution on a 401-22 vote.
"There are people around who need an enemy at all times to try to separate us one from the other as Americans in order to advance their own agenda," Ackerman said. "I do not think we should be playing into their hands."
Couldn't have put it better myself. Perhaps we can now get back to real business.
12/15/2005
On to Victory...Somehow
President Bush has painted himself into quite a corner. His talking-point speeches on Iraq aren't boosting his popularity. Every poll shows a considerable majority of Americans remaining convinced that he has no clue what to do about Iraq. His much-vaunted "strategy for victory" released with a splash a couple of weeks ago has instead sunk like a stone. He has lost all credibility, and the percentage of Americans who consider him honest and trustworthy is rapidly sinking to below the freezing point.
And yet he can't stop spouting the same macho slogans, the same empty rhetoric, the same stock phrases. "We will not leave until victory has been achieved," he still thunders righteously, unable to define "victory" beyond the fuzziest of catchphrases. "We can debate these issues openly," he still says, all the while accusing anyone who actually questions him of "hurt[ing] the morale of our troops."
His latest PR campaign, consisting of a series of speeches before properly dutiful audiences, is basically more of the same. Watching Bush's Iraq speech (let's face it, it's really just the same speech delivered over and over as if sheer repetition can make us believe that black is white) is an exercise in sheer frustration, making one itch to reach through the TV screen and shake him until he faces reality.
There is no strategy, no policy. There is only wishful thinking that the current parliamentary elections, merely the latest in a long string of "milestones," will magically make everything better. Nobody in the White House wants to hear what the Iraq experts in the State Department and CIA are saying - that Iraq is coming apart along ethnic lines, and a bloody civil war is a matter of when, not if. And anyone who dares admit the truth is promptly set upon by GOP attack dogs.
As more and more Americans (and even some in Congress) are realizing, it's time to face facts: the Iraq War simply cannot be won militarily. What began as an ostensible war of liberation has morphed into an indefinite occupation, and the Iraqi people want us out. They'd rather handle their own affairs without American interference, regardless of the consequences.
It doesn't help that the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq has also been a disaster, with billions of dollars simply stolen by contractors and billions more disappearing into a swamp of waste. It is telling that the Bush Administration, having made a big deal over the Oil For Food "scandal," doesn't have a single auditor in Iraq to watch the money. In many Iraqi cities, basic infrastructure is in worse shape than before the invasion almost three years ago.
The death toll has been horrendous. Briefly forced from his blissful bubble to acknowledge Iraqi deaths for the first time, Bush reluctantly said that approximately 30,000 Iraqis have been killed in his obsessive war, but his figure included military and insurgent deaths as will as civilian and is widely seen as far too low. Estimates of civilian deaths alone vary wildly from 31,000 to 100,000, and the actual figure will very likely never be known.
The fledgling Shiite-controlled Iraqi government seems determined to follow in Saddam Hussein's footsteps, from maintaining torture chambers in prisons to using death squads to knock off prominent Sunnis. Of course, Washington displays the appropriate horror at each new example of depravity, but never actually does anything about it. Because, after all, it's not Saddam doing these things, so they can't be that bad.
Meanwhile, one cannot blame the Iraqi people for suspecting that the whole point of the invasion and occupation was to seize control of Iraq's oil supplies. It's not for nothing that the original name for Operation Iraqi Freedom was "Operation Iraqi Liberation," which was rather hastily changed once someone realized what it spelled.
Bush is in deep denial. Having committed himself to invading Iraq since long before 9/11, he cannot bring himself to admit that he just might have made a mistake. It doesn't matter how many people are killed for the sake of his self-righteous ego, he can never, ever, admit error. And as much lip service as he pays to the notion of "supporting the troops," every American soldier who comes home in a flag-draped coffin, and every grieving family member who mourns him or her, is paying the price for his vendetta.
And yet he can't stop spouting the same macho slogans, the same empty rhetoric, the same stock phrases. "We will not leave until victory has been achieved," he still thunders righteously, unable to define "victory" beyond the fuzziest of catchphrases. "We can debate these issues openly," he still says, all the while accusing anyone who actually questions him of "hurt[ing] the morale of our troops."
His latest PR campaign, consisting of a series of speeches before properly dutiful audiences, is basically more of the same. Watching Bush's Iraq speech (let's face it, it's really just the same speech delivered over and over as if sheer repetition can make us believe that black is white) is an exercise in sheer frustration, making one itch to reach through the TV screen and shake him until he faces reality.
