Sunday, January 28, 2007
Doing justice
Alternet has good piece on the prison-industrial complex and attempts to reform it. There's really so much disturbing information in there that it's hard to sum up and do it justice.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Tens of thousands protest against the surge to oblivion
Tens of thousands of Americans have descended on Washington, DC to protest against the Iraq Aggression and President Bush's proposed troop surge to oblivion.
(The rally is being broadcast on CSPAN. By the way, if you get a chance to see a replay of Jesse Jackson's speech, DON'T! The once-capitivating speaker was reduced to rambling incoherence, him clearly just going through the motions.)
One can hope that the protests will help bring the president to his senses. Common sense dictates that if you're beating your head against a stone wall to no avail, then beating your head a little bit harder isn't going change anything. But this White House's supply of common sense was exhausted long ago.
On Friday, Pres. Bush re-iterated that when it came to military policy, "I'm the decision-maker." Whew, that's a relief. Last year, he famously declared that he was "the decider" and that had me worried. But now that he's "the decision-maker," I feel so relieved.
Ultimately, I think the main objective of the protests must be to influence the Congress, since "the decision-maker" is clearly incapable of taking sane decisions resulting from rational analysis.
Of course, how and from whom "the decision-maker" is getting his information is a key question. The Bush White House is infamously little more than an echo chamber where no one dares tell the president or vice-president anything they don't want to hear.
Even the 'liberal media' was long complicit. It was only recently that they started showing the slightest skepticism of the administration's version of the 'facts.' And even then only a very proscribed skepticism was permitted. One could question the tactics and the results, but one could never fundamentally question the wisdom of our continued presence there. Even today, the 'liberal media' censors anything that might show a true picture of what's really going on in Iraq.
For example, the supposedly anti-Bush CBS News refused to broadcast a piece by its top foreign correspondent. What was so objectionable?
The segment in question -- "Battle for Haifa Street" -- is a piece of first-rate journalism but one that appears only on the CBS News website -- and has never been broadcast. It is a gritty, realistic look at life on the very mean streets of Baghdad and includes interviews with civilians who complain that the U.S. military presence is only making their lives worse and the situation more deadly.
"They told us they would bring democracy, they promised life would be better than it was under Saddam," one told Logan. "But they brought us nothing but death and killing. They brought mass destruction to Baghdad."
And this is what is taboo in the 'liberal media': asking whether America's presence in Iraq has actually made things worse.
CBS News' lame excuse for canning the piece: there were a few bodies shown in the piece and the day's evening news' broadcast already had enough Iraq stories.
(The piece can be viewed by clicking here)
NEWSFLASH: war necessarily involves dead bodies. In fact, they are an integral part of war. If you can't handle it, don't launch one!
The Los Angeles Times reports on the American government's use of mercenaries. Some 48,000 US-sponsored mercenaries operate in Iraq.
(By contrast, Britain has about 7200 soldiers in Iraq and is expected to withdraw almost half of them by May.)
The Times noted that the mercenaries have operated with almost no oversight or effective legal constraints and are an undeclared expansion of the scope of the occupation. Many of these contractors make up to $1,000 a day, far more than active-duty soldiers. What's more, these forces are politically expedient, as contractor deaths go uncounted in the official toll.
And while anti-war sentiment is often associated with the supposedly liberal urban and suburban 'elites,' it's actually rural America that's paying the heaviest price for this catastrophic war of choice.
The heaviest price besides the Iraqis themselves, of course.
(The rally is being broadcast on CSPAN. By the way, if you get a chance to see a replay of Jesse Jackson's speech, DON'T! The once-capitivating speaker was reduced to rambling incoherence, him clearly just going through the motions.)
One can hope that the protests will help bring the president to his senses. Common sense dictates that if you're beating your head against a stone wall to no avail, then beating your head a little bit harder isn't going change anything. But this White House's supply of common sense was exhausted long ago.
On Friday, Pres. Bush re-iterated that when it came to military policy, "I'm the decision-maker." Whew, that's a relief. Last year, he famously declared that he was "the decider" and that had me worried. But now that he's "the decision-maker," I feel so relieved.
