Monday, June 11, 2007


Is the imperial presidency ending? Could be.

[updated 4:03 pm]

Was all of the Bushies' maneuvering about torturing this guy?
-----------------------

[updated 3:32 p.m.]

The blog of the American Constitution Society has links to more details on the case and to the actual decision.
------------------------

The New York Times and Washington Post have the details on today's appeals court ruling that rejects the Bushies' claims that they can do anything they darn well please with anyone, that is, as long as they claim said individual is an enemy combatant. The Post reports:

The opinion is a major blow to the Bush administration's assertion that as the president seeks to combat terrorism, he has exceptionally broad powers to detain without charges both foreign citizens abroad and those living legally in the United States. The government is expected to appeal the 2-1 decision handed down by a three-judge panel of the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which is in Richmond, Va.
Although this decision is from a divided court, it also comes from a conservative panel. Very interesting.

The New York Times quotes one judge who does not sound at all pleased with the Bushies.
“To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote, “even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country.”

“We refuse to recognize a claim to power,” Judge Motz added, “that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic.”
I can already hear the screams, though, claiming that this is a horrible decision because Bush and company say the defendant is an Al Qaeda member. Well, perhaps he is and perhaps he isn't. What counts, though, is that in the United States you can't just point to someone and scream "bad guy," and then lock that person away forever.

If there are no rules, if there is no need for evidence, then anyone can be called an enemy combatant and locked away. That "anyone" could be folks like you or me who post unpopular political opinions on blogs. That could be my 80-year-old mother who might go to a peace march. Heck, I suppose they could prosecute my late, lamented cat Ernestine for, just well, being wrong.

I do not want a terrorist out on our streets anymore than anyone else does. However, this ruling gives the Bushies ample ways to keep this guy locked up if there is reason to do so.

It is. Way. Past. Time. To end this imperial presidency.

This is cross posted from In This Moment.




There's more: "Is the imperial presidency ending? Could be." >>

Sunday, May 20, 2007


More Ashcroft Mythbusting

"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to . . . enemies and pause to . . . friends." appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dec. 6, 2001.


Seriously…Let’s hold the phone for a sec. Gonzales is a dangerous Constitutional criminal and needs to be held accountable – and those who touted him for the Supreme Court should be chained in the public square and pelted with overripe produce – but let’s not forget who blazed the trail.

I have not forgotten that in the wake of that horrible day five years ago that stripping away those pesky civil liberties Americans have traditionally held was the default position for the Ashcroft-led Department of Justice. Trampling the Constitution was the first thing they thought to do in their quest to combat terrorism, not the last.

Ashcroft was the chief merchant of fear and he sold that bill of goods to a frightened, weak-minded populace that had actually bought into the myth of American Exceptionalism. His insidious efforts furthered the powers of the FBI to infiltrate every aspect of your life and mine. And he was the first to equate patriotism with marching in lockstep with the authoritarian agenda. Dissenters were unpatriotic and un-American. He planted those poisonous seeds of division, and pitted American against American for political gain. Don't forget his perfidy as you rush to lionize.

It was under Ashcroft that groups like the Quaker's were "infiltrated" - shades of COINTELPRO - by law enforcement agents for the purpose of collecting information on Americans who exercised their Constitutional prerogative to dissent - which pretty much obviates the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

He was the sleazy bastard who first cast aspersions on your patriotism because you had the temerity to value our Constitution and raise questions about the unlawful methods they were so eager to apply.

Let’s take a stroll down Memory Lane before we commission a bust of Ashcroft for the lobby of the ACLU local, whaddya say?

Everyone knows about the Patriot Act, and the abuses that have flowed from that assault on civil liberties, but doesn't anyone else remember TIA?

TIA stands for Total Information Awareness. It was a data-mining operation designed to allow the federal government to track all credit card purchases, listen in on telephone conversations, read your emails, check your medical records and track your movements.

