In 1927, the Weimar Republic - the democratically elected government of Germany passed mandatory unemployment benefits for the needy. That's rather progressive for the time. So, what happened in the following six years to turn it all around?
Well, there was a bit of a mistake in that first constitution, they corrected without doubt the second time. There was nothing that prevented laws to be passed that would allow the constitution to be ignored. So it was never officially dissolved, the (you know who) just wrote laws to make ignoring it allowed. The second time the wording states human rights can never be abolished by any future act of legislation.
In 1930, Jazz performance was banned and so was modern art. Three years after unemployment was introduced. Three years before the 'republic' was no longer the government.
Art, Music, and Culture are both an indicator of the level of sophistication of a society; and a warning sign that when such are censored, other rights are likely to follow.
Let's look at the US Constitution. The BIll of Rights was added as an afterthought, the Constitution was ratified by all parties and I'll quote
"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:" the Bill of Rights, Amendments I-X, an afterthought luckily we followed through and passed.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or or the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That's powerful. The final check on government is the citizens watching for slips, expressing their observations, using the press to carry this information to everyone and organize and assemble to have the matter redressed. Toss the freedom of expression, speech, and the press - this becomes a lot more difficult to accomplish.
Art, Music, and Culture.
Corporations are NOT people.. NOT in the United States of America. If they WERE… they would have been MORE SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE, ETHICAL, ACCOUNTABLE, LIABLE.
Think about the actions of corporations over the last few decades. Business that made it's fortunes on the backs of the American WORKERS and infrastructure paid for by the American TAXPAYER... decided to pay us back by moving to Mexico or Asia and the greener fields of SLAVE WAGE LABOR and unregulated toxic waste dumping.... The American PEOPLE will be watching Court decisions on this matter… Patriotism or Profit? Let the Supreme Court know you thoughts on this matter PLEASE! email gpoaccess@gpo.gov or call (888)293-6498 Forward to all your contacts... Thank you jinnbad.blogspot.com
9-9-09 upside down is 666,,, lol!
I'M JOKING, ya bunch of weak, humorless STIFFS!
“We are joining forces with all persons affected by Parens Patriae to include parents, extended family, foster parents and father's and mother's rights groups. While this is a difficult endeavor due to various divisions, the focus will be on challenging the system with the unified goals and commonalities that each is suffering under in family courts and through CPS.”
May YOU find Strength in YOUR Higher Power, GranPa Chuck Visit our NFPCAR Site
Man Cannot Live on Bread Alone
Current Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama may have graduated from Harvard and taught at the University of Chicago as did U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, but the similarities end there. Recently, on the 221st anniversary of the U.S. Constitution's adoption, in an article written by Abdon M. Pallasch, Scalia Says U. of C. Has Gone Liberal. Justice Scalia spoke to a roomful of conservative lawyers, The Federalist Society. He accused the University of Chicago of 'going liberal,' and in effect, 'losing its edge' (17 Sept. 2008. ).Scalia had taken what he felt were more 'bread-and-butter' classes instead of popular classes such as Current Issues in Racism and the Law, taught by Obama. Scalia felt that the courses offered were no longer as rigorous, and the philosophy no longer conservative. In fact, he not only laughed as he mentioned Law and Poverty, he also lamented the contemporary courses and called them exotic, made-up, and a waste of time. Despite the University of Law School's consistent rank as one of the nation's top five or 10 in national surveys, he admitted he would not recommend that school to future law students. Scalia was considered by Republican presidential nominee John McCain as well as President Bush to be a "strict constructionalist" who "does not legislate from the bench." As a justice who strictly adhered to the text of the U.S. Constitution, he accused his fellow justices of rewriting the Constitution with contemporary decisions on abortion, gay rights. He did admit, however, that despite his studies, he was no more qualified than Joe six-pack to determine whether or not these rights should exist. While Scalia was questioning his qualifications to determine what our Constitutional rights were, some four floors down at the Chicago Union League Club, a less conservative group, Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago, did not seem to have this difficulty. They chose to celebrate the U.S. Constitution's anniversary by presenting awards to Chicago lawyers who represented accused enemy combatants who were detained without probable cause; Habeas corpus had been suspended, and no due process hearings had been given. Eighty-six percent of these detainees were picked up by Pakistani forces, not U.S. forces, but with a tempting U.S. $5,000 bounty dangling over their head. In many cases no evidence of crime found, yet basic Constitutional rights were not recognized by the Bush administration and had to be forced by the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008) the Court decided that the detainees were protected by the U.S. Constitution's habeas corpus protections.The Federalist Society is an organization that was founded in 1982 as a debating society by students who believed professors at the top law schools were too liberal. The fact that The Federalist Society, like Scalia, a Federalist affiliate, advocates a more conservative approach to interpret the law is ironic. The original Federalists, our Forefathers, feared people like Scalia. While impossible to enumerate all possible rights of the People in the Bill of Rights, enumerating only a few would grant too much power to those who felt it was their inalienable right to deny rights not numerated to moralize the majority with their own beliefs. Alexander Hamilton said it best in Federalist paper 84, when he asked, "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" Is it not the "power to do" our inalienable right? In his own defense, Scalia has said, "A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless." Apparently, that is when Scalia is not in the