Ultimately, I think the main objective of the protests must be to influence the Congress, since "the decision-maker" is clearly incapable of taking sane decisions resulting from rational analysis.
Of course, how and from whom "the decision-maker" is getting his information is a key question. The Bush White House is infamously little more than an echo chamber where no one dares tell the president or vice-president anything they don't want to hear.
Even the 'liberal media' was long complicit. It was only recently that they started showing the slightest skepticism of the administration's version of the 'facts.' And even then only a very proscribed skepticism was permitted. One could question the tactics and the results, but one could never fundamentally question the wisdom of our continued presence there. Even today, the 'liberal media' censors anything that might show a true picture of what's really going on in Iraq.
For example, the supposedly anti-Bush CBS News refused to broadcast a piece by its top foreign correspondent. What was so objectionable?
The segment in question -- "Battle for Haifa Street" -- is a piece of first-rate journalism but one that appears only on the CBS News website -- and has never been broadcast. It is a gritty, realistic look at life on the very mean streets of Baghdad and includes interviews with civilians who complain that the U.S. military presence is only making their lives worse and the situation more deadly.
"They told us they would bring democracy, they promised life would be better than it was under Saddam," one told Logan. "But they brought us nothing but death and killing. They brought mass destruction to Baghdad."
And this is what is taboo in the 'liberal media': asking whether America's presence in Iraq has actually made things worse.
CBS News' lame excuse for canning the piece: there were a few bodies shown in the piece and the day's evening news' broadcast already had enough Iraq stories.
(The piece can be viewed by clicking here)
NEWSFLASH: war necessarily involves dead bodies. In fact, they are an integral part of war. If you can't handle it, don't launch one!
The Los Angeles Times reports on the American government's use of mercenaries. Some 48,000 US-sponsored mercenaries operate in Iraq.
(By contrast, Britain has about 7200 soldiers in Iraq and is expected to withdraw almost half of them by May.)
The Times noted that the mercenaries have operated with almost no oversight or effective legal constraints and are an undeclared expansion of the scope of the occupation. Many of these contractors make up to $1,000 a day, far more than active-duty soldiers. What's more, these forces are politically expedient, as contractor deaths go uncounted in the official toll.
And while anti-war sentiment is often associated with the supposedly liberal urban and suburban 'elites,' it's actually rural America that's paying the heaviest price for this catastrophic war of choice.
The heaviest price besides the Iraqis themselves, of course.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Don't get fooled again
I have so many articles bookmarked relating to the Iraq Aggression and the war on civil liberties that it could be the only topic I blogged about for the next month. Instead, I'll try to condense them all into one piece.
I've written many times condemning the Bush administration's policies for the Guantanamo Bay kidnapee camp. You'd think that if the administration had such overwhelming evidence against people being held there that they'd be in a hurry to present it before a court to prove how dangerous and real the extremist threat is. Instead, hundreds of detainees have been kept there for years without even being charged or having any semblance of justice meted out. This un-American policy is precisely what makes them kidnapees.
And not a single one has been convicted of anything.
Some are being given a mockery of justice called military commissions. But even that's little more than a fig leaf. A senior Pentagon official recently threatened US law firms that provide representation to the detainees.
The Denver Post, among others, noted that Charles Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, told a Washington, D.C.-based radio station last week that he was dismayed that lawyers from top firms were representing detainees. He said CEOs ought to "make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms."
Such contempt for the most basic premises of our justice system is hardly shocking from this administration. After all, America's top law enforcement officer recently said that there is no Constitutional right to freedom.
Unsurprising as it may be, it's still another appalling of the administration's contempt for the basic American values it claims our soldiers are fighting abroad to protect.
Nat Hentoff, in The Village Voice, comments on reports that many countries around the world accused of human rights' abuses defend themselves by saying they are merely following America's examples. When the president told us that he wanted the United States to be a beacon for the world, most Americans probably didn't think that this was what he meant.