There is no strategy, no policy. There is only wishful thinking that the current parliamentary elections, merely the latest in a long string of "milestones," will magically make everything better. Nobody in the White House wants to hear what the Iraq experts in the State Department and CIA are saying - that Iraq is coming apart along ethnic lines, and a bloody civil war is a matter of when, not if. And anyone who dares admit the truth is promptly set upon by GOP attack dogs.
As more and more Americans (and even some in Congress) are realizing, it's time to face facts: the Iraq War simply cannot be won militarily. What began as an ostensible war of liberation has morphed into an indefinite occupation, and the Iraqi people want us out. They'd rather handle their own affairs without American interference, regardless of the consequences.
It doesn't help that the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq has also been a disaster, with billions of dollars simply stolen by contractors and billions more disappearing into a swamp of waste. It is telling that the Bush Administration, having made a big deal over the Oil For Food "scandal," doesn't have a single auditor in Iraq to watch the money. In many Iraqi cities, basic infrastructure is in worse shape than before the invasion almost three years ago.
The death toll has been horrendous. Briefly forced from his blissful bubble to acknowledge Iraqi deaths for the first time, Bush reluctantly said that approximately 30,000 Iraqis have been killed in his obsessive war, but his figure included military and insurgent deaths as will as civilian and is widely seen as far too low. Estimates of civilian deaths alone vary wildly from 31,000 to 100,000, and the actual figure will very likely never be known.
The fledgling Shiite-controlled Iraqi government seems determined to follow in Saddam Hussein's footsteps, from maintaining torture chambers in prisons to using death squads to knock off prominent Sunnis. Of course, Washington displays the appropriate horror at each new example of depravity, but never actually does anything about it. Because, after all, it's not Saddam doing these things, so they can't be that bad.
Meanwhile, one cannot blame the Iraqi people for suspecting that the whole point of the invasion and occupation was to seize control of Iraq's oil supplies. It's not for nothing that the original name for Operation Iraqi Freedom was "Operation Iraqi Liberation," which was rather hastily changed once someone realized what it spelled.
Bush is in deep denial. Having committed himself to invading Iraq since long before 9/11, he cannot bring himself to admit that he just might have made a mistake. It doesn't matter how many people are killed for the sake of his self-righteous ego, he can never, ever, admit error. And as much lip service as he pays to the notion of "supporting the troops," every American soldier who comes home in a flag-draped coffin, and every grieving family member who mourns him or her, is paying the price for his vendetta.
You Can't Trust Those Quakers
"This is the J. Edgar Hoover Memorial Vacuum Cleaner. They‘re collecting everything."
Comment on a leaked Defense Department document showing that the Pentagon routinely spies on nonviolent citizen antiwar groups - in complete violation of American law
12/14/2005
Scaring Your Friends
It is said that on the eve of the Battle of Waterloo, the Duke of Wellington inspected his troops and remarked, "I don't know what effect these men will have upon the enemy, but, by God, they frighten me." The incessant and increasingly unhinged "War on Christmas" campaign is finally starting to scare the non-wingnut conservative movement.
Cal Thomas, a columnist who says that secretly buying favorable Iraqi press coverage is just dandy, is now wondering whether this whole "War on Christmas" nonsense is, well, nonsense. While not mentioning the culprits of this fear campaign by name, he opines that "the effort by some cable TV hosts and ministers to force commercial establishments into wishing everyone a 'Merry Christmas' might be more objectionable to the One who is the reason for the season than the 'Happy Holidays' mantra required by some store managers."
In other words, "cool it."
While I normally agree with Thomas on virtually nothing, I have to applaud his comments. It is gratifying to note that the campaign to push one particular version of Christmas on everyone else is rankling mainstream conservatives. Fox News (on which Thomas is a regular commentator) shamelessly incorporates "War on Christmas" rhetoric into more and more of its shows. Jerry Falwell unveiled a "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign" to drag into court anyone who dares disagree with them on any matter Christmas-y.
Even the Bush Administration is set upon by these self-anointed holy warriors. Some of the wiggier denizens of the right wing attacked the White House for sending out 1.4 million "Happy Holiday" cards instead of "Merry Christmas" cards. (Note to these holier-than-thou types: There are many millions of non-Christian Americans, even non-Christian Republicans. It's our country too, you know.)
It's about time that other American conservatives tell their ever more rabid compatriots to knock it off.
One can't help wondering if God really cares whether the cashier at Home Depot says "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays." One would think He cares more about keeping people fed, clothed and housed rather than wasting time and energy on this non-issue. I'm also fairly sure there's nothing in the Bible, Jewish or Christian, that says "thou shalt shove thy religious values down everyone else's throats and loudly threaten everyone who worships in their own way."
