May 31, 2005 By SCOTT SHANE, STEPHEN GREY and MARGOT WILLIAMS
This article was reported by Scott Shane, Stephen Grey and Margot Williams and written by Mr. Shane.
SMITHFIELD, N.C. - The airplanes of Aero Contractors Ltd. take off from Johnston County Airport here, then disappear over the scrub pines and fields of tobacco and sweet potatoes. Nothing about the sleepy Southern setting hints of foreign intrigue. Nothing gives away the fact that Aero's pilots are the discreet bus drivers of the battle against terrorism, routinely sent on secret missions to Baghdad, Cairo, Tashkent and Kabul.
When the Central Intelligence Agency wants to grab a suspected member of Al Qaeda overseas and deliver him to interrogators in another country, an Aero Contractors plane often does the job. If agency experts need to fly overseas in a hurry after the capture of a prized prisoner, a plane will depart Johnston County and stop at Dulles Airport outside Washington to pick up the C.I.A. team on the way.
Aero Contractors' planes dropped C.I.A. paramilitary officers into Afghanistan in 2001; carried an American team to Karachi, Pakistan, right after the United States Consulate there was bombed in 2002; and flew from Libya to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the day before an American-held prisoner said he was questioned by Libyan intelligence agents last year, according to flight data and other records.
While posing as a private charter outfit - "aircraft rental with pilot" is the listing in Dun and Bradstreet - Aero Contractors is in fact a major domestic hub of the Central Intelligence Agency's secret air service. The company was founded in 1979 by a legendary C.I.A. officer and chief pilot for Air America, the agency's Vietnam-era air company, and it appears to be controlled by the agency, according to former employees.
Behind a surprisingly thin cover of rural hideaways, front companies and shell corporations that share officers who appear to exist only on paper, the C.I.A. has rapidly expanded its air operations since 2001 as it has pursued and questioned terrorism suspects around the world.
(More...)
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Labor Board Hearing on Manhattan Starbucks Set for Mid-June
It's pretty exciting to think about the repercussions of a Starbucks barista union gaining a foothold in NYC, isn't it?--Pete
May 31 - Unfair labor practice allegations lodged against the world's largest coffee retail chain by employees attempting to gain union recognition at a New York City store will be heard by the National Labor Relations Board on June 15.
The complaint alleges that officials with Starbucks created an atmosphere of hostility through surveillance, "interrogation" and threats of wage and lost benefits should employees form a union.
Employees of the Starbucks at Madison and 36th Street in Manhattan filed petition cards to form the Starbucks Barista Union under the banner of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) more than a year ago and are still fighting for official recognition from the company and the NLRB. After initially affirming the right of workers at the store to join a union in July of last year, officials of the federal agency approved an appeal by the company, delaying the election for over a year.
The company petitioned the NLRB on the grounds that it was illegal to organize the company one shop at a time.
Supporters of the unionizing effort say company managers have used a combination of bribery, intimidation and coercion to sway employees from supporting the unrecognized union.
--Brendan Coyne
© 2005 The NewStandard.
May 31 - Unfair labor practice allegations lodged against the world's largest coffee retail chain by employees attempting to gain union recognition at a New York City store will be heard by the National Labor Relations Board on June 15.
The complaint alleges that officials with Starbucks created an atmosphere of hostility through surveillance, "interrogation" and threats of wage and lost benefits should employees form a union.
Employees of the Starbucks at Madison and 36th Street in Manhattan filed petition cards to form the Starbucks Barista Union under the banner of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) more than a year ago and are still fighting for official recognition from the company and the NLRB. After initially affirming the right of workers at the store to join a union in July of last year, officials of the federal agency approved an appeal by the company, delaying the election for over a year.
The company petitioned the NLRB on the grounds that it was illegal to organize the company one shop at a time.
Supporters of the unionizing effort say company managers have used a combination of bribery, intimidation and coercion to sway employees from supporting the unrecognized union.
--Brendan Coyne
© 2005 The NewStandard.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Stripping Rumsfeld and Bush of Impunity
by Matthew Rothschild
When Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee last year, he was asked whether he "ordered or approved the use of sleep deprivation, intimidation by guard dogs, excessive noise, and inducing fear as an interrogation method for a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison." Sanchez, who was head of the Pentagon’s Combined Joint Task Force-7 in Iraq, swore the answer was no. Under oath, he told the Senators he "never approved any of those measures to be used."
But a document the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) obtained from the Pentagon flat out contradicts Sanchez’s testimony. It’s a memorandum entitled "CJTF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy," dated September 14, 2003. In it, Sanchez approved several methods designed for "significantly increasing the fear level in a detainee." These included "sleep management"; "yelling, loud music, and light control: used to create fear, disorient detainee, and prolong capture shock"; and "presence of military working dogs: exploits Arab fear of dogs."
On March 30, the ACLU wrote a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, urging him "to open an investigation into whether General Ricardo A. Sanchez committed perjury in his sworn testimony."
The problem is, Gonzales may himself have committed perjury in his Congressional testimony this January. According to a March 6 article in The New York Times, Gonzales submitted written testimony that said: "The policy of the United States is not to transfer individuals to countries where we believe they likely will be tortured, whether those individuals are being transferred from inside or outside the United States." He added that he was "not aware of anyone in the executive branch authorizing any transfer of a detainee in violation of that policy."
"That’s a clear, absolute lie," says Michael Ratner, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who is suing Administration officials for their involvement in the torture scandal. "The Administration has a policy of sending people to countries where there is a likelihood that they will be tortured."
The New York Times article backs up Ratner’s claim. It says "a still-classified directive signed by President Bush within days of the September 11 attacks" gave the CIA broad authority to transfer suspected terrorists to foreign countries for interrogations. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International estimate that the United States has transferred between 100 and 150 detainees to countries notorious for torture.
So Gonzales may not be the best person to evaluate the allegation of perjury against Sanchez.
(More...)
When Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee last year, he was asked whether he "ordered or approved the use of sleep deprivation, intimidation by guard dogs, excessive noise, and inducing fear as an interrogation method for a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison." Sanchez, who was head of the Pentagon’s Combined Joint Task Force-7 in Iraq, swore the answer was no. Under oath, he told the Senators he "never approved any of those measures to be used."