No warrant required. Hell, they didn’t even really need to have a suspicion. They could do it just for giggles. TIA basically set the Fourth Amendment alight. In case you don’t have your copy of the Constitution handy (and why the hell don’t you?) or you can’t recite the Ten Commandments, er, the Bill of Rights from memory (and why the hell can’t you?) let me refresh your memory on just exactly what the Fourth Amendment guarantees:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And remember TIPS? The spy-on-the-neighbors-and-report-those-Thought-Criminals!!! program that he tried to get attached to the legislation authorizing the creation of the Department of Homeland Security? (That effort failed)

TIPS stood for Terrorism Information and Prevention System (it morphed into the John Doe protection act while you weren’t paying attention to the mendacious authoritarian bastards on the right).

TIPS was designed to encourage citizens to snoop for the government. Mail carriers, UPS drivers, teachers, utility installers – people whose jobs involve interacting with the public, would have received training on *how to spot and report suspicious behavior.* (Like receiving mail from the ACLU or the SPLC, or having an anti-war bumper sticker, presumably.)

Military tribunals, and immigrant detentions in the absence of crime, indefinite detention without due process; these were more than the products of his right-wing authoritarian MO, they were where he went automatically. The Attorney General of the United States default setting was to ignore the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Let’s remember the assaults on liberty that were perpetrated at this mans hand before we enshrine him as a Guardian of Liberty.

Put in perspective just who it is that is looking so good by comparison, and get properly pissed already!


[Cross-posted from Blue Girl, Red State]





There's more: "More Ashcroft Mythbusting" >>

Friday, May 4, 2007


I lubz muh guns; I needs muh guns...

... not really. I don't actually own any firearms (oh no, better watch out; burglars will soon flock to my apartment...), but I don't have a fundamental problem with people owning them with restrictions. Assault rifles, automatic hand-guns (tech-9, Uzi, etc.), and the like are probably better left in the hands of professional... um... gun users, like the military; they don't really offer much in the way of civil purposes. Yeah, yeah, yeah, second amendment and all that - whatever, we put all kinds of restrictions on speech, property seizure, assembly, yadda yadda yadda. There's no (rational) reason why similar restrictions should not be put on the second amendment.

Anyway, Joe Sudbay over at AMERICAblog wrote a little ditty about the NRA's opposition to Sen. Frank Lautenberg's (D- New Jersey) proposed legislation to

increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer
of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or
suspected dangerous terrorists


Sudbay writes:

Think of all the things the Bush administration has done, all the laws
they've broken, all the rights they've taken away, in order to "fight terror."
They've tapped our phones, read our emails, thrown us in jail without the right
to an attorney or even a trial, assumed that we're guilty until proven innocent.
But all of that, we are told, is necessary if we are to stop suspected
terrorists from killing another 3,000 Americans, or worse, killing 1 million
Americans with a nuke.

But God forbid a suspected terrorist isn't permitted to buy an Uzi. Oh no,
we wouldn't want to take away the constitutional rights of a suspected terrorist
to buy the weapons he needs to kill us all. No, that would be un-American.


I think he has missed point, and I think I'm with the NRA (!!!) on this one.

Here's the thing... one of the (many) problems I have with the Bush administration is their (mis)use of the words "suspected terrorist." When you start treating "suspect" people different, you are inherently assuming guilt. Of course, assuming guilt isn't always a bad thing; individuals make assumptions of guilt all the time. It is a problem, however, when the State begins to value the assumption of guilt over that of innocence. Sudbay's correct when he cites the DoJ's crimes against our rights and privacy - data mining phone records, reading e-mail, labeling people "enemy combatants" to circumvent civil liberties - so why would he support further violations of civil liberties based entirely on "suspect" status. Of course, my opposition to S. 1237 is much different from that of the NRA - mine is based on conceptions of justice, while the NRA's is drawn from their apparent desire to see a fully armed and militarized society, but yes, our substantive opposition is the same.

I can understand someone reading this and thinking Egad! I don't want a terrorist buying a gun! Why, they might... terrorize with it! Have you forgotten VIRGINIA TECH!? Of course I haven't. But here's the thing, either 1) remove the word 'suspected' from the language of the bill and simply bar 'terrorists' from purchasing firearms (???) or b) screw this bill entirely and do something about individual 'suspected terrorists' based on the evidence collected.




There's more: "I lubz muh guns; I needs muh guns..." >>