From Middle East Forex News:
UAE, Saudi considering to move reserves out of dollar
WASHINGTON — A number of Middle Eastern central banks said on Tuesday they would seek to switch reserves from the US greenback to euros.
The United Arab Emirates said it was considering moving one-tenth of its dollar reserves to the euro, while the governor of the Saudi Arabian central bank condemned the decision by the United States to force Dubai Ports World to transfer its ownership to a ‘US entity,’ the UK Independent reported.
“Is it protectionism or discrimination? Is it okay for US companies to buy everywhere but it is not okay for other companies to buy the US?” said Hamad Saud Al Sayyari, the governor of the Saudi Arabian monetary authority.
The head of the United Arab Emirates central bank, Sultan Nasser Al Suweidi, said the bank was considering converting 10 per cent of its reserves from dollars to euros.
“They are contravening their own principles,” said Al Suweidi. “Investors are going to take this into consideration (and) will look at investment opportunities through new binoculars.”
The Commercial Bank of Syria has already switched the state’s foreign currency transactions from dollars to euros, Duraid Durgham head of the state-owned bank said. The decision by the bank of Syria follows the announcement by the White House calling on all US financial institutions to end correspondent accounts with Syria due to money-laundering concerns.
Syria’s Finance Minister Mohammad Al Hussein said: “Syria affirms that this decision and its timing are fundamentally political.”-Khaleej Times Online
Wrap...
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
OMG!!!!
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/03/21/opinion/21tierney.html?pagewanted=print
Op-Ed Columnist
Passing the Dinar
By JOHN TIERNEY
Two months before the Iraq war began, David Kay reported to the Pentagon for a job in the agency being formed to run postwar Iraq. Kay, a former Defense Department scientist and weapons inspector in Iraq, was supposed to oversee the police.
He assumed this meant preparing for the looting and crime to be expected when any regime collapsed. But those problems didn't seem to be on anyone else's mind, he told me, recalling his first day on the job.
"I said our first priority should be to establish order quickly, but that was considered a peripheral issue," he said. "The attitude was that it's not a problem, and if something happens the military will deal with it. I had one of the worst feelings ever in my gut, that this was going over a cliff."
On his second day on the job, he resigned — an excellent career move in retrospect, although Kay doesn't believe it took any special clairvoyance. There were tough questions before the war, like figuring out whether Saddam had W.M.D. or forecasting the strength of the insurgency. But the looting and disorder were easily predictable, and Kay wasn't the only one making the predictions, as Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor document in their new book on the war, "Cobra II."
Before the war, Dick Mayer, a former policeman working for the Justice Department, came up with a plan to send in thousands of international police officers to maintain order after the invasion. But Pentagon officials bristled at the expense, and the White House rejected the plan.
A similar plan was proposed in a prewar briefing at the Pentagon by Robert Perito, a veteran of peacekeeping operations in other countries. He told the Defense Policy Board, the advisory group led by Richard Perle, that neither Iraqi authorities nor American soldiers could be counted on to maintain order, and that the U.S. should send in a constabulary force as soon as it occupied Iraq.
"The group at the Pentagon liked the concept and said it was a worthwhile thing to do," Perito told me. "But as one member put it, 'Not this war.' Their feeling was that the conflict in Iraq would be over so soon and things would be back to normal so quickly that it wasn't worth the effort."
Some Pentagon officials did warn of civil disorder and crime, but they didn't do anything about it. They passed the buck to Gen. Tommy Franks, even though he didn't have enough troops or money for the job and showed little interest in postwar planning. He simply assured President Bush that there would be a "lord mayor" in each city and large town to deal with civilian problems.
Looting, crime, mayhem — that was always someone else's department. The buck-passing reached its most absurd level at a briefing in the Situation Room just before the invasion, when Bush heard about the postwar plan to rely on Iraqis for law enforcement. According to Gordon and Trainor, the president was told of an intelligence report concluding that the Iraqi police "appeared to have extensive professional training."
That was like concluding that Inspector Clouseau appeared to be a master detective. During Saddam's era, when his security forces were the prime enforcers of order, the Iraqi police were notorious for corruption and lethargy. Officers waited for citizens to report crimes and expected bribes for investigating them. To the police, preventing crime, or even doing street patrols, was not their job.
When the regime fell, they didn't even protect their own police stations against the mobs of looters, a lack of professionalism that came as no surprise to the Iraqis I encountered shortly after the invasion. Nor were they surprised by the initial outbreak of violence against the buildings built by an oppressive regime.
But they were shocked at how little the Americans did in response. The looting went on so long that it became a regular job. Thieves methodically dismantled office towers, removing wires, pipes, walls, floors, escalators. In the summer of 2003, they took the "broken windows" theory of social disorder to a new level — to broken buildings — and Iraq has been paying the price ever since.
That summer, as Iraqis watched looters and criminals taking control, they kept asking why nobody put a stop to the crime. The answer from officials in Washington, it turns out, is the same one that would have been given by the old Iraqi police: not my job.
Wrap....
Op-Ed Columnist
Passing the Dinar
By JOHN TIERNEY
Two months before the Iraq war began, David Kay reported to the Pentagon for a job in the agency being formed to run postwar Iraq. Kay, a former Defense Department scientist and weapons inspector in Iraq, was supposed to oversee the police.
He assumed this meant preparing for the looting and crime to be expected when any regime collapsed. But those problems didn't seem to be on anyone else's mind, he told me, recalling his first day on the job.
"I said our first priority should be to establish order quickly, but that was considered a peripheral issue," he said. "The attitude was that it's not a problem, and if something happens the military will deal with it. I had one of the worst feelings ever in my gut, that this was going over a cliff."
On his second day on the job, he resigned — an excellent career move in retrospect, although Kay doesn't believe it took any special clairvoyance. There were tough questions before the war, like figuring out whether Saddam had W.M.D. or forecasting the strength of the insurgency. But the looting and disorder were easily predictable, and Kay wasn't the only one making the predictions, as Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor document in their new book on the war, "Cobra II."
Before the war, Dick Mayer, a former policeman working for the Justice Department, came up with a plan to send in thousands of international police officers to maintain order after the invasion. But Pentagon officials bristled at the expense, and the White House rejected the plan.
A similar plan was proposed in a prewar briefing at the Pentagon by Robert Perito, a veteran of peacekeeping operations in other countries. He told the Defense Policy Board, the advisory group led by Richard Perle, that neither Iraqi authorities nor American soldiers could be counted on to maintain order, and that the U.S. should send in a constabulary force as soon as it occupied Iraq.