majority opinion. Labeled a judicial activist by Obama, he freely voices his personal opinions, and stare decisis--deeply rooted in tradition and implied in Article III of the Constitution--has little value for him unless it mimics his own judicial philosophy, a clear contradiction of originalist philosophy. For example, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850-51 (1992), he concluded that a woman's decision to abort her unborn child is not a constitutionally protected "liberty" because (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the long-standing traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed. Another example is Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 532 (1989), when Justice O'Conner asserted that a "'fundamental rule of judicial restraint" requires us to avoid reconsidering Roe, he stated her opinion "could not be taken seriously." In fact, the article fails to mention many important aspects of Scalia's philosophies, opinions and positions on important Constitutional issues. First of all, Scalia disagrees with the McCain and Bush label given him; that he is a 'strict constructionalist who does not legislate from the bench.' According to Linda R. Monk in, The Words We Live By-Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution (95), President Jefferson--a true strict constructionist--believed "that judges should limit themselves to narrow interpretations of the Constitutional text and avoid enlarging the powers of government." Scalia, on the other hand, believes Constitution text and the Bill of Rights should limit the powers of the People, not the government. Resisting the Bush-McCain label, he hides behind his own labels of himself as a 'textualist' or 'originalist' who does not rely on the intent of the framers, nor does he believe the Constitution is an evolving document (Id. at 96) and is judiciously proscribing in a time warp as customs and traditions evolve through time.The article also mentioned that Scalia felt studying poverty law was a "waste of time" and "made up." This outrageous Scalia viewpoint is not surprising. In a similar meeting in 2004, while speaking to a hotel ballroom full of lawyers, he attacked some of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the last 40 years: The court was wrong, to say the Constitution requires that lawyers be provided to poor people accused of crimes. We have now determined that liberties exist under the federal Constitution -- the right to abortion, the right to homosexual sodomy -- which were so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that they were criminal for 200 years.'' (Liptak, Adam. In Re Scalia the Outspoken v. Scalia the Reserved. N.Y.Times. 2 May 2004. ).This was not the first time Scalia has made outrageous comments to the Federalist Society. When speaking to them on Valentine's Day in 2006, there was no love lost from his critics when he criticized advocates of a "living Constitution," calling them "idiots." (Scalia Blasts Advocates of 'Living Constitution.' Associated Press. 14 Feb, 2006 ). It begs the question; could Scalia's belief in the Constitution as a document fixed in time not be construed as a personal opinion and thereby affect his judgment? Our Constitution is both the oldest as well as the shortest in history, and was meant to be a living breathing document that adjusted for all times because there was no way our Founding Fathers could prepare on parchment paper all future issues that could affect our liberty rights. Certainly it can be inferred, for example, if our framers believed in an originalist concept such as Scalia's, that 'pesky' Bill of Rights would not exist, and Scalia is, therefore, a proud supporter of slavery.On the other hand, when Obama instructed law students at the University of Chicago, one of his more traditional courses was in the due process and equal protection areas of Constitutional law. In this class, he challenged Scalia's views, and stated that "the Court never explicitly embraced Justice Scalia's 'cramped' approach to defining the scope of rights protected under the substantive Due Process." Apparently, Scalia's definition of a due process right depends on how far into the notion of tradition he is willing to go. (Obama, Barack. Students in Con. Law III. Final Exam Answer Memo. 1996. < http://miniurl.com//42>).Obama analogizes this point: If we following this notion of over 200 years of deeply rooted American traditions, when the Bill of Rights was created, our forefathers could not have dreamed of whether or not cloning or in vitro are procreation rights under the due process clause, but does that give the Court the right to criminalize it? In vitro is not "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions," and does not follow traditional notions of procreation, but is legal. Following Scalia's cramped approach; these rights should not exist, and contradict current law. Id.There are other contradictions in the article that Obama debated in his Constitutional law class. Homosexual sodomy does not follow traditional notions of family, marriage, and procreation, therefore, it is criminalized, yet heterosexual sodomy is not. Id. See: Bowers v. Hardwick, 760 F.2d 1202, (11th Cir. 1985) Both do not follow traditional notions of family, marriage, and procreation, thereby legalizing the criminality and discrimination of sodomy homosexuality, yet holding judgment for heterosexual sodomy. See: Watkins v. U.S. Army, 847 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1998). Obama further mentions Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) where Justice Scalia, in his dissenting opinion in Bowers defends the belief that moral opposition alone rationalizes laws that express disapproval of homosexuality, since they are legally criminalized. Justice Scalia's view of public morality as a legitimate government interest would, by contrast, clearly justify Bowers-style laws. Id.The article also fails to mention that Scalia was one of the Supreme Court justices who dissented in the Boumediene v. Bush decision. This landmark decision overturned Bush administration policy as well as two acts of Congress, ruling that the Military Commission Act (MCA) suspending habeas corpus to the detainees was unconstitutional, and against the Geneva Conventions. Despite this, as well as the fact that many of the detainees were farmers and goat herders, not militants, Scalia warned, "The nation will live to regret what the court has done today." Republican Presidential candidate, John McCain thought so too. However, Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama applauded the ruling, saying it was a repudiation of "yet another failed policy supported by John McCain."
