Was it just me, or did John McCain seem dismissive when he called Barack Obama “that one”?
If I had to choose between John McCain and Barack Obama, I would choose THAT one. When it comes to Barack Obama:
Maybe John McCain is right. Barack Obama is the one. That’s the one for me.
Bush's new motto
"BRING THE TERRORISTS HERE SO WE DO NOT HAVE TO FIGHT THEM OVER THERE"
Just a reminder regarding McCain - who has voted with Bush 90% of the time over the past 8 years - and the onslaught on our Constitution.
There is talk that in late 2005, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act. "Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.""Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"This information comes from three West Wing sources who say a fourth White House employee in the meeting told them the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper." Sadly, it appears that this kind of behavior is consistent with Bush's record on ignoring the Constitution when it suits his political purpose.To the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than a piece of paper? And this is who John McCain has voted with 90% of the time over the past 8 years? This of the same John McCain who professed he loved our Country last week at the RNC and that he would spend his "very last breath" defending it?
As Americans, I ask you to stop, for just a brief moment, any political affiliation. It doesn't matter if you are a Democratic, Republican or Independent. It doesn't matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not.
Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine - in the end - if something is legal or right.Every federal official - including the President - who takes an oath of office swears to "uphold and defend" the Constitution of the United States.President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years - a record for any modern President, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a "union between a man and woman." John McCain has voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time during this 8 year period.
When someone brings up in casual conversation that McCain is "..more qualified..." or "...more patriotic..." or "more experienced....", THE QUESTION IS: AT WHAT?
Senator Obama, in his first tenure as U.S. Senator BLOCKED THIS AND SENT IT TO THE SUPREME COURT. McCain, in his first years as a U.S. Senator, gave us the Keating Five which ultimately cost the American taxpayers more than $2B USD.
The following article was written by Glen Greenwald of SALON - let it sink in:
The Court's ruling was grounded in its recognition that the guarantee of habeas corpus was so central to the Founding that it was one of the few individual rights included in the Constitution even before the Bill of Rights was enacted.
As the Court put it: "the Framers viewed freedom from unlawful restraint as a fundamental precept of liberty, and they understood the writ of habeas corpus as a vital instrument to secure that freedom." The Court noted that freedom from arbitrary or baseless imprisonment was one of the core rights established by the 13th Century Magna Carta, and it is the writ of habeas corpus which is the means for enforcing that right. Once habeas corpus is abolished -- as the Military Commissions Act sought to do -- then we return to the pre-Magna Carta days where the Government is free to imprison people with no recourse. (READ THIS AGAIN - THEN LET IT SINK IN.)
In its decision, the Court emphasized (and revived) some of the most vital principles of our system of Government which have been trampled upon and degraded over the last seven years (emphasis added):
The Framers' inherent distrust of government power was the driving force behind the constitutional plan that allocated powers among three independent branches. This design serves not only to make Government accountable but also to secure individual liberty. . . . Where a person is detained by executive order rather than, say, after being tried and convicted in a court, the need for collateral review is most pressing. . . . The habeas court must have sufficient authority to conduct a meaningful review of both the cause of detention and the Executive's power to detain. . . . Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our Armed Forces to act and interdict. There are further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to separation of powers. . . . The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system, they are reconciled within the framework of law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, part of that law.
Where a person is detained by executive order rather than, say, after being tried and convicted in a court, the need for collateral review is most pressing. . . . The habeas court must have sufficient authority to conduct a meaningful review of both the cause of detention and the Executive's power to detain. . . .
Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our Armed Forces to act and interdict. There are further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to separation of powers. . . .
The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system, they are reconciled within the framework of law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, part of that law.
In ruling that the CSRTs woefully fail to provide the constitutionally guaranteed safeguards, the Court quoted (A FOUNDING FATHER) Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 84: "The practice of arbitrary imprisonments, in all ages, is the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." It is that deeply tyrannical practice -- implemented by the Bush administration and authorized by a bipartisan act of Congress -- which the U.S. Supreme Court, today, struck down.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was -- and remains -- one of the great stains on our national political character. It was passed by a substantial majority in the Senate (65-34) with the support of every single Senate Republican (except Chafee) and 12 Senate Democrats. No filibuster was even attempted. It passed by a similar margin in the House, where 34 Democrats joined 219 Republicans to enact it. One of the most extraordinary quotes of the post-9/11 era came from GOP Sen. Arlen Specter, who said at the time that that the Military Commissions Act -- because it explicitly barred federal courts from hearing habeas corpus petitions brought by Guantanamo detainees -- "sets back basic rights by some 900 years" and was "patently unconstitutional on its face" -- and Specter then proceeded to vote for it.