"The group at the Pentagon liked the concept and said it was a worthwhile thing to do," Perito told me. "But as one member put it, 'Not this war.' Their feeling was that the conflict in Iraq would be over so soon and things would be back to normal so quickly that it wasn't worth the effort."
Some Pentagon officials did warn of civil disorder and crime, but they didn't do anything about it. They passed the buck to Gen. Tommy Franks, even though he didn't have enough troops or money for the job and showed little interest in postwar planning. He simply assured President Bush that there would be a "lord mayor" in each city and large town to deal with civilian problems.
Looting, crime, mayhem — that was always someone else's department. The buck-passing reached its most absurd level at a briefing in the Situation Room just before the invasion, when Bush heard about the postwar plan to rely on Iraqis for law enforcement. According to Gordon and Trainor, the president was told of an intelligence report concluding that the Iraqi police "appeared to have extensive professional training."
That was like concluding that Inspector Clouseau appeared to be a master detective. During Saddam's era, when his security forces were the prime enforcers of order, the Iraqi police were notorious for corruption and lethargy. Officers waited for citizens to report crimes and expected bribes for investigating them. To the police, preventing crime, or even doing street patrols, was not their job.
When the regime fell, they didn't even protect their own police stations against the mobs of looters, a lack of professionalism that came as no surprise to the Iraqis I encountered shortly after the invasion. Nor were they surprised by the initial outbreak of violence against the buildings built by an oppressive regime.
But they were shocked at how little the Americans did in response. The looting went on so long that it became a regular job. Thieves methodically dismantled office towers, removing wires, pipes, walls, floors, escalators. In the summer of 2003, they took the "broken windows" theory of social disorder to a new level — to broken buildings — and Iraq has been paying the price ever since.
That summer, as Iraqis watched looters and criminals taking control, they kept asking why nobody put a stop to the crime. The answer from officials in Washington, it turns out, is the same one that would have been given by the old Iraqi police: not my job.
Wrap....
IRS wants to put your tax info up for sale....
From Detroit Free Press:
IRS plan would allow sale of tax data to marketers
March 21, 2006
BY JEFF GELLES
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
PHILADELPHIA -- The Internal Revenue Service is quietly moving to loosen the once-inviolable privacy of federal income-tax returns.
If it succeeds, accountants and other tax-return preparers for the first time would be able to sell information from individual returns -- or even entire returns -- to marketers and data brokers.
The change is in a set of proposed rules the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Dec. 8 Federal Register, where the official notice labeled them "not a significant regulatory action."
IRS officials portray the changes as housecleaning needed to update outmoded regulations adopted before it began accepting returns electronically. The proposed rules, which would become effective 30 days after a final version is published, would require a tax preparer to obtain written consent before selling tax information.
Critics call the changes a dangerous breach in personal and financial privacy. They say the requirement for signed consent would prove meaningless for many taxpayers, especially those hurriedly reviewing stacks of documents before a filing deadline.
"The normal interaction is that the taxpayer just signs what the tax preparer puts in front of them," said Jean Ann Fox of the Consumer Federation of America, one of several groups fighting the changes. "They think, 'This person is a tax professional, and I'm going to rely on them.' "
Criticism of the proposal also came from U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. In a letter March 14 to IRS Commissioner Mark Everson, Obama warned that, once in the hands of third parties, tax information could be resold and handled under even looser rules than the IRS sets, increasing consumers' vulnerability to identity theft and other risks.
The IRS announced the proposal in a news release the day before the notice was published, headlined: "IRS Issues Proposed Regulations to Safeguard Taxpayer Information."
The announcement did not mention potential sales of tax information.
IRS spokesman William M. Cressman said, "The heart of this proposed regulation is about the right of taxpayers to control their tax return information. The idea is to emphasize taxpayer consent and set clear boundaries on how tax return preparers can use or disclose tax return information."
Wrap...
IRS plan would allow sale of tax data to marketers
March 21, 2006
BY JEFF GELLES
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
PHILADELPHIA -- The Internal Revenue Service is quietly moving to loosen the once-inviolable privacy of federal income-tax returns.
If it succeeds, accountants and other tax-return preparers for the first time would be able to sell information from individual returns -- or even entire returns -- to marketers and data brokers.
The change is in a set of proposed rules the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Dec. 8 Federal Register, where the official notice labeled them "not a significant regulatory action."
IRS officials portray the changes as housecleaning needed to update outmoded regulations adopted before it began accepting returns electronically. The proposed rules, which would become effective 30 days after a final version is published, would require a tax preparer to obtain written consent before selling tax information.
Critics call the changes a dangerous breach in personal and financial privacy. They say the requirement for signed consent would prove meaningless for many taxpayers, especially those hurriedly reviewing stacks of documents before a filing deadline.
"The normal interaction is that the taxpayer just signs what the tax preparer puts in front of them," said Jean Ann Fox of the Consumer Federation of America, one of several groups fighting the changes. "They think, 'This person is a tax professional, and I'm going to rely on them.' "
Criticism of the proposal also came from U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. In a letter March 14 to IRS Commissioner Mark Everson, Obama warned that, once in the hands of third parties, tax information could be resold and handled under even looser rules than the IRS sets, increasing consumers' vulnerability to identity theft and other risks.
The IRS announced the proposal in a news release the day before the notice was published, headlined: "IRS Issues Proposed Regulations to Safeguard Taxpayer Information."
The announcement did not mention potential sales of tax information.
IRS spokesman William M. Cressman said, "The heart of this proposed regulation is about the right of taxpayers to control their tax return information. The idea is to emphasize taxpayer consent and set clear boundaries on how tax return preparers can use or disclose tax return information."
Wrap...
Repubs reject investigating Downing St Memo...
From Secrecy News:
IN CONGRESS
A House resolution to investigate the so-called Downing Street memo on pre-war intelligence on Iraq was considered and rejected, along with two other resolutions on Iraq and the Valerie Plame case, in aSeptember 14, 2005 markup by the House Committee on International Relations.
A report of that Committee markup has now been published and is posted here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2005_rpt/downing091405.pdf
Wrap...
IN CONGRESS
A House resolution to investigate the so-called Downing Street memo on pre-war intelligence on Iraq was considered and rejected, along with two other resolutions on Iraq and the Valerie Plame case, in aSeptember 14, 2005 markup by the House Committee on International Relations.
A report of that Committee markup has now been published and is posted here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2005_rpt/downing091405.pdf
Wrap...