The article also mentions Scalia's mocking University of Chicago's 'waste of time' course offerings, yet there are both former students as well as legal scholars who disagree. John C. Eastman, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas found the Current Issues in Racism and the Law course particularly instructive:Professor Obama was leading his students in an honest assessment of competing views regarding some of the most difficult legal and policy issues our nation has ever faced--a refreshing change from what passes for debate about contested questions in our political classes these days. Only occasionally do then-Professor Obama's decidedly personal views come across. He refers to Justice Scalia's approach to assessing fundamental rights as "cramped," for example. But on the whole, this is a body of course materials that is as would be expected of Chicago Law Professors. (Kantor, Jodi. Inside Professor Obama's Classroom. The N.Y. Times. 30 July 2008. ).Although some label Obama's students as 'groupies,' John K. Wilson, one of Obama's students who took his course Race, Racism, and the Law, and author of, Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest, (Paradigm Publishers, Oct. 2007) has observed "the appeal of Obama, more than any other professor, was his ability to listen to different points of views in a serious way, and yet still move students in the direction of understanding the law." He also felt that, "Obama probably learned a great deal from recognizing the flaws of his colleagues rather than swallowing their ideas wholesale. Obama embodies the University of Chicago ethic of asking 'What's your evidence?' far better than most Chicago professors. As someone who was out in the trenches, he never accepted the ivory tower theorizing as superior to the facts on the ground." (The Times Distorted Professor Obama. Huffington Post. 30 July 2008. ).Finally, Scalia also mocks the study of poverty, calling it 'made up' and a 'waste of time.' Unfortunately, since the creation of the Constitution, the criminalization of poverty has increased without the acknowledgement or sympathy of many elite members of our society, but since when is poverty 'made up'? Since when is poverty not considered a 'serious' subject? Since when is studying poverty a 'waste of time'? Since when has poverty been considered 'exotic'? In his dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) Scalia argued that, "This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected…" We have 37 million living in poverty in American--hardly what one could call exotic or made up. Could it be that his 'elitism' has blinded him to the plight of the large numbers of poor American? Perhaps some of the vast differences between Obama's and Scalia's Constitutional opinion are because Obama was a Constitutional lawyer, and Scalia taught Administrative law. However, Scalia cannot pick and choose which parts of the Constitution he wants to uphold. It is said, "Man can not live on bread alone." Perhaps Scalia should have added 'a little meat' to his 'bread and butter' classes. Perhaps he should have listened to the majority opinion of his colleagues, Justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850-51 (1992) when they stated: "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." The Constitution is a living breathing document, capable of adapting to social construct while still maintaining its original purpose. There are rights in the Constitution which do not yet exist. As a dormant seed they await the right time for discovery. These rights are simply within the framework of the document. But where the powers are not explicit; then the power belongs not to Scalia, but to The People.
As simple as those 6 words are to type, it’s not lost on me that there were countless numbers of men and women in times before me who risked their lives to perform the simple act of voting. Time Magazine captured one of those times in a 1939 article about a Florida election called Black Ballots.
So, as you’re standing in line to vote, take a moment to remember those who risked their lives and endured shouting mobs, burning crosses, and hung effigies to perform what is now arguably the most underappreciated of our constitutional rights, the right to vote.
-Sarje
We are US
When Barack Obama addresses, "the American people", his voice is for all; rich, poor and everyone in between. He speaks for Americans of every background, religion, race, lifestyle, gender, age, creed and circumstance. When John McCain says, 'my friends", he refers only to those with the ability and tolerability to compete in a dog eat dog society, where force, trickery, money and power win. He speaks to a US, where might makes right and it is safe for every citizen to bear arms. He addresses an US where heterosexual, two parent families, are sacred and never rape, abuse or neglect their children. He speaks to a US where all good and worthy Americans, trust in a Christian or Jewish god. He sees only what he wants to see. He does not see clearly. He does not see US. John McCain is delusional, naive and uninformed.
Why else, does he promote war and give blanket support to the second amendment? Why else, does he resist allocating sufficient financial, social and health care resources to the poor, the elderly, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed so, that they, too may enjoy their constitutionally guaranteed rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Why else, does John McCain, support the big business health of health care at the expense of quality and affordable health care for all? Why else, does John McCain want to spend our money to kill abroad and let die at home?
Why else, would Jonh McCain give tax breaks to the wealthy, and leave corporations unrestrained and unaccountable to their employees and to their consumers? Why else, does he promise jobs that no longer exist? Jobs already outsourced, spent by corporate greed! Jobs exchanged for cheap, foreign, sweat labor, both here and abroad! Jobs sold for shoddy, poisoned goods, as consumer prices rise and our economy fails! Why else, does it take the downfall of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to gain John McCain's support for federal help, when multiple thousands of families have already lost their homes? If John McCain does not lose our country in a bloody, hate-filled war, surely he will sell or gamble it away!
Why else, does John McCain choose to annoint children of gay and lesbian parents, bastards by policy, by denying same sex parents equal rights, status and freedom to love openly, live freely and marry legally? Why else, does he deny teaching children age appropriate, protective and preventative, sex education at school? John McCain is right about one thing! Child sexual abuse is a family matter. It does most often happen at home! Why else, does John McCain want to force women to have children they are not prepared to parent? Why else, does he then, abandon those children and their parents? Why else, does he not see children, once born, consciously suffer and not infrequently die, at the hands, of troubled parents and caretakers? Why else, does he fail to see those children later, as parents, just like mom and dad; in another violent home, in prisons, jails, and mental facilities, or living on the streets? Why else, does John McCain choose to blame them, put them away or kill them by the hand and tools of government, then?
Barack Obama is not just a black man or a white man. He is a black man and he is a white man. He grew up in a non-traditional home with a mother and grandparents. He is Harvard Man, an attorney, a senator, an advocate, a community organizer, a husband, a father, a son. He has been many things, to many people, in many places. He knows what it is to belong and he knows what it is not to belong. He knows US. He will speak for all of US, by name. He will challenge John McCain's, Republican delusions, bigotry, haughtiness, self-RIGHTOUSNESS and indifference.
America is not John McCain’s Smelting Pot, where only conformity and sameness are right. America is a Melting Pot; a vibrant, hearty brew of human richness and diversity. The American Dream is not to be found in reckless pursuit of fame and fortune. The American Dream is not bought with money, nor is it won with power, influence, manipulation and force. Rather, the American Dream exists, inherently, in our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the birthright, bequeathed to us by our fore founders, set forth indelibly, in our constitution. It proclaims to us, promise of equality, opportunity, freedom and justice for all. It elevates individual rights and embraces human worth, granting us freedom to be different, to determine our own lives, to pursue our own ambitions, to name our own families, to love from our own hearts and to believe in our own God or to choose not to believe at all. America is not free until we all are.
