Left Of Bush's Term



The Web

Violette's Page



The U.S. National Debt is now

 

It's Election Eve, Do You Know Where Your Country Is?
By Dave Lindorff
ThisCantBeHappening.net

When you go into the voting booth tomorrow, here are a few things you need to think about.

First of all, this is not a local election, whatever your candidates for Congress and even for statehouse have been telling you. We have just lived through six years of one-party government, and we've seen the damage that can do. Congress under Republican leadership has ceased to function as an independent branch challenging and investigating the actions of the president, and has instead become an enabler of presidential abuse of power and of the undermining of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That means we have to restore at least some measure of opposition in the Congress for the sake of saving the country from a slide into one-party dictatorship, and that means voting for the Democrats, even Democrats who are worse than their Republican opponent. I'd say different if your district had a third-party candidate with a chance of winning, since that person could be expected to vote against Republican rule too, once in office, but aside from Vermont's Bernie Sanders, I don't know of any such cases, such is the sad condition of third party politics in America.

It's equally important to vote Democratic for state legislative candidates and for governor, because the legislatures, in almost all states, are where congressional district lines get drawn up. We saw last year how the Republicans have used their power in state legislatures, particularly in Texas, to eliminate Democratic districts and replace them with Republican ones. In that state, such gerrymandering gave the Republicans five extra House seats before an election was even held.

Second, think about the big issues: human survival on the earth, mass murder in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, the bankrupting and deindustrialization of the U.S. economy, the destruction of American constitutional democracy and the reversal of a 230-year history of expanding liberty.

Human Survival: It is increasingly clear that the earth is facing a catastrophe because of rampant use of fossil fuels, and the prime offender is the United States. There is only a narrow window of opportunity to at least moderate this threat to humanity and to life on the planet, yet the Bush administration and the Republican Congress have refused to even acknowledge the threat, and have squandered six years that could have made a huge difference. (Isn't it kind of ludicrous to worry about aborted fetuses and stem cells when government policies are currently threatening the survival of the human race?)

Mass Murder: Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq--a nation that clearly posed no immediate threat to the U.S. or its own neighbors in 2003--was the worst of war crimes, a "Crime against Peace" under the Nuremburg Charter, and a crime under US law because it was based upon lies, fraud and deception. It has led to the unnecessary and criminal deaths of nearly 2900 American troops, the maiming of another 25,000, and the deaths of as many as 650,000 innocent Iraqi civilians--largely at the hands of U.S. weapons. Many of those weapons, like the illegal white phosphorus and napalm bombs used in Fallujah and elsewhere, The thousands of tons of depleted uranium shells and bombs, the millions of rounds of anti-personnel bombs and shells, and the helicopter and fixed-wing gunships that spray wide areas indiscriminately with saturation fire, are the very "weapons of mass destruction" which we claimed we were going to war to prevent. The same weapons have been widely used in Afghanistan against the people of one of the most primitive societies in the world. These are massive crimes, and they won't stop until the Congress brings them to a halt--and calls the criminal in the White House who initiated them to account. (Remember, neither one of these wars is doing a thing to challenge or defend against terrorism.)

Economy: In six short years, this president has turned the national budget from a surplus into six years of record deficits, by ramming through the Republican Congress tax breaks that primarily benefit oil companies and the richest 1 percent of Americans. As for trade policy, thanks to Bush and the Republican-led Congress, which has made exporting jobs and boosting imports the centerpiece of its economic policy, the U.S. now owes more than $1 trillion to our rival, China, and is shipping more than that annually to Middle Eastern dictatorships like Libya, Saudi Arabia and Iran to buy oil for vehicles that get 12 miles per gallon or less. Sure there are plenty of Democrats sucking at the corporate teat who are voting for those same policies, but with Republicans in total control, the issues aren’t even being raised. We need only to look at the unprecedented corruption that has swept over the Republican Congress, and seeped under the doors of the White House, into the Oval office, the Vice President’s office, and the office of Karl Rove, the president’s closest adviser, to see why this is happening, and what needs to be done. (Any token tax break you got from Bush and the Republicans was long ago eaten up by the higher gas prices caused by the Iraq War and by higher interest rates caused by their budget and trade deficits.)