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Want intelligence? Here's Molly Ivins...
From:
http://creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=miv
AUSTIN, Texas -- President Bush has once more undertaken to explain to us "Why We Fight," which is also the title of an excellent new documentary on Iraq. According to the president, "Our goal in Iraq is victory." I personally did not find that a helpful clarification.
According to the president, we are doomed to stay in Iraq until we "leave behind a democracy that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself." That's not exactly getting closer every day. But, the Prez sez, "A free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will make the American people more secure for generations to come."
So far, no good. After three years, tens of thousands of lives and $200 billion, we have achieved chaos. As Rep. John Murtha put it, "The only people who want us in Iraq are Iran and al-Qaida."
Since the revisionist myth that we went to war to promote democracy keeps seeping into rational discussion, it is worth reminding ourselves that there never were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
We are inarguably facing more terrorists now than there were when we started, so the Pentagon has decided to fight what it is now calling "the Long War." Has anyone asked you about this? Me, neither. Nor has anyone asked Congress. The administration -- mostly Donald Rumsfeld -- just decided we would have a long war and declared it, and is now committing us to fight against a fuzzy ideology no one seems to be able to define.
Our problem now is that we're not fighting the people who attacked us -- they're still running around on the Afghan-Pakistan border while we battle Iraqis who don't like us occupying their country. As of Sept. 11, 2001, there were a few hundred people identified with al-Qaida's ideology. Even then, it was unclear the American military was the right tool for the job.
Now, Rumsfeld is apparently prepared to put the full might of the U.S. military into this fight indefinitely, backed by the full panoply of ever-more expensive weapons and the whole hoorah.
I don't think the people who got us into Iraq should be allowed to do this because, based on the evidence of Iraq, I don't think they have the sense God gave a duck.
On top of everything else, Rumsfeld is now circulating a grand strategy for the Long War written by Newt Gingrich. Am I the only person covering politics who ever noticed that Newt Gingrich is actually a nincompoop? When Newt bestrode the political world like a colossus (Time magazine's Man of the Year in 1995), many people took him seriously -- but he was a fool then, too.
The Republicans were so thrilled to have someone on their side who had ideas, they never seemed to notice Newt's were drivel. From orphanages to space colonies, it was all shallow but endearingly enthusiastic futurism. Gingrich was the kind of person who read a book or two on something and would then be quite afire as to how this was going to fit into some shining future.
Republicans are so amnesiac, they didn't even snicker when Newt turned up recently posing as a respected party elder to give them advice on ethics. Ethics. Next, family values.
I have no idea whom this administration plans to talk into its Long War, but I'm sure they won't roll out the new campaign in August. In order to sell this, they'll have to scare us, assuming some obliging terrorists don't do it for them.
I came across this quote in a recent obituary for George Gerbner, who headed the Annenberg School for Communication for 25 years: "Fearful people are more dependent, more easily manipulated and controlled, more susceptible to deceptively simple, strong, tough measures and hard-line postures. ... They may accept and even welcome repression if it promises to relieve their insecurities."
To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
Wrap...
http://creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=miv
AUSTIN, Texas -- President Bush has once more undertaken to explain to us "Why We Fight," which is also the title of an excellent new documentary on Iraq. According to the president, "Our goal in Iraq is victory." I personally did not find that a helpful clarification.
According to the president, we are doomed to stay in Iraq until we "leave behind a democracy that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself." That's not exactly getting closer every day. But, the Prez sez, "A free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will make the American people more secure for generations to come."
So far, no good. After three years, tens of thousands of lives and $200 billion, we have achieved chaos. As Rep. John Murtha put it, "The only people who want us in Iraq are Iran and al-Qaida."
Since the revisionist myth that we went to war to promote democracy keeps seeping into rational discussion, it is worth reminding ourselves that there never were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
We are inarguably facing more terrorists now than there were when we started, so the Pentagon has decided to fight what it is now calling "the Long War." Has anyone asked you about this? Me, neither. Nor has anyone asked Congress. The administration -- mostly Donald Rumsfeld -- just decided we would have a long war and declared it, and is now committing us to fight against a fuzzy ideology no one seems to be able to define.
Our problem now is that we're not fighting the people who attacked us -- they're still running around on the Afghan-Pakistan border while we battle Iraqis who don't like us occupying their country. As of Sept. 11, 2001, there were a few hundred people identified with al-Qaida's ideology. Even then, it was unclear the American military was the right tool for the job.
Now, Rumsfeld is apparently prepared to put the full might of the U.S. military into this fight indefinitely, backed by the full panoply of ever-more expensive weapons and the whole hoorah.
I don't think the people who got us into Iraq should be allowed to do this because, based on the evidence of Iraq, I don't think they have the sense God gave a duck.
On top of everything else, Rumsfeld is now circulating a grand strategy for the Long War written by Newt Gingrich. Am I the only person covering politics who ever noticed that Newt Gingrich is actually a nincompoop? When Newt bestrode the political world like a colossus (Time magazine's Man of the Year in 1995), many people took him seriously -- but he was a fool then, too.
The Republicans were so thrilled to have someone on their side who had ideas, they never seemed to notice Newt's were drivel. From orphanages to space colonies, it was all shallow but endearingly enthusiastic futurism. Gingrich was the kind of person who read a book or two on something and would then be quite afire as to how this was going to fit into some shining future.
Republicans are so amnesiac, they didn't even snicker when Newt turned up recently posing as a respected party elder to give them advice on ethics. Ethics. Next, family values.
I have no idea whom this administration plans to talk into its Long War, but I'm sure they won't roll out the new campaign in August. In order to sell this, they'll have to scare us, assuming some obliging terrorists don't do it for them.
I came across this quote in a recent obituary for George Gerbner, who headed the Annenberg School for Communication for 25 years: "Fearful people are more dependent, more easily manipulated and controlled, more susceptible to deceptively simple, strong, tough measures and hard-line postures. ... They may accept and even welcome repression if it promises to relieve their insecurities."
To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
Wrap...
Send Bush back to TX to do something useful...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031506T.shtml
Day of Reckoning for the Current Occupant
By Garrison Keillor
The Chicago Tribune
Wednesday 15 March 2006
Spring arrived in New York last week for previews, a sunny day with chill in the air, but you could smell mud, and with a little imagination you could sort of smell grass. I put on a gray jacket, instead of black, and went to the opera and saw Verdi's "Luisa Miller," a Republican opera in which love is crushed by the perfidiousness of government. A helpful lesson for these times. I am referring to the Current Occupant.