Adam Hochschild blasts the 'surge' proposed by Pres. Bush. He argues that the appropriate analogy for what the administration is doing is not Vietnam, but World War I's Battle of the Somme, one of the bloodiest battles in world history. Ironically, Bush recently claimed to have been reading Hochschild's excellent book King Leopold's Ghost on the Belgian Congo, which was the greatest crime against humanity of the 20th century. While Bush may have read the book, was he actually paying attention to the content?
Not paying attention to details seems to be a trait of the president and his advisors. That's what Iraq expert and author Peter Galbraith explained at a speech at the Vermont state capitol. Galbraith notes that the administration is conducting a war they have no hope of ending because they refuse to understand the complexity of the region and it's culture. As recounted in Samantha Power's seminal book on genocide, Galbraith was a key player in unsuccessfully trying to get the Reagan and Bush I administrations stop or at least condemn their ally Saddam Hussein's genocidal massacres of the Kurds.
Republican Sen. Hagel, who's always been a rare independent mind in the Senate, explains in an interview with GQ why he opposes 'the surge. He notes that, "For almost four years, this administration has been saying, 'Just give us another six months.'" When you're beating your head against a stone wall to no avail, eventually you have to realize that the solution isn't to beat your head harder.
Hagel, who was wounded in combat during Vietnam, makes a point that progressives have been saying for years and were angrily derided for doing so. "It’s not ours to secure. We have never understood that! We have framed this in a way that never made sense: 'Win or lose in Iraq.' Wait a minute! There is no win or loss for us. The Iraqis will determine how this turns out. "
His discussion of the contemptuous and duplicitous dealings by the White House toward the Congress are also revealing.
And while apologists in Fantasyland portray Iraq as a virtual paradise, except for a few isolated parts, aid agencies on the ground explain what's going on in the real world. Already nearly two million Iraqis live in often miserable conditions as refugees in nearby countries. The effects? Many refugees live in conditions of acute poverty. In Syria, almost a third of Iraqi refugee children do not go to school. The UN says that there is growing evidence of women turning to prostitution.
Another 1.7 million are displaced inside Iraq itself (and officials fear that number could rise to 2.7 million by the end of this year).
That means about 1 in 8 Iraqis have fled their homes, representing the largest long-term displacement of people since the uprooting of Palestinians during the creation of Israel in 1948.
Britain and the United States, the two main countries who caused the chaos, only accept a tiny number of Iraqis seeking political asylum or resettlement.
Despite the menacing words coming from the Bush administration's fanatics, a full-scale invasion of neighboring Iran will not happen in the near future; Iraq is such a mess that even the administration's most extreme ideologues couldn't ram through a ground invasion of Iran. But a lesser military intervention, such as air strikes or small scale incursions, is not inconceivable. One (but not the only) way they will try to justify this is by claiming that Iran is aggressively supporting insurgents in Iraq. However, the actual evidence supporting this claim is negligible at best. This isn't new. Remember how accurate the Iraq weapons of mass destruction claims turned out to be.
Somehow as I was writing this essay, I kept thinking of the song 'Won't Get Fooled Again,' by The Who. It's still apt today, sadly enough. Even though the title was ultimately wrong: we were fooled again. Back in 2002.
We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals when they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the foe, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they'd all flown in the last war
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!
I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are out-phased, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now parting on the right
And their beards have all grown longer overnight
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
I've written many times condemning the Bush administration's policies for the Guantanamo Bay kidnapee camp. You'd think that if the administration had such overwhelming evidence against people being held there that they'd be in a hurry to present it before a court to prove how dangerous and real the extremist threat is. Instead, hundreds of detainees have been kept there for years without even being charged or having any semblance of justice meted out. This un-American policy is precisely what makes them kidnapees.
And not a single one has been convicted of anything.
Some are being given a mockery of justice called military commissions. But even that's little more than a fig leaf. A senior Pentagon official recently threatened US law firms that provide representation to the detainees.