Freedom and Democracy: President Bush has claimed for himself the right to ignore laws passed by Congress, which he erases with the stroke of a pen in what he calls "signing statements" saying that as commander in chief he is above the law and the courts. He has used his rubber-stamp Republican Congress to ram through laws eliminating the right to trial and the right to a lawyer, has given himself the power to declare any American to be a unlawful combatant" and supporter of terrorism, with no rights whatsoever, has approved the use of torture and immunized himself and his gang of conspirators from prosecution for past torture. He has even slipped through a measure making it easy for him to declare martial law anywhere in the nation he deems there to be "public disorder." With these laws and these crimes unchallenged, we no longer live in a democracy--only the hollow husk of a former democracy, which could be crushed in a moment. Only a revived Congress, led by a revitalized opposition party, can challenge this dire threat to our freedoms and traditional tripartite government. (The country you learned about in your junior high civics class barely exists anymore, and won't if you don’t stand up for liberty and democracy now, and stop buying the scare stories about fighting terrorism. Remember Ben Franklin, who warned that "Those who would give up Essential Liberty for a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”)

This election is a turning point.

If we turn out Republicans from the leadership of the Congress, there is at least a chance that, with a strong public campaign of pressure, we can rouse timid and somnolent Democrats to protect liberty, restore Democracy, impeach the president, take back the government, start rescuing the economy, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and start seriously confronting global warming. If we don't, we may not get another chance. Republicans, having brought us this close to fascism and ruin, are not going to let the public get this close to unhorsing them again if they manage to hang on to power.

None of this is to suggest that having Democrats win this election, even by a significant margin, will fix things. Too many Democrats over the last six years, or even the last 14 years, have been fully complicit in too many of the above crimes and atrocities and attacks on freedom and the Constitution. It's going to take constant struggle and constant pressure to make them act like a true party of opposition, and like the party of the people that the Democrats once claimed to be.

But we can't even begin that difficult struggle unless we toss out the Republicans from Congress.

So think about all this when you vote Tuesday.

And make sure you know how to vote on the new computer screen systems that are being foisted on most of us.

Don't let the bastards steal this one!

Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , ,

The Rude Pundit

Chances are, maybe even by the time you read this, the two American soldiers, captured by the Mujahideen Shura Council in Iraq, will be dead, probably in some horrible way, probably with their bodies dumped like all the horribly murdered Iraqis in the blood and gore-strewn landscape that are the markers of Iraqi liberation. The Rude Pundit can't help thinking, though, about the implied "What if" of the capture, on the field of battle, of American soldiers, prisoners of war, if you will.

What if we get pictures of the soldiers, nude, cowering, screaming in a corner, shitting themselves on the filthy floors of a makeshift cell, as their captors hold snarling dogs on leashes just out of bite range of the soldiers?

What if we learn that their captors decide that the soldiers can offer intelligence that can be of use to al-Qaeda and, in order to get that information, the captors put the nude soldiers into rooms that are heated to hellish temperatures, followed by rooms that are impossibly cold with colder water tossed onto them? What if the soldiers are made to stand for days on end? Put into stress positions that fuck up their muscles and limbs? Denied sleep? Had loud music played into their cells? Kept in isolation and fed bread and water for days, weeks on end?

What if they strap one or both of those Americans to a board and hold them underwater until their drowning reflex forces them to panic, thrash, claw desperately for air, only to be brought up to breathe and then placed underwater again? And again? Until the captors get the answers they seek?

What if those captors take the nude, sleep-deprived, shit and piss-covered, nearly drowned and dog-frightened American soldiers and handcuff them to beds with women's panties on their heads, snapping photographs and laughing, talking about publishing the photos so that everyone can see the soldiers with their panty-sniffing heads and terror-shriveled cocks, so that all of al-Qaeda can laugh at what pussies Americans can be made to seem?

What if, and, really, does it need to be said, they are made to stand, hooded, with faux electrodes attached to their nuts and fingers, told that if they don't start answering questions, well, testicles only can take so much electroshock before they just pop like squeezed grapes?