But a document the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) obtained from the Pentagon flat out contradicts Sanchez’s testimony. It’s a memorandum entitled "CJTF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy," dated September 14, 2003. In it, Sanchez approved several methods designed for "significantly increasing the fear level in a detainee." These included "sleep management"; "yelling, loud music, and light control: used to create fear, disorient detainee, and prolong capture shock"; and "presence of military working dogs: exploits Arab fear of dogs."
On March 30, the ACLU wrote a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, urging him "to open an investigation into whether General Ricardo A. Sanchez committed perjury in his sworn testimony."
The problem is, Gonzales may himself have committed perjury in his Congressional testimony this January. According to a March 6 article in The New York Times, Gonzales submitted written testimony that said: "The policy of the United States is not to transfer individuals to countries where we believe they likely will be tortured, whether those individuals are being transferred from inside or outside the United States." He added that he was "not aware of anyone in the executive branch authorizing any transfer of a detainee in violation of that policy."
"That’s a clear, absolute lie," says Michael Ratner, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who is suing Administration officials for their involvement in the torture scandal. "The Administration has a policy of sending people to countries where there is a likelihood that they will be tortured."
The New York Times article backs up Ratner’s claim. It says "a still-classified directive signed by President Bush within days of the September 11 attacks" gave the CIA broad authority to transfer suspected terrorists to foreign countries for interrogations. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International estimate that the United States has transferred between 100 and 150 detainees to countries notorious for torture.
So Gonzales may not be the best person to evaluate the allegation of perjury against Sanchez.
(More...)
Monday, May 30, 2005
Britain, U.S. Conspired to Force Iraq Showdown
May 30 - Beginning a year before the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, the US and UK governments ordered aircraft patrolling Southern and Northern "no-fly zones" to step up their bombing of Iraqi air defenses and other targets, according to new information discovered by opponents of British leader Tony Blair.
The new information, first reported in the London Times, shows that bombing by the US Air Force and Royal Air Force more than doubled from 2001 to 2002. The two countries used twice as many missiles and bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as during all of 2001, according to the data.
The increased attacks began six months before the passage of a United Nations resolution the two nations would cite as the legal basis for invading Iraq.
Western governments unilaterally established the controversial no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War, ostensibly to protect Kurds in the Iraqi North and Shi'ite Arabs in the South from Saddam Hussein's warplanes. Critics soon began to speculate that aggressively patrolling sovereign Iraqi airspace was more provocation than deterrent.
This new revelation comes almost a month after the leak of a memo showing that US and British officials had already decided on ousting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein before going to the UN, and that they were engaged in "fixing" facts to support such a policy.
--Brendan Coyne
2005 The NewStandard.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Why Iraq Still Looks Like A Holy Crusade Against Islam
This is a photo from the DOD's own website. Apparently things have become so cavalier regarding the Righteous Holy Crusades that this actually passed review. I'm so proud! Click photo for larger image.
Governor digs fixing potholes
San Jose crews destroy part of road for staged event
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger traveled to a quiet San Jose neighborhood Thursday, and -- dogged by protesters -- filled a pothole dug by city crews just a few hours before, as part of an attempt to dramatize his efforts to increase money for transportation projects.
The choreographed press opportunity -- at least the governor's fourth recent event involving transportation issues -- seemed aimed as much at thwarting the demonstrators who have followed Schwarzenegger for weeks as grabbing new attention for his proposal.
Schwarzenegger strode toward television cameras on Laguna Seca Way to the sounds of the Doobie Brothers' "Taking it to the Streets,'' while flanked by 10 San Jose city road workers wearing Day-Glo vests and work gear. After speeches by the governor and city officials, a dump truck backed up and unloaded a mound of black asphalt and, as television cameras recorded the moment, Schwarzenegger joined the work crew, taking up a broom and filling the 10-by-15-foot hole, later smoothed over by a massive roller truck.
"I'm here today to let everyone know that we're going to improve transportation all across our state,'' said Schwarzenegger, highlighting his proposal to fully fund Proposition 42 and restore $1.3 billion in transportation money to the current state budget.
The governor's brief San Jose appearance, announced at the last minute, left some residents scratching their heads.
"For paving the streets, it's a lot of lighting,'' said resident Nick Porrovecchio, 48, motioning to a team of workmen setting up Hollywood-style floodlights on the street to bathe the gubernatorial podium in a soft glow.
Porrovecchio and his business partner, Joe Greco, said that at about 7 a.m. they became fascinated watching "10 city workers standing around for a few hours putting on new vests,'' all in preparation for the big moment with Schwarzenegger.
But their street, he noted, didn't even have a hole to pave over until Thursday morning.
"They just dug it out,'' Porrovecchio said, shrugging. "There was a crack. But they dug out the whole road this morning.'' (More here...)
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger traveled to a quiet San Jose neighborhood Thursday, and -- dogged by protesters -- filled a pothole dug by city crews just a few hours before, as part of an attempt to dramatize his efforts to increase money for transportation projects.
The choreographed press opportunity -- at least the governor's fourth recent event involving transportation issues -- seemed aimed as much at thwarting the demonstrators who have followed Schwarzenegger for weeks as grabbing new attention for his proposal.
Schwarzenegger strode toward television cameras on Laguna Seca Way to the sounds of the Doobie Brothers' "Taking it to the Streets,'' while flanked by 10 San Jose city road workers wearing Day-Glo vests and work gear. After speeches by the governor and city officials, a dump truck backed up and unloaded a mound of black asphalt and, as television cameras recorded the moment, Schwarzenegger joined the work crew, taking up a broom and filling the 10-by-15-foot hole, later smoothed over by a massive roller truck.
"I'm here today to let everyone know that we're going to improve transportation all across our state,'' said Schwarzenegger, highlighting his proposal to fully fund Proposition 42 and restore $1.3 billion in transportation money to the current state budget.
The governor's brief San Jose appearance, announced at the last minute, left some residents scratching their heads.
"For paving the streets, it's a lot of lighting,'' said resident Nick Porrovecchio, 48, motioning to a team of workmen setting up Hollywood-style floodlights on the street to bathe the gubernatorial podium in a soft glow.