The Republican Revolution has gone the way of all flesh. It took over Congress and the White House, horns blew, church bells rang, sailors kissed each other, and what happened? The Republicans led us into a reckless foreign war and steered the economy toward receivership and wielded power as if there were no rules. Democrats are accused of having no new ideas, but Republicans are making some of the old ideas look awfully good, such as constitutional checks and balances, fiscal responsibility, and the notion of realism in foreign affairs and taking actions that serve the national interest. What one might call "conservatism."
The head of the National Security Agency under President Ronald Reagan, Lt. Gen. William Odom, writes on the Web site NiemanWatchdog.org that he sees clear parallels between Vietnam and Iraq: "The difference lies in the consequences. Vietnam did not have the devastating effects on US power that Iraq is already having." He draws the parallels in three stages and says that staying the course will only make the damage to US power greater. It's a chilling analysis, and one that isn't going to come from the Democratic Party. It's starting to come from Republicans, and they are the ones who must rescue the country from themselves.
I ran into a gray eminence from the Bush I era the other day in an airport, and he said that what most offended him about Bush II is the naked incompetence. "You may disagree with Republicans, but you always had to recognize that they knew what they were doing," he said. "I keep going back to that intelligence memo of August 2001, that said that terrorists had plans to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. The president read it, and he didn't even call a staff meeting to discuss it. That is lack of attention of a high order."
Over the course of time, the Chief Occupant has been cruelly exposed over and over. He sat and was briefed on the danger of a hurricane wiping out a major American city, and without asking a single question, he got up from the table and walked away and resumed his vacation. He played guitar as New Orleans was flooded. It took him four days to realize his responsibility to do something. When the tsunami killed 100,000 people in Southeast Asia, he was on vacation and it took him 72 hours to issue a statement of sympathy.
The Republicans tied their wagon to him and, as a result, their revolution is bankrupt. He has played the terrorism card for all it is worth and campaigned successfully against Adam and Steve and co-opted whole vast flocks of Christians, but he is done now, kaput, out of gas, for one simple reason. He doesn't represent the best that is our country. Not even close.
He openly, brazenly, countenanced crimes of torture at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram. He engaged in illegal surveillance, authorized the arrest of people without charge and "disappeared" them to foreign jails. And he finagled this war, which, after three years of violence, does not look to be heading toward a happy ending. And now it's up to Republicans to put their country first and call the gentleman to account.
The Current Occupant is smart about handling a political mess. The best strategy is to cut and run and change the subject. You defend the Dubai ports deal in manly terms until you lose a vote in a House committee and then you retreat - actually, you get the Dubai people to do it for you - and that's it, End of Story.
Harriet Miers was fully qualified one day and gone the next. Social Security was going to be overhauled to give us the Ownership Society, and then the stock market went in the toilet and Republicans got nervous, and suddenly it was Never Mind and on to the next new thing.
Let's bring the boys home. Otherwise, let's send this man back to Texas and see what sort of work he is capable of and let him start making a contribution to the world.
Garrison Keillor is an author and the radio host of "A Prairie Home Companion."
Wrap...
Day of Reckoning for the Current Occupant
By Garrison Keillor
The Chicago Tribune
Wednesday 15 March 2006
Spring arrived in New York last week for previews, a sunny day with chill in the air, but you could smell mud, and with a little imagination you could sort of smell grass. I put on a gray jacket, instead of black, and went to the opera and saw Verdi's "Luisa Miller," a Republican opera in which love is crushed by the perfidiousness of government. A helpful lesson for these times. I am referring to the Current Occupant.
The Republican Revolution has gone the way of all flesh. It took over Congress and the White House, horns blew, church bells rang, sailors kissed each other, and what happened? The Republicans led us into a reckless foreign war and steered the economy toward receivership and wielded power as if there were no rules. Democrats are accused of having no new ideas, but Republicans are making some of the old ideas look awfully good, such as constitutional checks and balances, fiscal responsibility, and the notion of realism in foreign affairs and taking actions that serve the national interest. What one might call "conservatism."
The head of the National Security Agency under President Ronald Reagan, Lt. Gen. William Odom, writes on the Web site NiemanWatchdog.org that he sees clear parallels between Vietnam and Iraq: "The difference lies in the consequences. Vietnam did not have the devastating effects on US power that Iraq is already having." He draws the parallels in three stages and says that staying the course will only make the damage to US power greater. It's a chilling analysis, and one that isn't going to come from the Democratic Party. It's starting to come from Republicans, and they are the ones who must rescue the country from themselves.
I ran into a gray eminence from the Bush I era the other day in an airport, and he said that what most offended him about Bush II is the naked incompetence. "You may disagree with Republicans, but you always had to recognize that they knew what they were doing," he said. "I keep going back to that intelligence memo of August 2001, that said that terrorists had plans to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. The president read it, and he didn't even call a staff meeting to discuss it. That is lack of attention of a high order."
Over the course of time, the Chief Occupant has been cruelly exposed over and over. He sat and was briefed on the danger of a hurricane wiping out a major American city, and without asking a single question, he got up from the table and walked away and resumed his vacation. He played guitar as New Orleans was flooded. It took him four days to realize his responsibility to do something. When the tsunami killed 100,000 people in Southeast Asia, he was on vacation and it took him 72 hours to issue a statement of sympathy.
The Republicans tied their wagon to him and, as a result, their revolution is bankrupt. He has played the terrorism card for all it is worth and campaigned successfully against Adam and Steve and co-opted whole vast flocks of Christians, but he is done now, kaput, out of gas, for one simple reason. He doesn't represent the best that is our country. Not even close.
He openly, brazenly, countenanced crimes of torture at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram. He engaged in illegal surveillance, authorized the arrest of people without charge and "disappeared" them to foreign jails. And he finagled this war, which, after three years of violence, does not look to be heading toward a happy ending. And now it's up to Republicans to put their country first and call the gentleman to account.
The Current Occupant is smart about handling a political mess. The best strategy is to cut and run and change the subject. You defend the Dubai ports deal in manly terms until you lose a vote in a House committee and then you retreat - actually, you get the Dubai people to do it for you - and that's it, End of Story.
Harriet Miers was fully qualified one day and gone the next. Social Security was going to be overhauled to give us the Ownership Society, and then the stock market went in the toilet and Republicans got nervous, and suddenly it was Never Mind and on to the next new thing.
Let's bring the boys home. Otherwise, let's send this man back to Texas and see what sort of work he is capable of and let him start making a contribution to the world.