What will our government do? What could it do? Could it condemn the actions as not abiding by the Geneva Conventions? Could it call the actions "torture"? Could it demand accountability? Could it demand that the soldiers be treated as POWs? Could it simply say, "Well, we don't do that shit...anymore"?

And what about the good right-wing punditry? Would Rush Limbaugh look at the photos of the nude, cowering Americans and say it looks like fraternity hazing or some such shit? Would others dismiss it as a media fabrication? Or would they just pathetically overlook everything done in our American names to Iraqis, Afghanis, and others, calling madly for the heads of the captors, not even thinking about the irony of such a statement?

It goes without saying, but, considering the times, perhaps it needs to be said: the Rude Pundit wishes none of this on Privates Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca. He hopes they are found or released safe and sound. But he also wishes none of this on our prisoners, whether in Iraq, at Gitmo, or in secret prisons or countries of rendition where fuck-all can happen with no law, no regulation, no hope to bespeak our putative humanity.


By Clare Murphy
BBC News

South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds has signed into law a bill all but outlawing abortions in the sparsely populated state and its legislators have loftier aims - an end to the Supreme Court ruling which made terminations legal across America more than 30 years ago.

They hope to provoke pro-choice groups into launching a series of challenges to the law which will ultimately end in the nation's top court, home to two new conservative Bush appointees.

Fresh from this makeover, the court is seen as more likely than ever to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling on abortion.

There are many ifs. Even if new justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito were prepared to vote against the ruling - which is far from a given - they might still be in a minority on the nine-member bench.

For some anti-abortion activists keen to see an end to Roe v Wade, the South Dakota initiative is too little, too soon - but they nonetheless remain optimistic that a fatal blow is not far off.

The possibility of its demise sparks heated debate in a country deeply divided on the issue of abortion. Yet campaigners from both camps acknowledge that its fall could in fact make very little difference to many women seeking to end their pregnancies.

Business as usual?

Were Roe v Wade to be overturned, the issue would return to the state legislatures. In some of those likely to outlaw abortion were it to fall, local laws have already rendered the 1973 ruling all but irrelevant.

In the past decade, state legislatures have passed more than 400 laws limiting access to abortion. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice think tank whose findings are quoted by both sides, says abortion is available only in 13% of US counties.

South Dakota, for instance, is already one of three states with only one abortion provider, joined by North Dakota and Mississippi. Many women wanting an abortion go to other states to get one.

Requirements for parental notification - in some cases involving both parents - make it harder for minors to terminate pregnancies, while mandatory waiting periods between the obligatory counselling session and the actual procedure have also been introduced in some states in the hope of preventing abortions.

Pro-choice groups argue this provision is particularly tough on poor women, who must thus take two days - often unpaid - off work. Anti-abortion groups say it gives the women time to really think the decision through, armed with the facts.

Let battle commence

But while in a post-Roe era a number of states would ban terminations outright, many would still allow them.

Liberal states such as New York and California would allow relatively unfettered access, while a handful might attach strict conditions.

But the battle would take place in state legislatures, and that, to an increasing number of pro-choicers, may be no bad thing.

It would force them to argue their case with voters at the state level, so the thinking goes, and stop them relying on unelected courts to impose their views. Abortion rights would finally have a firm, democratic foundation. Those women who currently have to travel to other states for a termination would continue to do so.

However there are many supporters of abortion rights who find this stance naive, arguing that some states which end up banning the procedure might also stop such abortion tourism.

"If states can decree that life begins at conception, they might also be able to use state custody laws to curtail the movements of pregnant women," William Baude argued in a recent New York Times editorial.

"Once Roe has been overturned, a state may be able to place an unborn child into protective custody, forbidding their mothers to take them across state lines."

Others in the pro-choice camp may reject such suggestions as alarmist, while many remain confident that the American public would not as yet countenance an end to Roe v Wade.

But in South Dakota, hopes in the anti-abortion camp are clearly running high that change across the US could be on the way.

By David Isenberg
TomPaine.com
When we see activity like illegal citizen surveillance in other countries, we usually call them police states.