The greatest victim of the 9/11 attack has been our core, defining constitutional liberties. Of all the powers seized by this administration in the name of keeping us Safe, the power to imprison people indefinitely with no charges and no real process is the most pernicious.
Passage of the Military Commissions Act was spearheaded by John McCain. Once McCain blessed the Military Commissions Act, its passage was assured. Barack Obama voted against it, and once its passage appeared certain, Obama offered an amendment to limit it to five years. That amendment failed, rendering the MCA the law of the land without any time limits.
The Supreme Court today did what the Founders envisioned it should do: it protected our basic constitutional guarantees from erosion and assault by a corrupt majority within the political class. In so doing, the Court took a mild though important step in reversing some of the worst and most tyrannical excesses of the last seven years. Patrick Henry warned long ago of the unique dangers of allowing executive imprisonment without meaningful process:
Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings -- give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else! . . . Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
In his concurring opinion in Brown v. Allen (1953), Justice Jackson wrote:
Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. The judges of England developed the writ of habeas corpus largely to preserve these immunities from executive restraint.
Our political and media elite were more than willing -- they were eager -- to relinquish that right to the President in the name of keeping us Safe from Terrorists. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court, in what will be one of the most celebrated landmark rulings of this generation, re-instated that basic right, and in so doing, restored one of the most critical safeguards against the very tyranny this country was founded to prevent.UPDATE: Three of the five Justices in the majority -- John Paul Stevens (age 88), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (age 75) and David Souter (age 68) -- are widely expected by court observers to retire or otherwise leave the Court in the first term of the next President. By contrast, the four judges who dissented -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito -- are expected to stay right where they are for many years to come.
John McCain has identified Roberts and Alito as ideal justices of the type he would nominate, while Barack Obama has identified Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ginsberg (all in the majority today). It's not hyperbole to say that, from Supreme Court appointments alone, our core constitutional protections could easily depend upon the outcome of the 2008 election.
I've been very disturbed by the way the corporate media is portraying people who were against the recent FISA vote. Supporting the Constitution is traditionally a Conservative value. Since the Reagan administration, our country has moved so far to the Right that the people who call themselves Conservative are really fascists and the people who are supposed to be Liberals are what we used to call Conservative. The Progressive movement, which is portrayed as radical and Far Left, seem to be the ones that are concerned with Constitutional Rights. Our political system is so changed that the hippies and the miitias are finding themselves on the same side more and more often.
The Constitution is the social contract that empowers our representatives to act for us. It doesn't give us our rights - those are innate, endowed upon us by Nature. Our founders declared our rights to be self-evident and unalienable. The Constitution enumerates some of those rights, reserving others not mentioned to the people, but it doesn't create them. That's why foreigners have to be treated as well as Americans - we aren't special in any way except that our government is supposed to respect our innate human rights.
People think only terrorists are being held without rights to habeas corpus. There are US citizens being held both as potential terrorists and as illegal immigrants. The media doesn't talk about the detention camps filled by Homeland Security raids on immigrants. A lot of the people in those camps are citizens who aren't being given access to legal counsel. The government is reading our emails and listening to our phone calls. They're torturing prisoners who haven't been charged with any crime. The war in Iraq is illegal, because only Congress can declare war and they never did. Karl Rove outed a covert operative working in WMDs and he's still walking around free while 1 in every 10 Americans is in jail. Our government is out of control.
I'm praying that we can count on Senator Obama, a Constitutional scholar, to do what he can to restore this country to the rule of law. The recent FISA vote was a mistake, and one I hope won't be repeated. In my perfect world, Senator Obama would start backing the articles of impeachment introduced by Rep. Kucinich, and he'd start pushing for prosecution of Karl Rove in the Plame case. I would hope that a President Obama and his newly minted Justice Department would start by investigating the illegal activities of the Bush administration. That's a big project, but I think it's a vital one. We can't just sweep these crimes under the rug as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seem determined to do. If we're going to be a nation of laws again, and not some evil oligarchy that only benefits the elite class, then criminal prosecution of the crimes is essential.
Today the rule of law, the checks and balances and the rights reserved in the Bill of Rights were damaged as the FISA act was once again altered and retroactive immunity was authorized for law breaking telecoms. A lot has been written about this. I will not add to that.
Instead, I thought I would point out a pair of quiet revolutions that took place over the last couple of years that got very little coverage. I do so for two reasons. First it is worth noting that not all of the battles for civil liberties in the last couple of years have been lost, and second, it is important to realize that major changes both for good and ill can happen with virtually no one noticing.