Barack Obama believes in US. Now, let it be known, to all, that we beleive in him.
Written by,
Jesse Whitewolf,
One, self declared, proud, patriotic, all American, “Obama Mama”.
Women join me! Declare yourself an “Obama Mama” now.! Let the country know that Barack Obama is our favorite son!
John Dean and Keith Olbermann expressing hope that President Obama will press criminal charges against telecom community if his fight to strip telecom immunity from FISA 2008 is unsuccessful in the Senate. This, after the caving by Democrats in the House of Representatives on FISA 2008.
Video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25292233
June 21, 2008, 12:20 PM
Obama: I'll Fight To Strip Telecom Immunity From FISA
Posted by David S Morgan|
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/horserace/entry4200105.shtml#ccmm(CBS/AP) - Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., issued a statement in support of the House's update of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but said he would try to strip a provision granting immunity to telecommunication companies when the bill comes to a vote in the Senate next week. The House approved a compromise bill Friday that would set new electronic surveillance rules that would also shield telecoms from lawsuits arising from their participation in the government's warrantless eavesdropping on telephone and computer lines in the United States. The government eavesdropped on American phone and computer lines for almost six years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks without permission from the FISA Court, the special panel established for that purpose under the original 1978 law. Some 40 lawsuits have been filed against the telecommunications companies by groups and individuals who say the Bush administration illegally monitored their phone calls or e-mails. Obama said there is "little doubt" that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, "has abused [its] authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders." "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program. "[The bill] does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses." The House approved the legislation 293-129. The White House had threatened to veto any surveillance bill that did not also shield the companies. Critics say granting immunity to telecoms would scrap the pending lawsuits and prevent any public airing of details about the government's surveillance activities. Last February, when an earlier version of the FISA bill came to a vote, Obama voted for an amendment to strip the telecom immunity provision from the bill. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) voted in favor of keeping immunity for the telecoms.
For more background on FISA 2008, see:
Surveillance Bill: The Worst of All Worlds
June 20, 2008
Months of troubled negotiations over new surveillance legislation ended in the House of Representatives today, with the approval of the so-called FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Hailed in some quarters as a " compromise" after the capitulation of the Protect America Act of 2006, the new surveillance bill is nothing of the kind: on core issues of privacy and accountability, there is no compromise, since little in the measure honors those two values. Since the New York Times's revelation of massive illegal surveillance by the NSA, electronic privacy has been a battlefield for claims of executive power and civil liberties. In 2006, the Administration used the shadow of midterm Congressional elections to stampede both Houses into temporary authorization of sweeping new powers in the Protect America Act (PAA). The measure's grants of new authority had sunset clauses, which expire either immediately before or after the 2008 elections.
The PAA set the scene for another legislative bait-and-switch: On the cusp of national election contests, the Administration rang alarms of crisis, claiming the nation is losing spying capabilities. Legislators inclined to protect civil liberties weighed their exposure to soft-on-security attacks against their allegiance to constitutional values. Either way--in terms of raw power or partisan advantage--the Administration and its supporters win.
House Democratic leadership agreed to support the measure--seemingly out of fear of losing conservative Democrats to an even weaker proposal. But it is the worst of both worlds. It contains just enough of a pretense of accountability to allow the legislators to claim a victory for civil liberties, as it sells out core principles of accountability and privacy.
Begin with accountability. Since the enactment of the PAA, the Administration and its allies have pushed for legislative immunity for the telecommunications companies that aided the NSA's illegal spying from 2001 until 2005. (Those companies are the defendants in multiple suits, presently consolidated before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging their complicity in past illegal wiretapping).
They argue that protection is necessary to ensure future cooperation, even though the telecoms were not deterred by the fact their past actions were clearly in violation of federal law.
In fact, immunity is on the White House front burner for wholly different reasons: pending lawsuits against the telecoms are the best opportunity for the American public to learn what kind of illegal surveillance occurred under Bush's watch, and how existing law against warrantless wiretapping was circumvented. As bad as the telecoms will look, the Administration will look worse as more of its cynical and results-oriented reasoning and contempt for constitutional rights is fully aired.
At first blush, the new bill seems to be a fair compromise. Under Section 802, pending lawsuits are not automatically dismissed. They are not even moved to the secretive FISA court, as an earlier proposal would have done. Rather, the district court in each case is required to dismiss a case provided that a defendant telecom can show that it acted with the "authorization" of the President and also with a certain kind of "written request or directive." The bill then provides an elaborate description of that directive: it can be from the Attorney General, or the head of "an element of the intelligence community" (or from their deputy), and must say simply that the surveillance was determined to be lawful. The bill does not say who must have made this determination.
According to the a report in the Washington Post, this provision would give courts "the chance to evaluate whether telecommunications companies deserve retroactive protection from lawsuits." But the provision does nothing of the kind. Rather, the court can only look to see if the defendant has the piece of paper described in the law, and if it does, the court must dismiss the case. By interposing a certification requirement, and directing judicial attention to a piece of paper, the bill fends off judicial scrutiny of what in fact occurred.
And there is every reason to believe that the telecom defendants will have the necessary piece of paper. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that the bill has been carefully written to track the precise piece of paper the telecoms have--otherwise, why list both the Attorney General and the heads of intelligence community elements? And why include the weird codicil about the deputies of one but not the other?
House minority whip Roy Blunt of Missouri has all but confirmed that the law was drafted to give the pretense of judicial review without the substance: "The lawsuits will be dismissed," Blunt explained, "and we feel comfortable that the standard of evidence that the law requires will be easily met."
The bill, in short, is worse than granting absolute immunity: it is an effort to suborn the legitimacy of the federal courts by having a judge rubber-stamp the dismissal of cases against the telecoms without looking at the substance of what, in fact, was done. It reduces the separation of powers to a check-the-box exercise.