If Arthur Schlesinger were writing his classic book The Imperial Presidency today, he would have to produce an extended version to accommodate all the actions undertaken by George W. Bush in the name of what Dick Cheney calls a “robust” and “unimpaired” presidency.

It is axiomatic that all presidents seek to enlarge their powers in wartime. After all, Abraham Lincoln grabbed power by suspending habeas corpus , but at least he was doing it to end slavery. President Bush seems to want power for its own sake. And now that the United States is fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as an overarching global war on terror, Bush has, in the name of fighting terrorism, done so with a vengeance.

Further illuminating this flagrant grab for power by the executive branch is the news of illicit wiretaps on international phone calls of U.S. citizens suspected of being Al Qaeda members or contacts. These wiretaps are obtained without judicial warrants and violate the fourth amendment right for U.S. citizens to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The illegal wiretaps, ordered by Bush shortly after the 9/11 attacks and orchestrated by the National Security Agency (NSA), are the latest revelation in a sad litany of abuses and illegalities by an increasingly authoritarian Bush administration.

The Bush administration’s abuse of power further defies American rights by violating civil liberties under the PATRIOT Act as well as allowing for the analysis of detailed information of U.S. citizens by John Poindexter’s brainchild, the “Total Information Awareness” project—originally envisioned to give law enforcement access to private data without suspicion of wrongdoing or a warrant. It is surely ironic how the Bush administration claims to be on a mission to spread democracy around the world, yet feels free to violate it at home.

Americans are not the only people to be hurt by the Bush administration’s abuse of power, as evidenced by the administration’s brazen breach of international law: from misrepresenting the evidence for invading Iraq to flouting the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian laws against torture in Abu Ghraib, to running a secret prison network.

The abuses committed by the Bush administration affect Americans and the international community and also often ignore Congress. This all culminates into a flagrant disrespect for one of the fundamental purposes of the U.S. Constitution: to prevent the accumulation of power by any one branch of government.

In retrospect, it was easy enough to see this abuse of executive power coming, based on the past actions of current administration officials. Consider, for example, that when he was Powell’s deputy undersecretary for international arms control, John Bolton, now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on the orders of Dick Cheney instructed the NSA to conduct domestic eavesdropping on phone calls between Powell and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Of primary interest to Bolton and Cheney was Powell’s green light to Richardson to conduct diplomatic back-channel nuclear talks with North Korea’s U.N. ambassador in New York.

According to news reports, the NSA eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped; thus, the number of Americans being illicitly monitored may have reached into the thousands since the program began in 2001.

And what is the result of the incessant NSA monitoring? Not much. Most people targeted by the NSA have never been charged with a crime.

Sadly, the NSA monitoring is an excuse for something worse: incompetence in the U.S. intelligence community. For example, to defend the monitoring, Bush said two of the hijackers who helped fly a jet into the Pentagon had communicated with suspected Al Qaeda members overseas while they were living in the United States. “But we didn’t know they were here until it was too late,” Bush said. To fix this problem, Bush claimed that the authorization he gave the NSA after 9/11 would prevent similar mistakes in a way that is “fully consistent” with his “constitutional responsibilities and authorities.” More recently, Vice President Cheney asserted they would have been caught had the program been in effect at the time.

However, a 2002 inquiry into the case by the House and Senate intelligence committees blamed interagency communication breakdowns—not shortcomings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or any other intelligence—gathering guidelines for the lack of action against the hijackers contact with Al Qaeda.

The explanations offered in defense of the wiretaps are so lame as to be incredible. U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of the judges sitting on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases, has resigned from the court in protest of Bush’s secret authorization of the domestic spying program. Even noted conservative George Will wrote, “The president’s decision to authorize the NSA’s surveillance without the complicity of a court or Congress was a mistake.”

It is worth noting (although hardly anyone does) that Bush asserts his authority to approve domestic surveillance anytime he wants because he claims the United States is at war. But is it? If so, why hasn’t Congress issued a declaration of war? Not all armed conflicts vest the president with emergency powers. If Bush needs greater authority than he currently has, he should ask Congress for it.