Garrison Keillor is an author and the radio host of "A Prairie Home Companion."
Wrap...
Plight of foreign new bureaus....
From TomDispatch:
Connecting the Dots, Bush-Style
By Tom Engelhardt
As readers flee news on the printed page for an on-line life and classified ads head out the door for Craigslist and points west, the Washington Post became just the latest major newspaper to announce significant staff cuts. With fourth-quarter revenue down 3% from the previous year, eighty jobs -- 9% of the Post's newsroom –- are to be shed in the next twelve months. According to the New York Times, Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie, Jr. "said other cost savings could come from having foreign correspondents cover broad topics -- terrorism, say -- rather than cover specific countries, thus allowing for the elimination of some [Post] foreign bureaus."
This, of course, is the route that the TV news followed long ago, shedding foreign bureaus like so much flaky skin. Anyone who loves his or her daily dose of news in print should be dismayed at the thought of news bureaus abroad closing. It's just another way in which American isolation is likely to increase, as our bubble world, so prized by the Bush administration, continues to morph into something more permanent.
On the brighter side, though, assigning more reporters to "broad topics" might have an unexpectedly salutary effect. After all, one of the strangest aspects of the news in the Bush years has been its unwillingness to connect regional or global dots. In most cases, foreign reporting has consisted of stories about only one country (at most two) at a time.
Not so long ago, we lived in a world that the media regularly told us was being connected in ever more complex ways -- think of all that reporting on globalization in the 1990s. But for the last several years, "just disconnect" might have been the reigning news motto. If you read about the Iraq War, you get Iraq, and generally little else. No Turkey, no Israel, few Syrians, no Saudis, nor Egyptians. Reports on our little Afghan war give you Afghanistan, but certainly nothing about the fighters that, according to Syed Saleem Shahzad of Asia Times on-line, the resurgent Taliban, based in Pakistani border areas, has been sending to Iraq for training in the new ways of guerrilla warfare. (Think: IEDs and car bombs.) You would never know from stories in the American press that Iran bordered Afghanistan, or that both India and Russia have complex interests and connections there. And forget about the ‘Stans! of Central Asia.) Why exactly this has been so, I leave others to analyze. That it has left our major papers strangely demobilized when it comes to offering us a picture of our world and so in an unequal contest with the Bush administration is hard to deny.
After all, the administration's top officials have had a vision of American geopolitical dominance that has been nothing if not grandly global in nature. In their version of the Great Game, they seldom even bother to deal with one country at a time -- often, as in Iraq, to their detriment. It wasn't by happenstance that they named their "war" of choice the Global War on Terror (GWOT) or that they regularly label the Iraq War not a war at all but a "theater" in their GWOT. In military, political, or energy terms, they have never hesitated to connect the dots in a vast region they once termed the "arc of instability" -- basically, the planet's oil heartlands -- into patterns of imperial dominance.
Where newspaper reporting saw individual countries that happened to have enormous oil or natural gas reserves, this administration has, from the beginning, seen global energy flows. In many ways, Bush's top officials seemed to recognize no traditional boundaries at all. No wonder they were surprised by an insurgency largely based on gut feelings about national sovereignty.
Click here to read more of this dispatch.
Wrap...
Connecting the Dots, Bush-Style
By Tom Engelhardt
As readers flee news on the printed page for an on-line life and classified ads head out the door for Craigslist and points west, the Washington Post became just the latest major newspaper to announce significant staff cuts. With fourth-quarter revenue down 3% from the previous year, eighty jobs -- 9% of the Post's newsroom –- are to be shed in the next twelve months. According to the New York Times, Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie, Jr. "said other cost savings could come from having foreign correspondents cover broad topics -- terrorism, say -- rather than cover specific countries, thus allowing for the elimination of some [Post] foreign bureaus."
This, of course, is the route that the TV news followed long ago, shedding foreign bureaus like so much flaky skin. Anyone who loves his or her daily dose of news in print should be dismayed at the thought of news bureaus abroad closing. It's just another way in which American isolation is likely to increase, as our bubble world, so prized by the Bush administration, continues to morph into something more permanent.
On the brighter side, though, assigning more reporters to "broad topics" might have an unexpectedly salutary effect. After all, one of the strangest aspects of the news in the Bush years has been its unwillingness to connect regional or global dots. In most cases, foreign reporting has consisted of stories about only one country (at most two) at a time.
Not so long ago, we lived in a world that the media regularly told us was being connected in ever more complex ways -- think of all that reporting on globalization in the 1990s. But for the last several years, "just disconnect" might have been the reigning news motto. If you read about the Iraq War, you get Iraq, and generally little else. No Turkey, no Israel, few Syrians, no Saudis, nor Egyptians. Reports on our little Afghan war give you Afghanistan, but certainly nothing about the fighters that, according to Syed Saleem Shahzad of Asia Times on-line, the resurgent Taliban, based in Pakistani border areas, has been sending to Iraq for training in the new ways of guerrilla warfare. (Think: IEDs and car bombs.) You would never know from stories in the American press that Iran bordered Afghanistan, or that both India and Russia have complex interests and connections there. And forget about the ‘Stans! of Central Asia.) Why exactly this has been so, I leave others to analyze. That it has left our major papers strangely demobilized when it comes to offering us a picture of our world and so in an unequal contest with the Bush administration is hard to deny.
After all, the administration's top officials have had a vision of American geopolitical dominance that has been nothing if not grandly global in nature. In their version of the Great Game, they seldom even bother to deal with one country at a time -- often, as in Iraq, to their detriment. It wasn't by happenstance that they named their "war" of choice the Global War on Terror (GWOT) or that they regularly label the Iraq War not a war at all but a "theater" in their GWOT. In military, political, or energy terms, they have never hesitated to connect the dots in a vast region they once termed the "arc of instability" -- basically, the planet's oil heartlands -- into patterns of imperial dominance.
Where newspaper reporting saw individual countries that happened to have enormous oil or natural gas reserves, this administration has, from the beginning, seen global energy flows. In many ways, Bush's top officials seemed to recognize no traditional boundaries at all. No wonder they were surprised by an insurgency largely based on gut feelings about national sovereignty.
Click here to read more of this dispatch.
Wrap...
Saturday, March 18, 2006
So everybody goes over to the Sagebrush Cantina....
From the LA Times:
Smoking Ban Moves Outdoors
Calabasas makes it illegal to light up in public spaces, with fines up to $500. Some residents breathe easier, but others just fume.