The bill does no better on privacy matters--the question of new surveillance power. Title I of the measure grants the executive branch new surveillance powers for collecting the communications of persons overseas. Although it contains several provisions that purport to shelter Americans' privacy both at home and overseas, these parts of the bill are rendered irrelevant by the grant of sweeping collection authorization.
Under the bill, the government can create new surveillance programs, each lasting a year, that focus on "persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." Provided that spying agencies do not "intentionally target" someone "known" to be in the United States, or intend to target "a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States" (and with some other minor caveats), large-scale acquisition of data is permitted.
To be sure, the bill then installs judicial review of such collection efforts--but the courts will not examine the actual surveillance programs, let alone individual cases of surveillance. Again, the bill interposes a certification requirement between the court and the facts.
Specifically, the role of judges is limited to ascertaining whether the Attorney General has completed a certification promising that either he has followed the law, or that he will follow the law soon. If the Attorney General cannot meet even this spectacularly low bar, the bill gives the government time to amend and to re-file the certificate. Something even Alberto Gonzales could manage.
This is a radical break from the FISA regime created in 1978, and risks severe harm to Americans' privacy interests. The most important break with FISA is the absence of any individualized warrant requirement: it is now whole collection programs that are authorized and reviewed. And the abandonment of discrete, individualized legislative authorization and judicial review is only the first of the bill's troubling features.
The new provisions also allow the government to create sweeping new programs that are formally targeted at overseas persons, but that predictably sweep in large. The provision's loose language about targets--who do not in fact have to be overseas, only reasonably believed to be overseas--gives the government substantial latitude in crafting the parameters of its searches. Past experience gives no cause for confidence on this point. If the bill is enacted, Americans could simply no longer have confidence that calls placed or received from abroad would be private.
Democrats have emphasized new Section 102, which affirms that the act is "the exclusive means" for electronic surveillance for national security ends. But this was the provision in the original FISA that the Bush Administration circumvented. Re-enacting a notional rule that has been flagrantly violated for half a decade, and whose violation continues to be defended and even celebrated, is hardly a victory for civil liberties.
All this is too high a cost in the phony war over privacy. Despite the repeated cries of crisis, there is no verifiable evidence--and nothing at all beyond the self-serving complaints of Bush Administration Cassandras--that the pre-PAA regime under the FISA Act was fundamentally flawed. If the PAA wholly lapses, it is certain that the nation's security will not collapse. When the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 passes the Senate--as it almost certainly will next week--we can be certain that it will be the privacy rights of Americans, and their ability to hold government accountable, that will suffer.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080707/huq
When I was a boy in public school, I was taught a lot of things about the United States that I accepted as unquestionably truths. I was taught that the United States was formed from the start as a land to be free of tyranny and oppression. I was taught that as a citizen of this country, I would be undeniably entitled to the right to free speech, to privacy and the freedom to live as I wanted with pride within the laws of our country. I was taught that I and all citizens had an equal voice and right to justice, that the manacles on free speech and press, the shackles of powerful people controlling the direction of government and laws had died when the constitution was signed. I was taught that as an American, this was the country I lived in and this is what I could, and had a right to expect, as a part of being ‘free’ in this place I was born in.
Then I grew up. Upon starting college, upon signing up for my first job at a restaurant, upon learning more about the legal system, upon becoming a young father and learning about life owning my own home, upon learning about the financial system, upon having healthcare, upon dealing with banks, upon living a normal life in this country I found myself nothing short of speechless with shock, disillusionment, anger, and indignant helplessness. Either what I was taught was all a lie and I should resign myself to a different world than I was portrayed I would live in, or I should stand up and do something about it. But what? How? Who?
When I signed to work at my first job in a restaurant, in order to get that job here in South Carolina I had to sign away my constitutional right to trial by jury. When I sought to learn more about legal options at one time, I learned that my ‘right’ to justice was dependant upon the size of my pocket book. When I got a home, I learned that my right to live how I want within the laws of the United States was subservient to a million other little rules, laws, regulations, stipulations, and qualifications. I learned that if I wanted to speak up about my opinion and use my free speech, I could- but then I might be liable for a lawsuit. I learned that because most of my free time is spent online, nearly everything I say and do can (and might) be monitored and tracked by my government if they saw reasonable cause. And I learned that because of a rising climate of fear in the United States, just cause was becoming a dime a dozen and the foundational term “liberty and justice for all” had been altered to “security and justice for all”. In the name of security, my fellow Americans were endorsing the gradual trading of our basic American freedoms in exchange for promises of greater security.
My friends- a police state is secure, but it is not free. A country where people, in order to get a job and live, give up fundamental rights and freedoms and become surfs to CEO’s who, like medieval Lords, have rights, privileges, and influence in our country beyond that of any normal citizen… that is not a democracy nor the country I thought I lived in. A government where its leaders are divided into two political pools, where politicians are required to daily wear masks, where politicians are almost always from a certain class of society and of a certain background- that is not a government of the people, by the people, or for the people. Can I change it directly, myself, first hand?
No.
But I can change it, now. Thanks to Barack Obama wanting to do the same thing I want to do, but being able to step forwards on my behalf and act after making some of the same realizations I am now making, I am able to do something.
Maybe when my son goes to school and learns about his country, he can learn what I learned and when he grows up he will not have to be disillusioned.
By Rowan Scarborough
A coalition of American Muslim groups is demanding that Sen. John McCain stop using the adjective "Islamic" to describe terrorists and extremist enemies of the United States.
Muneer Fareed, who heads the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), told The Washington Times that his group is beginning a campaign to persuade Mr. McCain to rephrase his descriptions of the enemy.