Porrovecchio and his business partner, Joe Greco, said that at about 7 a.m. they became fascinated watching "10 city workers standing around for a few hours putting on new vests,'' all in preparation for the big moment with Schwarzenegger.
But their street, he noted, didn't even have a hole to pave over until Thursday morning.
"They just dug it out,'' Porrovecchio said, shrugging. "There was a crack. But they dug out the whole road this morning.'' (More here...)
National security and the ‘war on terror’
The blatant disregard for international human rights and humanitarian law in the “war on terror” continued to make a mockery of President George Bush’s claims that the USA was the global champion of human rights. Images of detainees in US custody tortured in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq shocked the world. War crimes in Iraq, and mounting evidence of the torture and ill-treatment of detainees in US custody in other countries, sent an unequivocal message to the world that human rights may be sacrificed ostensibly in the name of security.
President Bush’s refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions to those captured during the international armed conflict in Afghanistan and transferred to the US naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was challenged by a judicial decision in November. The ruling resulted in the suspension of trials by military commission in Guantánamo, and the government immediately lodged an appeal. The US administration’s treatment of detainees in the “war on terror” continued to display a marked ambivalence to the opinion of expert bodies such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and even of its own highest judicial body. Six months after the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts had jurisdiction over the Guantánamo detainees, none had appeared in court. Detainees reportedly considered of high intelligence value remained in secret detention in undisclosed locations. In some cases their situation amounted to “disappearance”.
The “war on terror” and the “war on drugs” increasingly merged, and dominated US relations with Latin America and the Caribbean. Following the US elections in November, the Bush administration encouraged governments in the region to give a greater role to the military in public order and internal security operations. The blurring of military and police roles resulted in governments such as those in Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and Paraguay deploying military forces to deal with crime and social unrest.
The US doubled the ceiling on the number of US personnel deployed in Colombia in counter-insurgency and counter-narcotics operations. The Colombian government in turn persisted in redefining the country’s 40-year internal conflict as part of the international “war on terror”.
From the Amnesty International Report On Human Rights 2005
President Bush’s refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions to those captured during the international armed conflict in Afghanistan and transferred to the US naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was challenged by a judicial decision in November. The ruling resulted in the suspension of trials by military commission in Guantánamo, and the government immediately lodged an appeal. The US administration’s treatment of detainees in the “war on terror” continued to display a marked ambivalence to the opinion of expert bodies such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and even of its own highest judicial body. Six months after the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts had jurisdiction over the Guantánamo detainees, none had appeared in court. Detainees reportedly considered of high intelligence value remained in secret detention in undisclosed locations. In some cases their situation amounted to “disappearance”.
The “war on terror” and the “war on drugs” increasingly merged, and dominated US relations with Latin America and the Caribbean. Following the US elections in November, the Bush administration encouraged governments in the region to give a greater role to the military in public order and internal security operations. The blurring of military and police roles resulted in governments such as those in Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and Paraguay deploying military forces to deal with crime and social unrest.
The US doubled the ceiling on the number of US personnel deployed in Colombia in counter-insurgency and counter-narcotics operations. The Colombian government in turn persisted in redefining the country’s 40-year internal conflict as part of the international “war on terror”.
From the Amnesty International Report On Human Rights 2005
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Assuming That You Have A Job, That Is...
It should be constant front-page news that the US has gone through a remarkable period of modern economic history: a quarter-century in which real wages for the majority have almost stagnated (in part declined) and incomes are kept up only by increasing the work load well beyond the rest of the industrial world, also with few benefits and huge pressure to consume and borrow.
It's an efficient disciplinary technique, if nothing else.
--Noam Chomsky, MIT, from a ZNET forum reply.
It's an efficient disciplinary technique, if nothing else.
--Noam Chomsky, MIT, from a ZNET forum reply.
Friday, May 27, 2005
NEW JUDGE RATED WORST ON TEXAS SUPREME COURT BY LOCAL BAR
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052500411.html
WASHINGTON POST - Critics of Owen pointed to a poll issued last week by the Houston Bar Association, which reported that its members rated Owen as the worst of the six Texas Supreme Court justices. The poll, in which attorneys rated justices on several criteria, found that 45.3 percent of the responding lawyers who had practiced before Owen considered her "poor" overall, compared to 39.5 percent who said she was "outstanding" and 15.2 percent who deemed her "acceptable."
Owen's rating was the worst (46.3 percent "poor") of the six on the question of whether her opinions were well-reasoned, clearly written and properly applied the law. She was rated second worst (48.8 percent "poor") on the question of whether she was "impartial and open-minded with respect to determining the legal issues."
WASHINGTON POST - Critics of Owen pointed to a poll issued last week by the Houston Bar Association, which reported that its members rated Owen as the worst of the six Texas Supreme Court justices. The poll, in which attorneys rated justices on several criteria, found that 45.3 percent of the responding lawyers who had practiced before Owen considered her "poor" overall, compared to 39.5 percent who said she was "outstanding" and 15.2 percent who deemed her "acceptable."
Owen's rating was the worst (46.3 percent "poor") of the six on the question of whether her opinions were well-reasoned, clearly written and properly applied the law. She was rated second worst (48.8 percent "poor") on the question of whether she was "impartial and open-minded with respect to determining the legal issues."
Thursday, May 26, 2005
"FREEDOM FRIES" INVENTOR TURNS AGAINST WAR
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1491567,00.html?gusrc=rss
GUARDIAN - The US politician who led the campaign to change the name of french fries to "freedom fries" has turned against the war. Walter Jones, the Republican congressman for North Carolina who was also the brains behind french toast becoming freedom toast in Capitol Hill restaurants, told a local newspaper the US went to war "with no justification".
Mr Jones, who in March 2003 circulated a letter demanding that the three cafeterias in the House of Representatives' office buildings ban the word french from menus, said it was meant as a "light-hearted gesture". But the name change, still in force, made headlines around the world, both for what it said about US-French relations and its pettiness.
Now Mr Jones appears to agree. Asked by a reporter for the North Carolina News and Observer about the name-change campaign - an idea Mr Jones said at the time came to him by a combination of God's hand and a constituent's request - he replied: "I wish it had never happened."
GUARDIAN - The US politician who led the campaign to change the name of french fries to "freedom fries" has turned against the war. Walter Jones, the Republican congressman for North Carolina who was also the brains behind french toast becoming freedom toast in Capitol Hill restaurants, told a local newspaper the US went to war "with no justification".