By Bob Pool, Times Staff WriterMarch 18, 2006
As a pioneering public smoking ban went into effect Friday in Calabasas, enforcement came from a higher authority: Mother Nature.A pouring rainstorm snuffed out renegade smokers' cigarettes and sent them scurrying for cover as security guards began issuing warnings at the town's main shopping center.
"You could get a $500 citation," one of them advised Danielle Wakely of Westwood as she sat at an outside table at the Calabasas Commons mall and puffed on a Marlboro.
A moment earlier, shopper Erit Litvak had bummed a cigarette and a light from Wakely. She listened to the guard's warning with her mouth agape."I'm putting it out," Litvak, of Tarzana, exclaimed. "Am I in trouble?"
Calabasas, an upscale suburb perched on the western edge of the San Fernando Valley, was generating international attention for what appears to be the nation's first ban on smoking in all outdoor public spaces. Violators can be fined up to $500.
As the day wore on, smokers were playing a cat-and-mouse game with mall security. Cupping their cigarettes in their hands and hiding them under patio tables, they flipped them to the outdoor mall's damp sidewalks when guards approached.
While many anti-smoking forces have cheered Calabasas on as it adopted its new municipal ordinance, the effort has met a decidedly mixed reaction within the 13.2-square-mile city.Rain was pouring outside City Hall as Councilman Barry Groveman offered assurances that enforcement of what he diplomatically called the "secondhand smoke control ordinance" would be phased in gently. He had just finished fielding inquiries about the new law from reporters in Australia and Spain."We're making it acceptable to ask what has been an uncomfortable question until now: 'Would you please put that cigarette out?' " Groveman said. "We're putting the force of law behind it."He noted that the city is trying to accommodate those who just must light up.
The new ordinance allows property owners to apply to set up designated smoking areas outside businesses and offices. These must be at least 20 feet from entrances, walking paths or other areas where nonsmokers might be. So far, only two such areas exist, outside a Calabasas Road electronics firm and behind City Hall.During Friday's rainstorm, no one was using the City Hall smoking site next to a trash bin. Only one butt was visible in the ash tray.
The new rules exempt residences, backyards, balconies and patios unless they are adjacent to common areas, laundry rooms or apartment complex walkways.Not everyone at City Hall was rejoicing over the new law, however.
Calabasas graphic designer Roberta Iervolino was doing city data processing as part of a community service sentence she received for running a red light. She said she deplored the city's draconian actions — and felt they might say something more profound about the town."I'm not a smoker, but I think it's horrible. This is a free country. I don't think this is a good social trend," she said as she sat around the corner from a sign that announced that the use of cellphones in City Hall is prohibited, except in designated areas."I was running from my car to get here because it was raining. And as soon as I got in, a guy told me not to run," Iervolino said. "I guess that's the nature of the game around here. It's ridiculous."
Implementation of the law was something of a fluke, the woman who suggested it said Friday.
Calabasas High School graduate Margo Arnold, 19, said she was only asking for some sort of outdoor smoking controls for the Calabasas Commons mall when she addressed the City Council last June. She and boyfriend Matt Segal, also 19, had been forced to change tables outside the Mi Piace restaurant because of chain smokers. Later, then-Mayor Groveman told her that her suggestion was something that might be applied citywide, Arnold said.
Under the law, residents and municipal workers can report violations to the city, and the city attorney will determine whether to impose fines or other punishment.There were no reported violations as of midafternoon Friday, officials said.
At the shopping center, the sun was peeking out and so were cagey smokers.
But nonsmoker Marshall Goldman, a high school chemistry and physics teacher who has lived in Calabasas for 30 years, opposes the new ordinance."It is absurd — there's no secondhand smoke outside. I see no legal basis for this. You can't legislate courtesy," Goldman said.
Movie stunt coordinator George Fisher agreed."It's all about being rude. If somebody's offending someone else by smoking, they are being rude," said Fisher, who said he smokes cigars in his Calabasas backyard, which he estimated is a quarter-mile from his neighbor's house.Alan Melina, a Calabasas music producer, praised the law. "It's terrific. It's a little over the top, but I like a smoke-free environment," he said. Musician and composer Ray Parker Jr., best known for the "Ghostbusters" theme song, paused as he walked into the mall's Starbucks. He said he was glad somebody had called smokers on their habit — but was curious about how his city's new law would be enforced."I don't smoke and I'm happy you can go where there are no cigarettes. I choke out here when people are smoking. But you don't have to shoot them for it," Parker said.
The effect of the smoking ordinance was already wafting past city limits as the weekend approached.
At the Sagebrush Cantina on Calabasas Road, general manager Charlie Halstead was fielding phone calls from nervous patrons wanting to know if smoking was still allowed on its sprawling patio.The popular restaurant and bar is about six feet outside Calabasas — just inside the Los Angeles city limits."Everybody says, 'Oh, thank goodness,' " Halstead said.
Back at City Hall, Councilman Groveman passed a gallery of vintage photos of Calabasas pioneers. One showed pioneer Samuel Cooper holding a giant, hand-rolled cigarette. A notation on the circa-1956 picture states that Cooper "died the next day."But Cooper probably wasn't rolling over in his grave Friday, Groveman insisted."Samuel Cooper had no idea about the effects of secondhand smoke back then," he said.
Wrap...
Smoking Ban Moves Outdoors
Calabasas makes it illegal to light up in public spaces, with fines up to $500. Some residents breathe easier, but others just fume.
By Bob Pool, Times Staff WriterMarch 18, 2006
As a pioneering public smoking ban went into effect Friday in Calabasas, enforcement came from a higher authority: Mother Nature.A pouring rainstorm snuffed out renegade smokers' cigarettes and sent them scurrying for cover as security guards began issuing warnings at the town's main shopping center.
"You could get a $500 citation," one of them advised Danielle Wakely of Westwood as she sat at an outside table at the Calabasas Commons mall and puffed on a Marlboro.
A moment earlier, shopper Erit Litvak had bummed a cigarette and a light from Wakely. She listened to the guard's warning with her mouth agape."I'm putting it out," Litvak, of Tarzana, exclaimed. "Am I in trouble?"
Calabasas, an upscale suburb perched on the western edge of the San Fernando Valley, was generating international attention for what appears to be the nation's first ban on smoking in all outdoor public spaces. Violators can be fined up to $500.
As the day wore on, smokers were playing a cat-and-mouse game with mall security. Cupping their cigarettes in their hands and hiding them under patio tables, they flipped them to the outdoor mall's damp sidewalks when guards approached.