"We've tried to contact his office, contact his spokesperson to have them rethink word usage that is more acceptable to the Muslim community," Mr. Fareed said. "If it's not our intent to paint everyone with the same brush, then certainly we should think seriously about just characterizing them as criminals, because that is what they are."
An aide to Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee who is counting on his pro-Iraq war stance to attract conservative voters, said the senator from Arizona will not drop the word.
http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19501048&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6
BY ROJA HEYDARPOUR, STAFF WRITER
Source: Times Tribune
It’s been said many times: this is an election year of firsts. The first viable woman presidential candidate. The first viable black presidential candidate.
But the first Muslim presidential candidate?
One in 10 Americans believes that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim, according to a Pew Research Center News Interest Index survey taken in March.
Mr. Obama is, in fact, a practicing Christian, as underscored by the debate over the controversial sermon delivered by his pastor after Sept. 11, 2001.
The same survey found that 79 percent of the general public had heard rumors that Mr. Obama is Muslim, while 38 percent had heard “a lot” about it.
Indeed, rumors have circulated on blogs and comment boards since the fall, spurred by pictures of Mr. Obama in a turban, by talk of childhood time spent in Indonesia — a Muslim country — and by his middle name, Hussein, among other things.
A clerk at a Lenexa, Kan., gas station told police that a man came into the store and asked the clerk if he was Muslim. When the clerk replied in the affirmative, the man reportedly started harassing him.
Soon after the man left the store, a Molotov cocktail incendiary device was thrown through the front window of the store. A similar incident occurred at another store in area. A 26-year-old man was later charged with two counts of criminal use of explosives and one count of criminal damage.
SEE: Molotov Cocktail Hurled At Gas Station (KCTV)
http://www.kctv5.com/news/15721008/detail.html
"We ask that local authorities and the FBI file any appropriate hate crime charges against the alleged perpetrator in this case," said CAIR Civil Rights Manager Khadija Athman. "The additional charges would send a clear message that bias-related attacks will not be tolerated in Kansas or anywhere in America."
Earlier this week, CAIR's Minnesota chapter asked the FBI to investigate reported threats against the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy charter school in that state as possible hate crimes.
SEE: Muslim Civil Liberties Group Seeks FBI Probe of School Threats (Star Tribune)
http://www.startribune.com/local/17673284.html
The Kansas assault and the threats to the Minnesota school came following other recent incidents such as a fire-bomb attack on a Minnesota Muslim-owned business and an arson attack on a Tennessee mosque by three members of the white-supremacist "Christian Identity" movement.
SEE: MN: Investigators Say Fire Could Be Hate Crime
http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=24208&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1
SEE ALSO: CAIR Applauds Arrests in TN Mosque Arson
http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=24197&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1
CAIR is urging Muslim individuals and institutions nationwide to review security procedures using advice contained in CAIR's "Muslim Community Safety Kit."
SEE: CAIR Muslim Community Safety Kit
http://www.cair.com/ActionCenter/CommunityToolKit.aspx
CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
CONTACT: CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787 or 202-744-7726, E-Mail: ihooper@cair.com; CAIR Strategic Communications Director Ahmed Rehab, 202-870-0166, E-Mail: arehab@cair.com; CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin, 202-488-8787, E-Mail: arubin@cair.com
Posted By The Media Line Staff
IRAQ (The Media Line) April 8, 2008 — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki announced on Monday he would ban a powerful Shi'ite parliamentary bloc from running in the next local elections unless it disarmed its 60,000-strong armed force.
The 'Sadri parliamentary bloc, led by Muqtada A-'Sadr, responded by saying it would disarm its armed force, known as the Mahdi Army, only if the Shi'ite religious authorities ordered them to do so.
"The Mahdi Army does not accept its orders from anyone except A-'Sadr and the religious authorities with whom he consults. If the religious authorities would ask him to disarm the Mahdi Army, he will definitely execute their demand," spokesman for the 'Sadri bloc, 'Salah A-'Ubeidi told reporters.
Please check out the list below, and then forward it to your friends, family, and coworkers. We cannot rely on the media to tell folks about the real John McCain—but if we all pass this along, we can reach as many people as CNN Headline News does on a good night.
Click here to tell us how many people you can pass it on to—and to see our progress nationally:
http://pol.moveon.org/mccain10/?id=12407-5077189-XKR_ot&t=231
Ten things you should know about John McCain.
1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he has continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1
2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."2
3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban Waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3
4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."4
5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.5
6. He is one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.6
7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he is too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."7
8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than McCain has any of the other presidential candidates.8
9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."9
10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a zero—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10
John McCain is not who the Washington press corps make him out to be. Please help get the word out—forward this email to your personal network. And if you want us to keep you posted on MoveOn's work to get the truth out about John McCain, sign up here:
http://pol.moveon.org/mccaintruth/?id=12407-5077189-XKR_ot&t=232
Thank you for all you do.
–Eli, Justin, Noah, Laura, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Saturday, April 5th, 2008
Sources:
1. "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/the-complicated.html
"McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/
2. "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us
"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/
3. "McCain Sides with Bush on Torture Again, Supports Veto of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/
4. "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/
5. "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council® Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007
"McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/
6. "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5ZtMgD8VQ86M80
"McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVYaXZFM&refer=home
7. "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022
"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/
8. "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What the Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/
"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251
9. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html
"Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/
"McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/
10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/
Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by our 3.2 million members. We have no corporate contributors, no foundation grants, and no money from unions. Our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. If you would like to support our work, you can give now at:
http://political.moveon.org/donate/email.html?id=12407-5077189-XKR_ot&t=241
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E4C51233-2D21-4FBB-85FD-7D7F5AF173D9.htm
By Rob Reynolds in Columbus, Ohio
On the road to clinching the Republican Party nomination for president, John McCain worked hard for the endorsement of influential Evangelical Christian ministers.