The Denver Post, among others, noted that Charles Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, told a Washington, D.C.-based radio station last week that he was dismayed that lawyers from top firms were representing detainees. He said CEOs ought to "make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms."
Such contempt for the most basic premises of our justice system is hardly shocking from this administration. After all, America's top law enforcement officer recently said that there is no Constitutional right to freedom.
Unsurprising as it may be, it's still another appalling of the administration's contempt for the basic American values it claims our soldiers are fighting abroad to protect.
Nat Hentoff, in The Village Voice, comments on reports that many countries around the world accused of human rights' abuses defend themselves by saying they are merely following America's examples. When the president told us that he wanted the United States to be a beacon for the world, most Americans probably didn't think that this was what he meant.
Adam Hochschild blasts the 'surge' proposed by Pres. Bush. He argues that the appropriate analogy for what the administration is doing is not Vietnam, but World War I's Battle of the Somme, one of the bloodiest battles in world history. Ironically, Bush recently claimed to have been reading Hochschild's excellent book King Leopold's Ghost on the Belgian Congo, which was the greatest crime against humanity of the 20th century. While Bush may have read the book, was he actually paying attention to the content?
Not paying attention to details seems to be a trait of the president and his advisors. That's what Iraq expert and author Peter Galbraith explained at a speech at the Vermont state capitol. Galbraith notes that the administration is conducting a war they have no hope of ending because they refuse to understand the complexity of the region and it's culture. As recounted in Samantha Power's seminal book on genocide, Galbraith was a key player in unsuccessfully trying to get the Reagan and Bush I administrations stop or at least condemn their ally Saddam Hussein's genocidal massacres of the Kurds.
Republican Sen. Hagel, who's always been a rare independent mind in the Senate, explains in an interview with GQ why he opposes 'the surge. He notes that, "For almost four years, this administration has been saying, 'Just give us another six months.'" When you're beating your head against a stone wall to no avail, eventually you have to realize that the solution isn't to beat your head harder.
Hagel, who was wounded in combat during Vietnam, makes a point that progressives have been saying for years and were angrily derided for doing so. "It’s not ours to secure. We have never understood that! We have framed this in a way that never made sense: 'Win or lose in Iraq.' Wait a minute! There is no win or loss for us. The Iraqis will determine how this turns out. "
His discussion of the contemptuous and duplicitous dealings by the White House toward the Congress are also revealing.
And while apologists in Fantasyland portray Iraq as a virtual paradise, except for a few isolated parts, aid agencies on the ground explain what's going on in the real world. Already nearly two million Iraqis live in often miserable conditions as refugees in nearby countries. The effects? Many refugees live in conditions of acute poverty. In Syria, almost a third of Iraqi refugee children do not go to school. The UN says that there is growing evidence of women turning to prostitution.
Another 1.7 million are displaced inside Iraq itself (and officials fear that number could rise to 2.7 million by the end of this year).
That means about 1 in 8 Iraqis have fled their homes, representing the largest long-term displacement of people since the uprooting of Palestinians during the creation of Israel in 1948.
Britain and the United States, the two main countries who caused the chaos, only accept a tiny number of Iraqis seeking political asylum or resettlement.
Despite the menacing words coming from the Bush administration's fanatics, a full-scale invasion of neighboring Iran will not happen in the near future; Iraq is such a mess that even the administration's most extreme ideologues couldn't ram through a ground invasion of Iran. But a lesser military intervention, such as air strikes or small scale incursions, is not inconceivable. One (but not the only) way they will try to justify this is by claiming that Iran is aggressively supporting insurgents in Iraq. However, the actual evidence supporting this claim is negligible at best. This isn't new. Remember how accurate the Iraq weapons of mass destruction claims turned out to be.
Somehow as I was writing this essay, I kept thinking of the song 'Won't Get Fooled Again,' by The Who. It's still apt today, sadly enough. Even though the title was ultimately wrong: we were fooled again. Back in 2002.
We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals when they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the foe, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they'd all flown in the last war
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!