Just over 150 years ago, Abraham Lincoln warned us that "a house divided against itself cannot stand". While the image of national disunion, prophetic as it was, was what captured the national imagination, his actual message was not that the house would fall, not that the Union would crumble, but that
It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it... or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States...
His speech was a call to action, a warning that the Union was on a path that would lead to that which the North felt was inconceivable, the full legalization of slavery. It was a warning of the course the Republic was on, unless direct and strong action was taken to avert it. Sadly his speech was not strong enough to rally him the support needed to attain the Senate, let alone achieve his goal. Rather, it wasn't until the house actually began to fall, that states seceded, that a war was fought, that he achieved his goal and then paid its price.
I can easily imagine the horror he felt as his nation trod relentlessly towards slavery or disunion. I can imagine it because our house, our houses today are divided. The nation is divided, the Republican and Democratic parties are each divided, the proponents of civil liberties are divided. Polarization is rampant, and it endangers what we cherish.
Late Tuesday evening, I sent the following e-mail to a number of friends who are still undecided, McCain supporters or whose preference is unknown to me:
"Look, even Adolf Eichmann got a trial" - Sen. John McCain, Meet the Press, 19 June 2005
Well, in just the last couple of years, Sen. McCain has reversed his position (or "flip-flopped" as the Republicans like to say) on abortion, Bush's tax cuts, the estate tax, gay marriage, campaign finance reform, ethanol, social security privatization, the Law of the Sea convention, immigration, offshore drilling, taxing oil companies' windfall profits, engaging Syria and Hamas in diplomatic talks, warrantless wiretapping, and, most famously, the issue of torture.
And that doesn't include the little things like all of his contradictory statements on Iraq (but try to find a politician outside of Sen. Byrd without those), normalizing relations with Cuba, his dealings with the religious right (used to vocally oppose them, now embraces them, well, their checks & their votes anyway), flying the confederate flag over govt. buildings, involving the NRA in Republican policy-building, storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca mountain (not a "little" thing but he has no real alternative) and withdrawing his support for the Lieberman/Warner legislation, which is supposed to be aimed at combatting global warming. Whew!
Add one more issue to the list; one that trumps all of the others combined.
Thus far, I have been an avid supportor of Barack Obama. His insight and vision impelled me to contribute time and money toward his winning the presidency.
As of yesterday, though, having read about the new FISA legislation and Barack's comments on why he will vote for the bill, I am questioning his integrity. To quote Caroline Frederickson of the ACLU, "The telecoms complied with an illegal request from the White House....The FISA Act requires that there be appropriate legal process....Just because the president says something to the telecoms and asks them to do something doesn't make it legal all of a sudden just because he says so. And they have an option if they were to go to the court to actually present their arguments and say they have the justification from the White House....The federal courts have handled classified information in many circumstances, have done that in terrorism prosecutions. They have mechanisms for keeping that information in a secure fashion and have done that in criminal prosecutions of terrorist suspects, and they can certainly do so here."
I find myself left short. Unless wording in the bill that gives a pass to the telecoms and government the ability to broadly sweep Americans' communications is revised or expunged, unless Barack filibusters the bill as he promised to do, I will find myself re-assessing my overall opinion of his candidacy.
I've tried reaching the campaign through it's 866 number and looked for a "contact us" link on the site to no avail. That is why I am writing this blog. Barack, protect the Fourth Amendment. Filibuster this bill.
Sheila Jackson Lee is correct. You cannot put lipstick on a pig. Moveon.org is also correct. Republican Rep. Mike Rogers from Michigan, Steny Hoyer, and Jane Harmon are flat out wrong. Obama, listen to us. We want you to win, but you must continually earn our respect. Promoting the diminishment and even the demise of habeas corpus and due process for the sake of security is simply unacceptable.
Barack, you cannot avoid this issue given your previous take on FISA legislation and your promise to filibuster it. Especially given your stance on taking back America, please, do not fail us now. We are in the process of collapsing all that we were. Keep your word. Filibuster the FISA legislation or see to it that language in the bill is revised.
I caught a few minutes of Dan Abrams’ broadcast on MSNBC where the heads were flapping about the differences in attitude between Barack Obama and John McCain on the recent US Supreme Court decision to restore habeas corpus to detainees held at Guantanamo. McCain even trotted out Rudy Guiliani, Mr. 9-1-1, to underscore his point.
The way they framed it was like this: “Obama would allow Bin Laden to appeal to the US Courts.”