The ministers are helping shore up McCain's support on the party's right wing, which has always been skeptical about whether the Arizona senator is a true-blue conservative.
But one of those minister's beliefs about Islam and Muslims raise disturbing questions.
Rod Parsley, the pastor of a large and profitable Ohio mega-church, calls Islam a false religion. He says Allah is a demon spirit and that Muslims are bent on world conquest.
Parsley endorsed McCain in February, praising him as a "strong, true, consistent conservative".
Sharing a Cincinnati, Ohio, stage with Parsley, McCain said: "I am very honored today to have one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide, Pastor Rod Parsley. Thank you for your leadership and your guidance. I am very grateful you are here."
He certainly had reason for gratitude - a week later, Parsley's support helped McCain win the important Ohio primary.
Evangelist
Reverend Parsley, who often holds services in which people are supposedly cured of disease by divine intervention, runs the sprawling World Harvest church near Columbus, Ohio.
World Harvest has a 12,000 member congregation, a bible college, and a television studio, which broadcasts his sermons.
A frequent theme of those homilies is the threat to Christian values posed by gays, liberals, and Muslims.
In his book, Silent no More, Parsley says the United States was ordained by God to defeat Islam.
In one chapter, titled The Deception of Allah he writes: "I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfil its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."
We asked Parsley for an interview, but through a church spokesman, he declined. We also sent him written questions, but he did not respond to those either.
Dividing communities
Abukar Arman, a Muslim community leader, says Parsley's remarks are threatening.
"It has a psychological toll on Muslims in central Ohio and beyond, that you are not part of the society that America was founded, in his words, to obliterate Islam," says Arman, president of the Central Ohio chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
McCain and other politicians should "distance themselves from the politics of hate and polarization", Arman said, noting that rhetoric that marginalizes American Muslims only contributes to poor relations between communities.
"In the grand scale of things," he says, "it hurts even the national security of this country because it fuels anti-Americanism."
Media interest
Interestingly enough, Parsley has been largely ignored by the US media, in sharp contrast to the intensive scrutiny given to sermons by Jeremiah Wright, Democrat Barack Obama's pastor.
Wright's homilies were widely criticized as unpatriotic and racially inflammatory, and have been replayed over and over on cable TV news channels.
Obama rejected Wright's remarks, but McCain has not denounced Parsley's comments about Islam, nor has he sought to distance himself from the minister.
In fact, some of McCain's campaign rhetoric virtually echoes Parsley's sermons. McCain, too, talks about a threat - although he focuses on extremism in Islam, not the religion as a whole.
"I'd like to talk to you for a minute about why I'm running, primarily," McCain told a Wisconsin rally on February 19.
"We face the transcendent challenge of the 21st century. That is the threat of radical Islamic extremism. My friends, I know you know that this is an evil of transcendent and unbelievable magnitude. You can see other times when our nation and our way of life were threatened, but this ranks among the greatest."
McCain's campaign told Al Jazeera that "... he [McCain] rejects politics that degrade our civics, and will be running a respectful campaign".
However, in seeking a path to the White House, it seems McCain is counting on the politics of fear and relying on a disturbingly belligerent spiritual guide.
(OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, 3/25/08) - On Saturday, April 5th, the Institute of Interfaith Dialog will host a day-long conference, "Denouncing Violence in the Name of God: The Case of Islam." Participants at the event will have an opportunity to hear Islamic scholars, academics, law enforcement officials, and journalists discuss the "Islamic perspectives on terror, especially terror that is associated with Islam."
WHAT: Institute of Interfaith Dialog's "Denouncing Violence in the Name of God: The Case of Islam"
WHEN: Saturday April 5, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
WHERE: Oklahoma City University, The Henry Freede Center (Southwest corner of 27th and Florida)
KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Dr. Cherif Bassiouni - Professor of Law at DePaul University College of Law and President Emeritus of the International Human Rights Law Institute
ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS: Robert Pape - University of Chicago; Muhammad Abu Laylah - Al-Azhar University, Egypt; Fred Von Der Mehden - Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University; Greg Barton - Monash University, Australia; Dr. Robin Myers - Oklahoma City University; Ekrem Dumanli - Editor of Zaman newspaper, Turkey; John Coyle - Special Agent of FBI, Oklahoma; Andrew Tevington - Daily Oklahoman; and Dr. Imad Enchassi – Imam of Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City (ISGOC)
CONTACT: Orhan Kucukosman, Phone: (405) 426 5425, E-Mail: osmanokc@gmail.com
The conference is free of charge and open to the public. Lunch will be provided.
Orhan Kucukosman, from the Institute of Interfaith Dialog, stated the reason for holding the conference in Oklahoma: "In the early days of Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995, there were speculations on individuals associated with a religion who might be responsible for the bombing.
As the truth was revealed, the bombing had no connection with any religion, but was a consequence of mentally challenged personality."
Sponsors include Wimberly School of Religion at Oklahoma City University, OU Religious Studies, Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism Texas, Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City and Mainstream Baptists, and the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-OK).
For more information goto:
http://www.interfaithdialog.org/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080322/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb killed three American soldiers north of Baghdad on Saturday, pushing the U.S. death toll in the five-year conflict to nearly 4,000.
Also Saturday, Iraqi authorities reported that a U.S. airstrike north of the capital killed six members of a U.S.-backed Sunni group — straining relations with America's new allies in the fight against al-Qaida.
Two Iraqi civilians also died in the roadside bombing, which occurred as the Americans were patrolling an area northwest of the capital, the U.S. military said in a statement.
Two of the soldiers were killed in the blast and the third died of wounds, the statement said. The soldiers were assigned to Multinational Division-Baghdad, the statement said, but gave no further details.