I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are out-phased, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now parting on the right
And their beards have all grown longer overnight
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
'Hardcore socialist' billionaire businessmen
The complete irrationality of ideologues can be very dangerous but it's often quite amusing. Take this comment from an acquaintance of mine who's both theocrat and fundamentalist advocate of absolutist laissez-faire capitalism. He's talking about former CNN boss Ted Turner:
"His political philosophy is hardcore socialist, whether or not he follows it in his life is another story."
Forget for a minute that my acquaintance is talking about the same Ted Turner who's one of the richest businessmen in America and reportedly the single largest private landowner in the country.
Exactly how "hardcore" a socialist can Turner be if he doesn't follow it in his life?
"His political philosophy is hardcore socialist, whether or not he follows it in his life is another story."
Forget for a minute that my acquaintance is talking about the same Ted Turner who's one of the richest businessmen in America and reportedly the single largest private landowner in the country.
Exactly how "hardcore" a socialist can Turner be if he doesn't follow it in his life?
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Iraq, as told by those who fought there
Two weeks ago, the weekly progressive film night run by local baker Matt Funiciello showed the documentary The Ground Truth. Without exaggeration, it was the most powerful and compelling film I've ever watched. By far. It left me speechless (imagine that!).
The documentary is essentially a series of interviews, almost entirely with veterans of the Iraq war. These veterans tell how the military is really being run, how soldiers are really being trained and how the war is really being waged. These heroes' stories are not something you'll ever see reported in the mainstream media.
You can listen to me or George W. Bush about what's really going on in Iraq or you can get it straight from the horses' mouth. Learn more at the film's website.
The documentary is essentially a series of interviews, almost entirely with veterans of the Iraq war. These veterans tell how the military is really being run, how soldiers are really being trained and how the war is really being waged. These heroes' stories are not something you'll ever see reported in the mainstream media.
You can listen to me or George W. Bush about what's really going on in Iraq or you can get it straight from the horses' mouth. Learn more at the film's website.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Chip fabrication plant in Saratoga County draws protest
I received the following press release that I found worth sharing:
Anti-AMD Demonstration Planned for Saratoga Springs
On January 23rd, Saratoga Economic Development Corporation will be rolling out the red carpet for AMD at a “Meet the Community Day,” luncheon. But not everyone will be out to welcome the corporate giant. Saratoga Greens (aka Green Party) and a group of concerned citizens who are opposed to the siting of a chip fab plant in the county will hold a demonstration in front of the City Center at noon.
At a recent Comprehensive Review Board meeting in Saratoga Springs, Jack Kelly, Vice President of SEDC talked about the future impact of the AMD plant on the city. Besides saying that AMD was bringing two to three hundred families with them and that a majority of those people would probably look for housing in Saratoga Springs, he also talked about his organization's long-term economic plans for upstate New York. “Over the next 25 years, we'd like to see 15 chip fab plants built from Kingston to Glens Falls ”said Kelly.
Barbara Trypaluk, Chairperson of the Greens, who is a member of Saratoga's Comprehensive Review Board does not consider Kelly's vision for upstate New York great news. “The thought of our predominantly rural Hudson Valley becoming another Silicon Valley is a sickening one. Environmentally, AMD has a shady history; in the 1990's three of its sites in California were put on EPA's superfund list after it was discovered that water-solvents and acid-neutralization liquids in two underground storage tanks had leaked into the groundwater. The clean-up for one of those sites took twelve years. In addition, no one knows what the long-term health effects of releasing nanoparticles into the air will be.” Results of studies done on rats at the University of Birmingham in the U.K. have indicated that nanoparticles, or sub-miscroscopic particles, migrate directly into the animals' organs. Since chip fab plants use a lot of toxic substances in the manufacturing process, this does not bode well for humans or any other living things in or near Luther Forest.