Some administration supporters argue that Congress obviated the need to declare war by passing the War Powers Resolution immediately after the 9/11 attacks. As former Texas Rep. Martin Frost recently wrote: “I was a member of Congress when we passed the resolution giving the president the authority to use all force necessary against the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Congress clearly meant this as authorization to go into Afghanistan and find Osama bin Laden. No one ever thought this authorized our government to wiretap American citizens in our own country without court approval.”

As has been pointed out numerous times the U.S. Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. The post-9/11congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

Perhaps the worst part of the abuses is that the NSA is a military agency. Thus we have the military executing actions that violate U.S. civilian laws. Ironically, when we see illicit actions like this taking place in other countries, we usually call it a police state.

David Isenberg is an adviser to the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information and a senior analyst with the British-American Security Information Council. The views expressed are his own.

Waiver right is reserved

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 4, 2006

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.

A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security.

''We are not going to ignore this law," the official said, noting that Bush, when signing laws, routinely issues signing statements saying he will construe them consistent with his own constitutional authority. ''We consider it a valid statute. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment."

But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a ''ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack.

''Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case," the official added. ''We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it's possible that they will."


David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit.

''The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' " he said. ''They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on."

Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush's decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without a court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The president and his aides argued that the Constitution gives the commander in chief the authority to bypass the 1978 law when necessary to protect national security. They also argued that Congress implicitly endorsed that power when it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of the attacks.

Legal academics and human rights organizations said Bush's signing statement and his stance on the wiretapping law are part of a larger agenda that claims exclusive control of war-related matters for the executive branch and holds that any involvement by Congress or the courts should be minimal.

Vice President Dick Cheney recently told reporters, ''I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it. . . . I would argue that the actions that we've taken are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president."

Since the 2001 attacks, the administration has also asserted the power to bypass domestic and international laws in deciding how to detain prisoners captured in the Afghanistan war. It also has claimed the power to hold any US citizen Bush designates an ''enemy combatant" without charges or access to an attorney.

And in 2002, the administration drafted a secret legal memo holding that Bush could authorize interrogators to violate antitorture laws when necessary to protect national security. After the memo was leaked to the press, the administration eliminated the language from a subsequent version, but it never repudiated the idea that Bush could authorize officials to ignore a law.

The issue heated up again in January 2005. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales disclosed during his confirmation hearing that the administration believed that antitorture laws and treaties did not restrict interrogators at overseas prisons because the Constitution does not apply abroad.

In response, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, filed an amendment to a Defense Department bill explicitly saying that that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody is illegal regardless of where they are held.

McCain's office did not return calls seeking comment yesterday.

The White House tried hard to kill the McCain amendment. Cheney lobbied Congress to exempt the CIA from any interrogation limits, and Bush threatened to veto the bill, arguing that the executive branch has exclusive authority over war policy.

But after veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress approved it, Bush called a press conference with McCain, praised the measure, and said he would accept it.

Legal specialists said the president's signing statement called into question his comments at the press conference.

''The whole point of the McCain Amendment was to close every loophole," said Marty Lederman, a Georgetown University law professor who served in the Justice Department from 1997 to 2002. ''The president has re-opened the loophole by asserting the constitutional authority to act in violation of the statute where it would assist in the war on terrorism."

Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, called Bush's signing statement an ''in-your-face affront" to both McCain and to Congress.

''The basic civics lesson that there are three co-equal branches of government that provide checks and balances on each other is being fundamentally rejected by this executive branch," she said.

''Congress is trying to flex its muscle to provide those checks [on detainee abuse], and it's being told through the signing statement that it's impotent. It's quite a radical view."


Subscribe to
Violette's Page!
Your email address:


Previous Articles




More About Government Polices & Actions

ELECTION 2004

SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT APOLOGIZE FOR SLAVERY?

THE REAL DEAL ON WELFARE

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
"Don't Believe The Hype"
"Everyone Has a Right to an Education"

Know Your Rights if You're picked up by Immigration

CAPPS II
(information gathering program)

Amnesty International Releases 2004 Annual Report On Human Rights Worldwide

US crime hits 30-year low






MP3 Blog Links Humor Photo Gallery Shopping Guestmap
Contact Violette
Rate Site Free EMail Account


FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.