While many anti-smoking forces have cheered Calabasas on as it adopted its new municipal ordinance, the effort has met a decidedly mixed reaction within the 13.2-square-mile city.Rain was pouring outside City Hall as Councilman Barry Groveman offered assurances that enforcement of what he diplomatically called the "secondhand smoke control ordinance" would be phased in gently. He had just finished fielding inquiries about the new law from reporters in Australia and Spain."We're making it acceptable to ask what has been an uncomfortable question until now: 'Would you please put that cigarette out?' " Groveman said. "We're putting the force of law behind it."He noted that the city is trying to accommodate those who just must light up.
The new ordinance allows property owners to apply to set up designated smoking areas outside businesses and offices. These must be at least 20 feet from entrances, walking paths or other areas where nonsmokers might be. So far, only two such areas exist, outside a Calabasas Road electronics firm and behind City Hall.During Friday's rainstorm, no one was using the City Hall smoking site next to a trash bin. Only one butt was visible in the ash tray.
The new rules exempt residences, backyards, balconies and patios unless they are adjacent to common areas, laundry rooms or apartment complex walkways.Not everyone at City Hall was rejoicing over the new law, however.
Calabasas graphic designer Roberta Iervolino was doing city data processing as part of a community service sentence she received for running a red light. She said she deplored the city's draconian actions — and felt they might say something more profound about the town."I'm not a smoker, but I think it's horrible. This is a free country. I don't think this is a good social trend," she said as she sat around the corner from a sign that announced that the use of cellphones in City Hall is prohibited, except in designated areas."I was running from my car to get here because it was raining. And as soon as I got in, a guy told me not to run," Iervolino said. "I guess that's the nature of the game around here. It's ridiculous."
Implementation of the law was something of a fluke, the woman who suggested it said Friday.
Calabasas High School graduate Margo Arnold, 19, said she was only asking for some sort of outdoor smoking controls for the Calabasas Commons mall when she addressed the City Council last June. She and boyfriend Matt Segal, also 19, had been forced to change tables outside the Mi Piace restaurant because of chain smokers. Later, then-Mayor Groveman told her that her suggestion was something that might be applied citywide, Arnold said.
Under the law, residents and municipal workers can report violations to the city, and the city attorney will determine whether to impose fines or other punishment.There were no reported violations as of midafternoon Friday, officials said.
At the shopping center, the sun was peeking out and so were cagey smokers.
But nonsmoker Marshall Goldman, a high school chemistry and physics teacher who has lived in Calabasas for 30 years, opposes the new ordinance."It is absurd — there's no secondhand smoke outside. I see no legal basis for this. You can't legislate courtesy," Goldman said.
Movie stunt coordinator George Fisher agreed."It's all about being rude. If somebody's offending someone else by smoking, they are being rude," said Fisher, who said he smokes cigars in his Calabasas backyard, which he estimated is a quarter-mile from his neighbor's house.Alan Melina, a Calabasas music producer, praised the law. "It's terrific. It's a little over the top, but I like a smoke-free environment," he said. Musician and composer Ray Parker Jr., best known for the "Ghostbusters" theme song, paused as he walked into the mall's Starbucks. He said he was glad somebody had called smokers on their habit — but was curious about how his city's new law would be enforced."I don't smoke and I'm happy you can go where there are no cigarettes. I choke out here when people are smoking. But you don't have to shoot them for it," Parker said.
The effect of the smoking ordinance was already wafting past city limits as the weekend approached.
At the Sagebrush Cantina on Calabasas Road, general manager Charlie Halstead was fielding phone calls from nervous patrons wanting to know if smoking was still allowed on its sprawling patio.The popular restaurant and bar is about six feet outside Calabasas — just inside the Los Angeles city limits."Everybody says, 'Oh, thank goodness,' " Halstead said.
Back at City Hall, Councilman Groveman passed a gallery of vintage photos of Calabasas pioneers. One showed pioneer Samuel Cooper holding a giant, hand-rolled cigarette. A notation on the circa-1956 picture states that Cooper "died the next day."But Cooper probably wasn't rolling over in his grave Friday, Groveman insisted."Samuel Cooper had no idea about the effects of secondhand smoke back then," he said.
Wrap...
Thursday, March 16, 2006
BushCo: Spiritual Cripples...thirsty for blood...
From The Austin American Statesman via Information Clearing House:
Bone Thugs: Bush Puts America on Death Row
Written by Chris Floyd
Thursday, 16 March 2006
Hardened cynics often accuse President George W. Bush of ruthlessly exploiting
the tragedy of 9/11 to advance his pre-set agenda of killing a whole heap of foreigners.
This is, of course, a calumnious slander against the Dear Leader's noble ambitions.
For as he clearly demonstrated last week, Bush is also exploiting the tragedy of
9/11 to advance his pre-set agenda to kill a whole heap of Americans as well.
In yet another of those momentous degradations of public morality that go
unremarked by the ever-vigilant watchdogs of the national media, Bush slipped
a measure into the revamped "Patriot (sic) Act" he signed last week that will
allow him to expedite the death penalty process across the land, the Austin American-Statesman reports. Prisoners just aren't being killed fast enough for ole
George, you see. They hang on for years and years, using all them lawyer
tricks and court procedures and what all, that DNA hocus-pocus and habeas
corpus junk, or even new testimony showing that they're innocent – as if
that mattered. No, you got to strap 'em down and shoot 'em up with that
poison juice lickety-split, churn those convict corpses out like so much prime
pork sausage – the way ole George did it when he was head honcho down in Texas.
This remarkably vindictive and bloodthirsty measure – which has absolutely
nothing to do with the "war on terrorism" or "homeland security," the ostensible
subjects of the Patriot Act – strips the judiciary of its supervision over state-devised
"fast track" procedures to speed up the execution process. The history of the
move actually goes back to that remarkably vindictive and bloodthirsty precursor
to the Bush Regime known as the Reagan Administration. During that glorious
"morning in America," it became all the rage to "cut the red tape" that kept
prisoners alive until the appeals process had run its course and determined there
were no egregious errors in their cases before the government killed them.
The tape-cutting crusade was led by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who
once ruled that even new proof of innocence was no bar to killing a prisoner if state
courts had earlier upheld his conviction, the Washington Times reports. Urged
on by Rehnquist – who was executed by God last year – several states went the
fast-track route, limiting the time that prisoners have to file petitions and narrowing
the range of factors that judges can consider in death-row appeals.