Trypaluk goes on to say that “ it's time elected officials and economic planners took the people's wishes into consideration and started pushing for indsutry that would help instead of harm the environment, such as the production of ethanol. Also, new industry should not be introduced to rural areas like the town of Malta that lack infrastructure. The AMD project is obviously the lynchpin of the $67 million countywide water system, which, so far hasn't been able to procure a financial commitment from any of the towns. Even though AMD has been awarded a generous state funding package, water seems to be the wild card in this game.” Recently, Senator Joe Bruno teased reporters with yet another impending development that he claims will boost the Capital Region's economy. At an Albany-Colonie Regional Chamber of Commerce meeting, he said that there were things”simmering and cooking” – insinuating that some other corporation was seriously looking at building on a site not far from Albany. Senator Bruno likes to keep people guessing -- about everything.
Contact Information: Barbara Trypaluk, 583-4487
Anti-AMD Demonstration Planned for Saratoga Springs
On January 23rd, Saratoga Economic Development Corporation will be rolling out the red carpet for AMD at a “Meet the Community Day,” luncheon. But not everyone will be out to welcome the corporate giant. Saratoga Greens (aka Green Party) and a group of concerned citizens who are opposed to the siting of a chip fab plant in the county will hold a demonstration in front of the City Center at noon.
At a recent Comprehensive Review Board meeting in Saratoga Springs, Jack Kelly, Vice President of SEDC talked about the future impact of the AMD plant on the city. Besides saying that AMD was bringing two to three hundred families with them and that a majority of those people would probably look for housing in Saratoga Springs, he also talked about his organization's long-term economic plans for upstate New York. “Over the next 25 years, we'd like to see 15 chip fab plants built from Kingston to Glens Falls ”said Kelly.
Barbara Trypaluk, Chairperson of the Greens, who is a member of Saratoga's Comprehensive Review Board does not consider Kelly's vision for upstate New York great news. “The thought of our predominantly rural Hudson Valley becoming another Silicon Valley is a sickening one. Environmentally, AMD has a shady history; in the 1990's three of its sites in California were put on EPA's superfund list after it was discovered that water-solvents and acid-neutralization liquids in two underground storage tanks had leaked into the groundwater. The clean-up for one of those sites took twelve years. In addition, no one knows what the long-term health effects of releasing nanoparticles into the air will be.” Results of studies done on rats at the University of Birmingham in the U.K. have indicated that nanoparticles, or sub-miscroscopic particles, migrate directly into the animals' organs. Since chip fab plants use a lot of toxic substances in the manufacturing process, this does not bode well for humans or any other living things in or near Luther Forest.
Trypaluk goes on to say that “ it's time elected officials and economic planners took the people's wishes into consideration and started pushing for indsutry that would help instead of harm the environment, such as the production of ethanol. Also, new industry should not be introduced to rural areas like the town of Malta that lack infrastructure. The AMD project is obviously the lynchpin of the $67 million countywide water system, which, so far hasn't been able to procure a financial commitment from any of the towns. Even though AMD has been awarded a generous state funding package, water seems to be the wild card in this game.” Recently, Senator Joe Bruno teased reporters with yet another impending development that he claims will boost the Capital Region's economy. At an Albany-Colonie Regional Chamber of Commerce meeting, he said that there were things”simmering and cooking” – insinuating that some other corporation was seriously looking at building on a site not far from Albany. Senator Bruno likes to keep people guessing -- about everything.
Contact Information: Barbara Trypaluk, 583-4487
Monday, January 22, 2007
Chavez granted dictatorial powers
This essay is part of a (more or less) weekly feature on this blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel, Iraq, North Korea and Iran.
I've written before how many on the left are ready to canonize Venezuela's strongman Hugo Chavez for the primary reason of his contempt for US president George W. Bush. Anyone who truly supports human rights should condemn the excesses of his regime. Attacks on the free press. Assaults on judicial independence. Extrajudicial killings. Police abuse and torture. A Gulag-like prison system. Some believe these things are fine and dandy so long as it's someone on the ideological left doing them. I do not.
Chavez has taken things a step further and decided to formalize his dictatorship. He already has a National Assembly that rubber stamps all his decisions. Opposition parties boycotted the most recent legislative elections so the parliament is completely dominated by his supporters. But even a legislature of sycophants was too cumbersome for the one-time paratrooper. He rammed through legislation that would grant him the power to rule by decree for the next 18 months.