Mr Jones, who in March 2003 circulated a letter demanding that the three cafeterias in the House of Representatives' office buildings ban the word french from menus, said it was meant as a "light-hearted gesture". But the name change, still in force, made headlines around the world, both for what it said about US-French relations and its pettiness.
Now Mr Jones appears to agree. Asked by a reporter for the North Carolina News and Observer about the name-change campaign - an idea Mr Jones said at the time came to him by a combination of God's hand and a constituent's request - he replied: "I wish it had never happened."
Terrorists At The Casa Blanca
Bush Receives well-known Accomplice of Posada at the White House
By Jean-Guy Allard / 24-05-2005
On Friday, May 20 at the White House Oval Office, US President George Bush received a small Cuban-American delegation headed by terrorist Luis Zúñiga Rey, founder of the Cuban-American National Foundation’s paramilitary committee in Miami, which for years assured the financing and logistics of Luis Posada Carriles’ terrorist activities.
Zúñiga created and led the CANF paramilitary committee with Horacio GarcÃa, Roberto Martin Pérez, Alberto Hernández and Feliciano Foyo. The international terrorist Luis Posada Carriles publically designated that committee and those individuals as his primary financial and logistical support.
That individual previously had been captured on August 1, 1974, near Boca Ciega, in Havana, when he was caught red-handed with a load of explosives and weapons, together with two other members of a terrorist commando who had infiltrated with the objective of carrying out attacks. (More Here...)
By Jean-Guy Allard / 24-05-2005
On Friday, May 20 at the White House Oval Office, US President George Bush received a small Cuban-American delegation headed by terrorist Luis Zúñiga Rey, founder of the Cuban-American National Foundation’s paramilitary committee in Miami, which for years assured the financing and logistics of Luis Posada Carriles’ terrorist activities.
Zúñiga created and led the CANF paramilitary committee with Horacio GarcÃa, Roberto Martin Pérez, Alberto Hernández and Feliciano Foyo. The international terrorist Luis Posada Carriles publically designated that committee and those individuals as his primary financial and logistical support.
That individual previously had been captured on August 1, 1974, near Boca Ciega, in Havana, when he was caught red-handed with a load of explosives and weapons, together with two other members of a terrorist commando who had infiltrated with the objective of carrying out attacks. (More Here...)
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Tits On A Boar, I Tell Ya...
Democrats Turn Belly-up Again!
You know, this about says it for me. I have been unable to understand why a nation with as large a workforce as the United States doesn't have a laborite/social political party. If we expect rich white men to fight for the rights of the working class, we have been successfully duped!--Pete
This is a comment on the outcome of the "compromise" in the Senate over judicial nominations. C. Clark Kissinger is one of the initiators of the Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience who, along with Joan Bokaer (Founder of Theocracy Watch.org) and others, called for people to protest the threatened "nuclear option":
"After all the bluster and shadow boxing was over, President Bush got his way. Under the terms of a "compromise," three of Bush's worst nominees will be voted on and they will likely be confirmed. And what did the Democrats get in return? They got to keep the right to filibuster, provided they promise not to use it!
"That's right. The Democrats got nothing. And what will happen when even more disgusting candidates are brought up as nominees for the Supreme Court? The Republicans will simply roll out the threat of the "nuclear option" once again, since nothing in the so-called "compromise" prohibits them from doing that.
"Once again this demonstrates the need for a mass popular movement of resistance. Without the kind of mass upsurge that we witnessed in the 1960s, there is nothing that will prevent the current threatening dynamic from continuing. This is why we called on people to go to Washington, and make their presence felt in the streets. The world can't wait any longer. We need to be about the business of driving the Bush regime from power."
C. Clark Kissinger
You know, this about says it for me. I have been unable to understand why a nation with as large a workforce as the United States doesn't have a laborite/social political party. If we expect rich white men to fight for the rights of the working class, we have been successfully duped!--Pete
This is a comment on the outcome of the "compromise" in the Senate over judicial nominations. C. Clark Kissinger is one of the initiators of the Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience who, along with Joan Bokaer (Founder of Theocracy Watch.org) and others, called for people to protest the threatened "nuclear option":
"After all the bluster and shadow boxing was over, President Bush got his way. Under the terms of a "compromise," three of Bush's worst nominees will be voted on and they will likely be confirmed. And what did the Democrats get in return? They got to keep the right to filibuster, provided they promise not to use it!
"That's right. The Democrats got nothing. And what will happen when even more disgusting candidates are brought up as nominees for the Supreme Court? The Republicans will simply roll out the threat of the "nuclear option" once again, since nothing in the so-called "compromise" prohibits them from doing that.
"Once again this demonstrates the need for a mass popular movement of resistance. Without the kind of mass upsurge that we witnessed in the 1960s, there is nothing that will prevent the current threatening dynamic from continuing. This is why we called on people to go to Washington, and make their presence felt in the streets. The world can't wait any longer. We need to be about the business of driving the Bush regime from power."
C. Clark Kissinger
The "What Country Are You From?" Department
CONGRESSMAN SUGGESTS BILL MAHER GUILTY OF TREASON
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-23-maher-comments_x.htm?csp=34
AP - A congressman says comedian Bill Maher's comment that the U.S. military has already recruited all the "low-lying fruit" is possibly treasonous and at least grounds to cancel the show. Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., takes issue with remarks on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, first aired May 13, in which Maher points out the Army missed its recruiting goal by 42% in April. "More people joined the Michael Jackson fan club," Maher said. "We've done picked all the low-lying Lynndie England fruit, and now we need warm bodies." . . . "I think it borders on treason," Bachus said. "In treason, one definition is to undermine the effort or national security of our country." . . . "I don't want (Maher) prosecuted," Bachus said. "I want him off the air."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-23-maher-comments_x.htm?csp=34
AP - A congressman says comedian Bill Maher's comment that the U.S. military has already recruited all the "low-lying fruit" is possibly treasonous and at least grounds to cancel the show. Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., takes issue with remarks on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, first aired May 13, in which Maher points out the Army missed its recruiting goal by 42% in April. "More people joined the Michael Jackson fan club," Maher said. "We've done picked all the low-lying Lynndie England fruit, and now we need warm bodies." . . . "I think it borders on treason," Bachus said. "In treason, one definition is to undermine the effort or national security of our country." . . . "I don't want (Maher) prosecuted," Bachus said. "I want him off the air."