WWJD, indeed.
Cal Thomas, a columnist who says that secretly buying favorable Iraqi press coverage is just dandy, is now wondering whether this whole "War on Christmas" nonsense is, well, nonsense. While not mentioning the culprits of this fear campaign by name, he opines that "the effort by some cable TV hosts and ministers to force commercial establishments into wishing everyone a 'Merry Christmas' might be more objectionable to the One who is the reason for the season than the 'Happy Holidays' mantra required by some store managers."
In other words, "cool it."
While I normally agree with Thomas on virtually nothing, I have to applaud his comments. It is gratifying to note that the campaign to push one particular version of Christmas on everyone else is rankling mainstream conservatives. Fox News (on which Thomas is a regular commentator) shamelessly incorporates "War on Christmas" rhetoric into more and more of its shows. Jerry Falwell unveiled a "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign" to drag into court anyone who dares disagree with them on any matter Christmas-y.
Even the Bush Administration is set upon by these self-anointed holy warriors. Some of the wiggier denizens of the right wing attacked the White House for sending out 1.4 million "Happy Holiday" cards instead of "Merry Christmas" cards. (Note to these holier-than-thou types: There are many millions of non-Christian Americans, even non-Christian Republicans. It's our country too, you know.)
It's about time that other American conservatives tell their ever more rabid compatriots to knock it off.
One can't help wondering if God really cares whether the cashier at Home Depot says "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays." One would think He cares more about keeping people fed, clothed and housed rather than wasting time and energy on this non-issue. I'm also fairly sure there's nothing in the Bible, Jewish or Christian, that says "thou shalt shove thy religious values down everyone else's throats and loudly threaten everyone who worships in their own way."
WWJD, indeed.
12/13/2005
Secret Laws?
The Bush Administration has given us a mania for secrecy at any cost unrivaled since the time of Richard Nixon. Everything is classified, whether or not it actually needs to be, and every Freedom of Information Act request is fought tooth and nail.
The White House's paranoia has now inflated to truly Orwellian proportions. John Gilmore, the libertarian co-founder of the Electronic Freedom Foundation sued the Administration challenging the rule that everyone has to show ID when boarding a commercial airline flight. In the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last week, Justice Department lawyer Joshua Waldman argued that the rule is backed up by federal law - but refused to explain which law actually requires it.
In court last week, Judge Thomas Nelson incredulously asked Justice Department lawyer Joshua Waldman, "How do we know there's an order? Because you said there was?"
"We couldn't confirm or deny the existence of an order," Waldman replied.
Amazingly, the Justice Department has refused to identify the law in question to Gilmore's lawyers or to the public. Only the court judges would be allowed to know which law supports the rule, and they would be barred from communicating this.
In George Orwell's seminal novel 1984, Winston Smith ruminates that keeping a diary is not illegal "since there were no longer any laws," but the price would be high anyway. The very notion of secret laws, hidden from the public and unleashed only when someone unknowingly runs afoul of them, is odious and offensive to our democracy. The court should order the government to come clean on this issue.
The White House's paranoia has now inflated to truly Orwellian proportions. John Gilmore, the libertarian co-founder of the Electronic Freedom Foundation sued the Administration challenging the rule that everyone has to show ID when boarding a commercial airline flight. In the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last week, Justice Department lawyer Joshua Waldman argued that the rule is backed up by federal law - but refused to explain which law actually requires it.
In court last week, Judge Thomas Nelson incredulously asked Justice Department lawyer Joshua Waldman, "How do we know there's an order? Because you said there was?"
"We couldn't confirm or deny the existence of an order," Waldman replied.
Amazingly, the Justice Department has refused to identify the law in question to Gilmore's lawyers or to the public. Only the court judges would be allowed to know which law supports the rule, and they would be barred from communicating this.
In George Orwell's seminal novel 1984, Winston Smith ruminates that keeping a diary is not illegal "since there were no longer any laws," but the price would be high anyway. The very notion of secret laws, hidden from the public and unleashed only when someone unknowingly runs afoul of them, is odious and offensive to our democracy. The court should order the government to come clean on this issue.
12/08/2005
I Knew It!
"If Bill O'Reilly needs to have an enemy, needs to feel persecuted, you know what? Here's my Kwanzaa gift to him. Are you ready? All right. I'm your enemy. Make me your enemy. I, Jon Stewart, hate Christmas, Christians, Jews, morality, and I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium."
Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," after exposing Bill O'Reilly's attempt at passing off a year-old film clip as current and generally making his whole "war on Christmas" propaganda campaign look ridiculous
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)