His proposals to nationalize much of Venezuela's economy could easily have been done without the legislature giving him dictatorial powers. But it's yet another step in Chavez's attempts to dismantle the country's institutions and forge an autocratic state based entirely on his cult of personality.
I've written before how many on the left are ready to canonize Venezuela's strongman Hugo Chavez for the primary reason of his contempt for US president George W. Bush. Anyone who truly supports human rights should condemn the excesses of his regime. Attacks on the free press. Assaults on judicial independence. Extrajudicial killings. Police abuse and torture. A Gulag-like prison system. Some believe these things are fine and dandy so long as it's someone on the ideological left doing them. I do not.
Chavez has taken things a step further and decided to formalize his dictatorship. He already has a National Assembly that rubber stamps all his decisions. Opposition parties boycotted the most recent legislative elections so the parliament is completely dominated by his supporters. But even a legislature of sycophants was too cumbersome for the one-time paratrooper. He rammed through legislation that would grant him the power to rule by decree for the next 18 months.
His proposals to nationalize much of Venezuela's economy could easily have been done without the legislature giving him dictatorial powers. But it's yet another step in Chavez's attempts to dismantle the country's institutions and forge an autocratic state based entirely on his cult of personality.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Bush administration 73, Freedom 0
For 800 years, the right to habeas corpus has been recognized as the single most fundamental right in any country that purports to call itself free. Basically, habeas corpus means you can't be thrown in jail without a good reason and that the government must justify that reason. A writ of habeas corpus is issued so that a prisoner can be brought before the court (judicial oversight) to determine if his detainment is legitimate. Simply put, the right to habeas corpus is intended to guard against arbitrary arrests.
Habeas corpus is protected in the US Constitution's Article I, Section 9 which states quite clearly and explicitly: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
However, in recent testimony before the US Senate's Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales presented one of the most Orwellian interpretations of this provision ever offered.
Gonzales, theoretically the nation's top law ENFORCEMENT officer, claimed that the Constitution did not guarantee the right of habeas corpus. It only prohibited the government from taking it away.
“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.
Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.
“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”
Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.
“You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said.
If you can read this exchange without getting dizzy, then you're a stronger person than I.
What's notable about this exchange is that the attorney general is not arguing that habeas corpus protection should be suspended because 'the public safety may require it.' Instead, he argues that the PROTECTION DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL.
Habeas corpus protection is the single most basic right in a free society. All other rights are premised on this right. After all, you can't exercise your freedom of assembly or right to protest or bear your arms if you're thrown in jail for no reason.
The record will show that I've never before explicitly called for the impeachment of any member of the president or his cabal. But I can't think of anything else that more clearly demonstrates the Bush administration's impeachable contempt for the Constitution and its loathesome contempt for the freedoms for which US soldiers are supposedly fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Habeas corpus is protected in the US Constitution's Article I, Section 9 which states quite clearly and explicitly: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
However, in recent testimony before the US Senate's Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales presented one of the most Orwellian interpretations of this provision ever offered.
Gonzales, theoretically the nation's top law ENFORCEMENT officer, claimed that the Constitution did not guarantee the right of habeas corpus. It only prohibited the government from taking it away.
“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.
Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.
“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”
Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.
“You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said.
If you can read this exchange without getting dizzy, then you're a stronger person than I.
What's notable about this exchange is that the attorney general is not arguing that habeas corpus protection should be suspended because 'the public safety may require it.' Instead, he argues that the PROTECTION DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL.
Habeas corpus protection is the single most basic right in a free society. All other rights are premised on this right. After all, you can't exercise your freedom of assembly or right to protest or bear your arms if you're thrown in jail for no reason.
The record will show that I've never before explicitly called for the impeachment of any member of the president or his cabal. But I can't think of anything else that more clearly demonstrates the Bush administration's impeachable contempt for the Constitution and its loathesome contempt for the freedoms for which US soldiers are supposedly fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)