RIGHT WING COLUMNIST EXPLAINS WHY HE ISN'T IN MILITARY
[From the online National Review comment section]
A READER - [Jonah Goldberg] looks to be of military age. Ask him why his sorry a** isn't in the kill zone."
JONAH GOLDERG - As for why my sorry a** isn't in the kill zone, lots of people think this is a searingly pertinent question. No answer I could give -- I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter, my a** is, er, sorry, are a few -- ever seem to suffice. But this chicken-hawk nonsense is something that's been batted around too many times to get into again here. What I do think is
interesting is that out of the thousands upon thousands of emails I've gotten from people in the military over the years, maybe a dozen have ever asked this question. Invariably, it's anti-war leftists who believe that their personally defined notions of hypocrisy trump any argument and any position. Meanwhile, the military guys have been overwhelmingly friendly and very often grateful for the support we offer around here.
[A response from the Daily Kos]
DAILY KOS - Well, the maximum enlistment age is now 38, so great news for Jonah and those in similar dire straits. His family can't afford lost income? Well, half of reservists have experience a loss of income due to enlistment. They must make the sacrifice for this war, but Jonah and his ilk are above that. And as for baby daughters...
||| [Sgt. Anthony J. Davis Jr.], the 22-year-old Long Beach resident was killed Saturday in the restive city of Mosul when a passenger car filled with explosives rammed into the 19-ton, eight-wheel Stryker troop transport vehicle he was riding in [...] Michell said the news of Anthony's death hasn't quite sunk in, and she's drawing upon her close-knit family to keep herself together. One of the toughest aspects of his death is the fact that he didn't get to meet his youngest daughter,
Aniya, born two weeks after his deployment in October. |||
Lucky for Jonah, and the rest of his crew, it's getting exceedingly easier to sign up and turn words into action.
Two hundred miles away, in northern Ohio, another recruiter said the incident hardly surprised him. He has been bending or breaking enlistment rules for months, he said, hiding police records and medical histories of potential recruits. His commanders have encouraged such deception, he said, because they know there is no other way to meet the Army's stiff recruitment quotas. "The problem is that no one wants to join," the recruiter said. "We have to play fast and loose with the rules just to get by."
So why don't they enlist? Is it that they think they're too good to serve with the good men and women in the armed forces? Too middle-to-upper class? Too intelligent? Do they think the nation will suffer from their blogging and punditry absence? That they're doing more for the war effort than they could ever do so with a rifle in their hands? Or is it merely cowardice?
Except that "cowardice" is too light a word for those who claim to believe in a just cause, but would rather send others to die in the service of that cause.
After Pearl Harbor was bombed, Americans lined up at military recruitment offices to give themselves to their nation in its time of need. That was the true definition of patriotism, those men spoke truth to our national anthem's "home of the brave".
The cowards in the 101st Fighting Keyboardists are the polar opposite. They lay shame to our nation.
A READER - [Jonah Goldberg] looks to be of military age. Ask him why his sorry a** isn't in the kill zone."
JONAH GOLDERG - As for why my sorry a** isn't in the kill zone, lots of people think this is a searingly pertinent question. No answer I could give -- I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter, my a** is, er, sorry, are a few -- ever seem to suffice. But this chicken-hawk nonsense is something that's been batted around too many times to get into again here. What I do think is
interesting is that out of the thousands upon thousands of emails I've gotten from people in the military over the years, maybe a dozen have ever asked this question. Invariably, it's anti-war leftists who believe that their personally defined notions of hypocrisy trump any argument and any position. Meanwhile, the military guys have been overwhelmingly friendly and very often grateful for the support we offer around here.
[A response from the Daily Kos]
DAILY KOS - Well, the maximum enlistment age is now 38, so great news for Jonah and those in similar dire straits. His family can't afford lost income? Well, half of reservists have experience a loss of income due to enlistment. They must make the sacrifice for this war, but Jonah and his ilk are above that. And as for baby daughters...
||| [Sgt. Anthony J. Davis Jr.], the 22-year-old Long Beach resident was killed Saturday in the restive city of Mosul when a passenger car filled with explosives rammed into the 19-ton, eight-wheel Stryker troop transport vehicle he was riding in [...] Michell said the news of Anthony's death hasn't quite sunk in, and she's drawing upon her close-knit family to keep herself together. One of the toughest aspects of his death is the fact that he didn't get to meet his youngest daughter,
Aniya, born two weeks after his deployment in October. |||
Lucky for Jonah, and the rest of his crew, it's getting exceedingly easier to sign up and turn words into action.
Two hundred miles away, in northern Ohio, another recruiter said the incident hardly surprised him. He has been bending or breaking enlistment rules for months, he said, hiding police records and medical histories of potential recruits. His commanders have encouraged such deception, he said, because they know there is no other way to meet the Army's stiff recruitment quotas. "The problem is that no one wants to join," the recruiter said. "We have to play fast and loose with the rules just to get by."
So why don't they enlist? Is it that they think they're too good to serve with the good men and women in the armed forces? Too middle-to-upper class? Too intelligent? Do they think the nation will suffer from their blogging and punditry absence? That they're doing more for the war effort than they could ever do so with a rifle in their hands? Or is it merely cowardice?
Except that "cowardice" is too light a word for those who claim to believe in a just cause, but would rather send others to die in the service of that cause.
After Pearl Harbor was bombed, Americans lined up at military recruitment offices to give themselves to their nation in its time of need. That was the true definition of patriotism, those men spoke truth to our national anthem's "home of the brave".
The cowards in the 101st Fighting Keyboardists are the polar opposite. They lay shame to our nation.
NEWSWEEK RESIGNS FROM THE FREE PRESS
Sam Smith, Progressive Review Undernews
RELIABLE SOURCES inform us that Newsweek will no longer be using reliable sources. Instead it will be relying on such unreliable sources as professional message manipulators, bureaucrats with their asses in hock, political appointees on their way up, legislators funded by corporate payola and such demonstrable masters of prevarication as our current president
Newsweek reporters will still be allowed to talk to reliable sources, they just won't be able to quote or cite them unless the editor approves, which considerably diminishes their utility.