The latest deaths brought to 3,996 the number of U.S. service members and Pentagon civilians who have died since the war began on March 20, 2003, according to an Associated Press count. Rocket or mortar fire killed one U.S. soldier and wounded four others Friday south of Baghdad, the military said.
Author: Lee Ann Holman
James Yee went from being a decorated U.S. Army soldier serving in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to being accused of espionage, spying and aiding the facility's detainees.
He spoke to students about his experiences Thursday night at the UT Law School Auditorium.
When returning to the U.S. for vacation after serving 10 months as chaplain, Yee was arrested in secret and accused of having classified documents in his backpack. While being transferred to prison Yee was subject to sensory deprivation, a torture tactic. He was held in solitary confinement for 76 days without being charged.
He was exonerated and honorably discharged after deciding to quit the army.
Yee converted to Islam shortly after graduating from West Point. He said it was a way to solidify his monotheistic faith in one God. Yee was hand-picked to serve as a Muslim minister to facility detainees.
While ministering detainees, Yee said he advised commanders on proper religious practices. He made suggestions on treatment of the detainees and spoke out against soldiers violating prisoners' human rights. Yee said that though he never participated in interrogation tactics, he counseled prisoners on their treatment.
Yee said he witnessed the desecration of the Quran. Prisoners also spoke of sexual harassment by female interferometers and being put in a pentagram while being forced to renounce Allah.
This treatment will not win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world, he said.
"People in the military have a gross lack of misunderstanding of the Muslim culture, which is counterproductive," Yee said.
Kristine Huskey, a clinical law professor, has been representing Guantanamo detainees since 2002. She said she believes any new presidential administration will shut down Guantanamo Bay, because it is not helping the U.S. fight terrorism and is breeding more people who hate America.
Author: Steve Blow
We first sat and talked in those numb days right after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.We mourned together, and Mohamed Elmougy helped me understand a little more about what had befallen us.
I returned several times over the years to visit with the local Muslim community leader. And this week's fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq seemed a good time to once again glimpse the world through his eyes.
Mohamed, 49, owns the Pyramids Hotel in Allen. He's Egyptian by birth and American by choice.
He opposed the war from the start. "You will remember that I said getting out won't be nearly as easy as going in," he said.
I remembered, particularly since I had bought the argument that Iraqis would welcome us.
"We were fools to think we were going to be seen as liberators," Mohamed said. "We are seen as occupiers, and we always will be."
Mohamed agreed that Saddam Hussein needed to go but says he should have been captured in a surgical strike and put on trial in an international court, like Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic.
Of course, hindsight is of little help at this point. I was most eager to hear his thoughts on what we should do now. And since the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates offer such divergent strategies, I asked the question in that context.
"Six months ago I had every intention of voting for John McCain," he said. "I felt he was very sincere, that he was speaking his mind, and I respected him as someone who really understands war.
"But after seeing how he has changed his tone to cater to the evangelical right, I just can't support him anymore. It would just be more of the same," he said.
He believes Hillary Rodham Clinton would be seen overseas as simply the return of the Bill Clinton administration, with whatever lingering baggage that involves.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) March 18, 2008 — The conundrum of American primary politics, American Idol worship, and the fall from grace of the former Governor of New York, may have shifted the market-based media focus from the story, but for those who may otherwise be unaware, March 19, 2008 marks the fifth anniversary of the most recent U.S. invasion of Iraq - yet another tragic date in U.S. history that will live in infamy.
What, exactly, has been the cost of the U.S. adventure in Iraq? We are now careening to the number of 4,000 American combat deaths and 40,000 seriously wounded troops. Many of the wounded have been abandoned by their government to a fate of permanent disability and mental distress from the psychological wounds of combat. But this number is dwarfed by the devastation suffered by the Iraqis themselves: 650,000 to one million dead; 400,000 persons displaced from their homes; and the bitter reality of a raging sectarian civil war that has left the nation terrorized and divided.
The recent U.S. troop "surge" has been a useful diversion for the proponents of the war, who now claim some hollow "victory" because of ephemeral military gains in the combat operations against Al-Qaeda and other assorted armed insurgents. But the fundamental contradictions and divisions in the country remain. And Iraq, for all the horrors of it's own history of dictatorship and war, is a far more dangerous and oppressive place that it was under the rule of Saddam.
In the meanwhile, the Iraq war has not only divided U.S. citizens, it has also consolidated world opinion against this nation in a way that no one could have anticipated five years ago. Blatant torture of Iraqi captives, attacks on the civil liberties of Muslim individuals, institutions, and charities in America, and countless violations of both domestic and international law have become the hallmark of the arrogant and recalcitrant regime in Washington that continues the prosecution of the war.
But the conflict in Iraq has also resulted in countless casualties at home, measured in increased domestic violence, family disintegration, alcoholism, and drug abuse suffered by returning U.S. combatants.
War, in every case, results in the massive transfer of wealth from one social class to another. The war in Iraq is no different.
But what is different is the reality of the naked ambition of the global energy and arms oligarchies that have feasted on the $1.2 trillion dollars spent by American taxpayers on the war to date. This violence continues, despite the deepening economic crisis in the nation and the devastation of the national social infrastructure.
In Washington, DC, activists from 40 states plan to gather to mark this tragic anniversary, and in some cases, to engage in non-violent direct action in opposition of the war in Iraq. We must continue to press for the demand to end the war, even if the Democratic Congress lacks the will to oppose the Bush regime's war machine.
The popular tide of resistance to the war will—and must—continue, until the war is ended, and the massive damage to both the United States and to the people of Iraq is fully repaired.
For more information about upcoming events and gatherings, please visit:
www.5YearsTooMany.org