This is not a journalistic decision. It is a corporate, bureaucratic, and legalistic response to the deliberate abuse of a story by professional message manipulators, bureaucrats with their asses in hock, political appointees on their way up, legislators funded by corporate payola and such demonstrable masters of prevarication as our current president.
What we may expect from this rank journalistic cowardice can be found in a current Newsweek story, one paragraph of which includes the following:
"Simon Schorno, an [International Committee of the Red Cross] spokesman, said the Red Cross had provided 'several' instances that it believed were 'credible.' The ICRC report included three specific allegations of offensive treatment of the Qur'an by guards."
The remaining seven paragraphs consist of transmitting the Pentagon's line on the topic. In other words, the Red Cross is not to be trusted until the Pentagon says so.
If the sniveling, timorous corporate hacks running places such as Newseeek these days had been around in an earlier time, there would have been no Pentagon Papers, no Watergate, no countless other stories that essentially pitted the honesty of journalists and government whistleblowers against the manifold mendacities of agents of the state.
The justified conceit of a free press is that, on average, Michael Isikoff is going to tell you the truth more often than a Pentagon or White House press secretary. Finding this truth requires far more than documents and statements or the faithful stenography of faithless officials. It requires finding people who, rightfully in fear of their jobs, are at least willing to share a bit of the truth with a reporter
whose confidence they trust. It requires judgment, perception, and inductive reasoning on the part of the scribe and it requires considerable courage on the part of the whistleblower. Once you believe the journalist no more trustworthy than an official source you no longer need a free press.
What Newsweek has done is to resign from the free press. Its defection should be regarded with far more contempt than any occasional misinformed story or deceitful writer. Such problems come and go, but a massive capitulation to the government and officials sources will change the nature of journalism forever and, with it, the public's ability to find the truth.
RELIABLE SOURCES inform us that Newsweek will no longer be using reliable sources. Instead it will be relying on such unreliable sources as professional message manipulators, bureaucrats with their asses in hock, political appointees on their way up, legislators funded by corporate payola and such demonstrable masters of prevarication as our current president
Newsweek reporters will still be allowed to talk to reliable sources, they just won't be able to quote or cite them unless the editor approves, which considerably diminishes their utility.
This is not a journalistic decision. It is a corporate, bureaucratic, and legalistic response to the deliberate abuse of a story by professional message manipulators, bureaucrats with their asses in hock, political appointees on their way up, legislators funded by corporate payola and such demonstrable masters of prevarication as our current president.
What we may expect from this rank journalistic cowardice can be found in a current Newsweek story, one paragraph of which includes the following:
"Simon Schorno, an [International Committee of the Red Cross] spokesman, said the Red Cross had provided 'several' instances that it believed were 'credible.' The ICRC report included three specific allegations of offensive treatment of the Qur'an by guards."
The remaining seven paragraphs consist of transmitting the Pentagon's line on the topic. In other words, the Red Cross is not to be trusted until the Pentagon says so.
If the sniveling, timorous corporate hacks running places such as Newseeek these days had been around in an earlier time, there would have been no Pentagon Papers, no Watergate, no countless other stories that essentially pitted the honesty of journalists and government whistleblowers against the manifold mendacities of agents of the state.
The justified conceit of a free press is that, on average, Michael Isikoff is going to tell you the truth more often than a Pentagon or White House press secretary. Finding this truth requires far more than documents and statements or the faithful stenography of faithless officials. It requires finding people who, rightfully in fear of their jobs, are at least willing to share a bit of the truth with a reporter
whose confidence they trust. It requires judgment, perception, and inductive reasoning on the part of the scribe and it requires considerable courage on the part of the whistleblower. Once you believe the journalist no more trustworthy than an official source you no longer need a free press.
What Newsweek has done is to resign from the free press. Its defection should be regarded with far more contempt than any occasional misinformed story or deceitful writer. Such problems come and go, but a massive capitulation to the government and officials sources will change the nature of journalism forever and, with it, the public's ability to find the truth.
What Smoking Gun? Where?
By Robert Dreyfuss, TomPaine.com
Posted on May 23, 2005, Printed on May 25, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/22068/
We've all seen enough CSI to know that you can't ignore a smoking gun. But the media has so far pretty much ignored the so-called Downing Street memo, which implicated the Bush administration in falsifying intelligence in connection with the plan for war in Iraq. Let's try to understand why.
On the left, it's part of the catechism now that President Bush and his administration lied about the reasons for going to war against Iraq in 2003, and that they "cooked" the intelligence used to inflate the Iraqi threat. The over-baked intelligence was then used, wittingly, to justify claims that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, vast stockpiles of chemical and biological arms, SCUD missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver them, and, of course, ties to Al Qaeda that implicated Saddam Hussein in the events of 9/11.
On the right, the catechism says the opposite: that the Bush administration went to war in good faith, that U.S. intelligence functioned without political pressure to come up with its way-off-the-mark conclusions, and that not only did the weapons exist but that we might still find them if we keep looking--in Syria, perhaps?
Only one of these catechisms has the imprimatur of truth--which is why, 26 months after the war with Iraq began, it seems more important than ever to get to the bottom of it. Unfortunately, just as the United States has given up looking for Iraqi WMD, official Washington and the media have given up trying to see which one of these catechisms is phony. The proof is the utterly blasé reaction to what seems to be a true "smoking gun": the so-called Downing Street memo, based on verbatim U.S.-British talks in 2002, in which the British calmly reported that the United States had already decided to make war on Iraq and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." (MORE...)
Posted on May 23, 2005, Printed on May 25, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/22068/
We've all seen enough CSI to know that you can't ignore a smoking gun. But the media has so far pretty much ignored the so-called Downing Street memo, which implicated the Bush administration in falsifying intelligence in connection with the plan for war in Iraq. Let's try to understand why.
On the left, it's part of the catechism now that President Bush and his administration lied about the reasons for going to war against Iraq in 2003, and that they "cooked" the intelligence used to inflate the Iraqi threat. The over-baked intelligence was then used, wittingly, to justify claims that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, vast stockpiles of chemical and biological arms, SCUD missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver them, and, of course, ties to Al Qaeda that implicated Saddam Hussein in the events of 9/11.
On the right, the catechism says the opposite: that the Bush administration went to war in good faith, that U.S. intelligence functioned without political pressure to come up with its way-off-the-mark conclusions, and that not only did the weapons exist but that we might still find them if we keep looking--in Syria, perhaps?
Only one of these catechisms has the imprimatur of truth--which is why, 26 months after the war with Iraq began, it seems more important than ever to get to the bottom of it. Unfortunately, just as the United States has given up looking for Iraqi WMD, official Washington and the media have given up trying to see which one of these catechisms is phony. The proof is the utterly blasé reaction to what seems to be a true "smoking gun": the so-called Downing Street memo, based on verbatim U.S.-British talks in 2002, in which the British calmly reported that the United States had already decided to make war on Iraq and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." (MORE...)
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
What Really Happened at Guantanamo Bay?
By Laura Flanders, AlterNet
Posted on May 24, 2005, Printed on May 24, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/22078/
In their first article in Newsweek since the magazine received a dressing-down by Scott McClellan, Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas quote Defense Department spokesman Lawrence Di Rita, who alleges that Guantanamo commanders changed prison rules in response to prisoner complaints about treatment of the Qu'ran. But Di Rita's claims couldn't be further from the experience of Martin Mubanga, a recently freed Guantanamo Bay detainee who spoke to U.S. media for the first time this weekend.
Mubanga, a 32-year-old Londoner who was arrested in Zambia in 2002 and taken to Guantanamo, was released without charge in January 2005, after 33 months in captivity. He says that offensive treatment of the Qu'ran was ongoing, even routine, over the three years he was a prisoner. Mubanga says complaints by inmates about the desecration of the Qu'ran fell upon deaf ears, and often resulted in severe punishment, including pepper-spraying of prisoners.
Laura Flanders' exclusive interview with Martin Mubanga was produced by Christabel Nsiah-Buadi and broadcast on The Laura Flanders Show on Air America Radio on Sunday, May 22. What follows is an edited transcript of the interview.
Laura Flanders: Did Newsweek lie about abuse of the Qu'ran? What did you see?
Martin Mubanga: From my own personal experience and from what I know of what occurs in Guantanamo Bay, this is actually an ongoing thing for the past three years, so we don't need Newsweek to corroborate or substantiate these accusations. We who have been in Guantanamo Bay know that these and other things occur in degradation of our religion.
You described a situation where your cell was searched by six or seven military police and a Qu'ran was thrown to the ground. Can you explain why that was so offensive to you?
In our religion, firstly, the Qu'ran is believed to be the word of God, who we refer to as Allah in our religion. Basically the Qu'ran is supposed to be treated with respect and most people believe that the Qu'ran should be placed in a high place in a house or only taken with respect in a certain condition of purification or ablution. It's never to be placed on a floor, on a dirty floor or to be treated or to be mishandled in any way.
What did those six or seven military police do?
At the time, there was a story going around that I was supposed to be a top-notch fighter, as they said, and they tried to provoke me in many ways to see what I could do. This was one of the methods that was used to see if I would fight and I believe that's why they chose me on this particular occasion and threw the Qu'ran on the floor.
So, they came in, they threw the Qu'ran on the floor, then what happened?
Well, as I was saying, there were two on either side of me, holding my wrists as I was kneeling down, and they had me in wristlocks. And one of the three that were searching took my Qu'ran. And instead of replacing it, to its place, he threw that on the floor... Rahul [Ahmed, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, who was returned to Britain on March 9, 2004] from Tipton witnessed this and he was in the cage next to me. And he remonstrated the soldier, the MP who did this, which they ignored. They wanted to see if they could provoke a strong reaction from me. And obviously, I was not able to do anything at that time.
(More...)
Posted on May 24, 2005, Printed on May 24, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/22078/
In their first article in Newsweek since the magazine received a dressing-down by Scott McClellan, Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas quote Defense Department spokesman Lawrence Di Rita, who alleges that Guantanamo commanders changed prison rules in response to prisoner complaints about treatment of the Qu'ran. But Di Rita's claims couldn't be further from the experience of Martin Mubanga, a recently freed Guantanamo Bay detainee who spoke to U.S. media for the first time this weekend.
Mubanga, a 32-year-old Londoner who was arrested in Zambia in 2002 and taken to Guantanamo, was released without charge in January 2005, after 33 months in captivity. He says that offensive treatment of the Qu'ran was ongoing, even routine, over the three years he was a prisoner. Mubanga says complaints by inmates about the desecration of the Qu'ran fell upon deaf ears, and often resulted in severe punishment, including pepper-spraying of prisoners.
Laura Flanders' exclusive interview with Martin Mubanga was produced by Christabel Nsiah-Buadi and broadcast on The Laura Flanders Show on Air America Radio on Sunday, May 22. What follows is an edited transcript of the interview.
Laura Flanders: Did Newsweek lie about abuse of the Qu'ran? What did you see?
Martin Mubanga: From my own personal experience and from what I know of what occurs in Guantanamo Bay, this is actually an ongoing thing for the past three years, so we don't need Newsweek to corroborate or substantiate these accusations. We who have been in Guantanamo Bay know that these and other things occur in degradation of our religion.
You described a situation where your cell was searched by six or seven military police and a Qu'ran was thrown to the ground. Can you explain why that was so offensive to you?
In our religion, firstly, the Qu'ran is believed to be the word of God, who we refer to as Allah in our religion. Basically the Qu'ran is supposed to be treated with respect and most people believe that the Qu'ran should be placed in a high place in a house or only taken with respect in a certain condition of purification or ablution. It's never to be placed on a floor, on a dirty floor or to be treated or to be mishandled in any way.
What did those six or seven military police do?
At the time, there was a story going around that I was supposed to be a top-notch fighter, as they said, and they tried to provoke me in many ways to see what I could do. This was one of the methods that was used to see if I would fight and I believe that's why they chose me on this particular occasion and threw the Qu'ran on the floor.
So, they came in, they threw the Qu'ran on the floor, then what happened?
Well, as I was saying, there were two on either side of me, holding my wrists as I was kneeling down, and they had me in wristlocks. And one of the three that were searching took my Qu'ran. And instead of replacing it, to its place, he threw that on the floor... Rahul [Ahmed, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, who was returned to Britain on March 9, 2004] from Tipton witnessed this and he was in the cage next to me. And he remonstrated the soldier, the MP who did this, which they ignored. They wanted to see if they could provoke a strong reaction from me. And obviously, I was not able to do anything at that time.
(More...)
POST CONSTITUTIONAL AMERICA
CONGRESSMAN WANTS TO TURN US INTO A NATION OF SPIES
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/22048/
BILL PIPER, ALTERNET - A senior congressman, James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), is working quietly but efficiently to turn the entire United States population into informants--by force. Sensenbrenner, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman, has introduced legislation that would essentially draft every American into the war on drugs. . .
Here's how the "spy" section of the legislation works: If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" about them, you must report the offenses to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance in the investigation, apprehension and prosecution" of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory minimum two-year prison sentence, and a maximum sentence of 10 years.
Here are some examples of offenses you would have to report to police within 24 hours:
You find out that your brother, who has children, recently bought a small amount of marijuana to share with his wife; You discover that your son gave his college roommate a marijuana joint; You learn that your daughter asked her boyfriend to find her some drugs, even though they're both in treatment. In each of these cases you would have to report the relative to the police within 24 hours. Taking time to talk to your relative about treatment instead of calling the police immediately could
land you in jail.
In addition to turning family member against family member, the legislation could also put many Americans in danger by forcing them to go undercover to gain evidence against strangers.
Even if the language that forces every American to become a de facto law enforcement agent is taken out, the bill would still impose draconian sentences on college students, mothers, people in drug treatment and others with substance abuse problems. If enacted, this bill will destroy lives, break up families, and waste millions of taxpayer dollars.
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/22048/
BILL PIPER, ALTERNET - A senior congressman, James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), is working quietly but efficiently to turn the entire United States population into informants--by force. Sensenbrenner, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman, has introduced legislation that would essentially draft every American into the war on drugs. . .
Here's how the "spy" section of the legislation works: If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" about them, you must report the offenses to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance in the investigation, apprehension and prosecution" of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory minimum two-year prison sentence, and a maximum sentence of 10 years.
Here are some examples of offenses you would have to report to police within 24 hours:
You find out that your brother, who has children, recently bought a small amount of marijuana to share with his wife; You discover that your son gave his college roommate a marijuana joint; You learn that your daughter asked her boyfriend to find her some drugs, even though they're both in treatment. In each of these cases you would have to report the relative to the police within 24 hours. Taking time to talk to your relative about treatment instead of calling the police immediately could
land you in jail.
In addition to turning family member against family member, the legislation could also put many Americans in danger by forcing them to go undercover to gain evidence against strangers.
Even if the language that forces every American to become a de facto law enforcement agent is taken out, the bill would still impose draconian sentences on college students, mothers, people in drug treatment and others with substance abuse problems. If enacted, this bill will destroy lives, break up families, and waste millions of taxpayer dollars.
Prepare for Direct Corporate Rule (i.e.,Fascism)
May 20, 2005 | Prepare for the not-so-magnificent seven. With Republicans poised to pull the trigger on the nuclear option, President Bush's right-wing nominees ride again.
Their return -- all were blocked in the Senate their first time around -- is propelling the government into a crisis, as they prepare to take seats in federal appeals courts, the second highest position in the judicial branch of government, beneath only the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court. Democrats oppose them for their extreme judicial and political philosophy, what they consider a conservative version of "judicial activism."
An assessment of the nominees' records suggests that all consider government regulation a central problem, while they view private enterprise and property a bedrock constitutional right. These nominees are the most visible examples of a judicial nomination trend that the Center for Investigative Reporting discovered in examining all appeals court and court of federal claims nominees during George W. Bush's first term as president.
In the CIR study, 21 of 59 had a history of working as lawyers and lobbyists on behalf of the oil, gas and energy industries. This trend concerns legal scholars, who fear that long-term industry ties may raise questions about the judges' ability to be fair and objective. Rutgers University School of Law professor Jay Feinman told CIR, "Increasingly you will have federal courts with a pro-industry and anti-government perspective."
Some of the nominees' judicial philosophies were shaped while in the service of corporate clients (Owen, Saad, Pryor, McKeague and Myers), and some while working closely with the Republican Party (Pryor, Saad, Brown, McKeague and Myers). Democratic opponents see them potentially eroding public power and expanding private reach, while heartening the religious right on key issues such as abortion.
At stake is no less than Republican domination of all three branches of government -- not only to recast laws, but to extend their impact long after President Bush has left office, and undo a generation of legal precedents. Here's a look at the extremist credentials they would bring to the bench.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/20/7_judges/
Their return -- all were blocked in the Senate their first time around -- is propelling the government into a crisis, as they prepare to take seats in federal appeals courts, the second highest position in the judicial branch of government, beneath only the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court. Democrats oppose them for their extreme judicial and political philosophy, what they consider a conservative version of "judicial activism."
An assessment of the nominees' records suggests that all consider government regulation a central problem, while they view private enterprise and property a bedrock constitutional right. These nominees are the most visible examples of a judicial nomination trend that the Center for Investigative Reporting discovered in examining all appeals court and court of federal claims nominees during George W. Bush's first term as president.
In the CIR study, 21 of 59 had a history of working as lawyers and lobbyists on behalf of the oil, gas and energy industries. This trend concerns legal scholars, who fear that long-term industry ties may raise questions about the judges' ability to be fair and objective. Rutgers University School of Law professor Jay Feinman told CIR, "Increasingly you will have federal courts with a pro-industry and anti-government perspective."
Some of the nominees' judicial philosophies were shaped while in the service of corporate clients (Owen, Saad, Pryor, McKeague and Myers), and some while working closely with the Republican Party (Pryor, Saad, Brown, McKeague and Myers). Democratic opponents see them potentially eroding public power and expanding private reach, while heartening the religious right on key issues such as abortion.
At stake is no less than Republican domination of all three branches of government -- not only to recast laws, but to extend their impact long after President Bush has left office, and undo a generation of legal precedents. Here's a look at the extremist credentials they would bring to the bench.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/20/7_judges/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)