Unfortunately, America's courts were not yet fully packed with hard-right cadres,
and even the vulturous Rehnquist couldn't keep them all in line. Fast-track options
in state after state were struck down by federal judges – because the fast-trackers'
overall death penalty systems were such a shambles, riddled with literally fatal
incompetence. One glaring example could be found in – where else? – Texas, where
Guv Dub was mowing them down on his way to becoming the greatest mass killer
in modern American history, with 152 notches on his belt.
Bush had set up a veritable execution assembly line in his fiefdom, aided by his
trusty legal aide, Alberto Gonzales. Knowing just what the boss wanted, Al would
prepare dumbed-down capsules of death penalty cases, stripping away pesky
details like "ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence and even
actual evidence of innocence," as Alan Berlow reported in the Atlantic Monthly.
Bush would "sometimes" bother to look at the reports, sometimes not, Gonzales
said. In his six years as governor, Bush spared only one condemned prisoner from
execution: the serial killer Henry Lee Lucas. All the rest – including women, juvenile
offenders, even the mentally retarded – got the spike.
Yet one in every eight death row inmates have been exonerated since America
resumed the death penalty in 1976, the Washington Times reports – an astonishing
percentage of false imprisonment in capital cases. It is virtually impossible that
Bush did not kill some innocent people with his relentless 152-1 execution ratio.
In 1996, the courts put a crimp in Bush's carnival of death, ruling that Texas failed
to meet "minimum competency standards" for the fast-track system. He had to
make do with the old-fashioned appeals process, which slowed but never stopped
his killing spree: he averaged almost two executions a month during the course of
his term.
But he never forgot – or forgave – the judicial interference with his dominion over
life and death. How it must have rankled, to think that this judicial brake on wholesale
state-sponsored slaughter still existed in the Homeland, when he – the great
Commander, breaker of nations – could now order the "extra-judicial killing" of
anyone on earth whom he arbitrarily deemed a "terrorist" and send mighty armies
to grind tens of thousands of people into bloody mulch. Who would dare put fetters
on the god-like sway of the "unitary executive"?
So now he has taken his revenge. The backdoor measure in the Patriot Act decrees
that responsibility for awarding fast-track death-penalty status to the states will
now be the sole prerogative of the U.S. Attorney General – one Alberto Gonzales.
Yes, the fawning minion whose perversions of law on behalf of his boss have abetted
murderous war, systematic torture, mass corruption, assassination, abduction,
rendition, dictatorship – and the slipshod Texas death machinery – will now decide
if states are legally scrupulous enough to resume lickety-split executions. You can
hear those sausage grinders gearing up all over America.
God only knows what festering psychic wounds drive these spiritual cripples and
their obsession with death. But for them, power isn't real unless it's written on the
body of another human being – a prisoner, guilty or not; an "enemy," real or imagined;
or the multitude of slaughtered innocents whose only crime was living in a land that
the cripples wanted to conquer.
Chris Floyd
This is an expanded version of the column appearing in the March 17 edition of
The Moscow Times. .
Wrap...
Bone Thugs: Bush Puts America on Death Row
Written by Chris Floyd
Thursday, 16 March 2006
Hardened cynics often accuse President George W. Bush of ruthlessly exploiting
the tragedy of 9/11 to advance his pre-set agenda of killing a whole heap of foreigners.
This is, of course, a calumnious slander against the Dear Leader's noble ambitions.
For as he clearly demonstrated last week, Bush is also exploiting the tragedy of
9/11 to advance his pre-set agenda to kill a whole heap of Americans as well.
In yet another of those momentous degradations of public morality that go
unremarked by the ever-vigilant watchdogs of the national media, Bush slipped
a measure into the revamped "Patriot (sic) Act" he signed last week that will
allow him to expedite the death penalty process across the land, the Austin American-Statesman reports. Prisoners just aren't being killed fast enough for ole
George, you see. They hang on for years and years, using all them lawyer
tricks and court procedures and what all, that DNA hocus-pocus and habeas
corpus junk, or even new testimony showing that they're innocent – as if
that mattered. No, you got to strap 'em down and shoot 'em up with that
poison juice lickety-split, churn those convict corpses out like so much prime
pork sausage – the way ole George did it when he was head honcho down in Texas.
This remarkably vindictive and bloodthirsty measure – which has absolutely
nothing to do with the "war on terrorism" or "homeland security," the ostensible
subjects of the Patriot Act – strips the judiciary of its supervision over state-devised
"fast track" procedures to speed up the execution process. The history of the
move actually goes back to that remarkably vindictive and bloodthirsty precursor
to the Bush Regime known as the Reagan Administration. During that glorious
"morning in America," it became all the rage to "cut the red tape" that kept
prisoners alive until the appeals process had run its course and determined there
were no egregious errors in their cases before the government killed them.
The tape-cutting crusade was led by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who
once ruled that even new proof of innocence was no bar to killing a prisoner if state
courts had earlier upheld his conviction, the Washington Times reports. Urged
on by Rehnquist – who was executed by God last year – several states went the
fast-track route, limiting the time that prisoners have to file petitions and narrowing
the range of factors that judges can consider in death-row appeals.
Unfortunately, America's courts were not yet fully packed with hard-right cadres,
and even the vulturous Rehnquist couldn't keep them all in line. Fast-track options
in state after state were struck down by federal judges – because the fast-trackers'
overall death penalty systems were such a shambles, riddled with literally fatal
incompetence. One glaring example could be found in – where else? – Texas, where
Guv Dub was mowing them down on his way to becoming the greatest mass killer
in modern American history, with 152 notches on his belt.
Bush had set up a veritable execution assembly line in his fiefdom, aided by his
trusty legal aide, Alberto Gonzales. Knowing just what the boss wanted, Al would
prepare dumbed-down capsules of death penalty cases, stripping away pesky
details like "ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence and even
actual evidence of innocence," as Alan Berlow reported in the Atlantic Monthly.
Bush would "sometimes" bother to look at the reports, sometimes not, Gonzales
said. In his six years as governor, Bush spared only one condemned prisoner from
execution: the serial killer Henry Lee Lucas. All the rest – including women, juvenile
offenders, even the mentally retarded – got the spike.
Yet one in every eight death row inmates have been exonerated since America
resumed the death penalty in 1976, the Washington Times reports – an astonishing
percentage of false imprisonment in capital cases. It is virtually impossible that
Bush did not kill some innocent people with his relentless 152-1 execution ratio.
In 1996, the courts put a crimp in Bush's carnival of death, ruling that Texas failed
to meet "minimum competency standards" for the fast-track system. He had to
make do with the old-fashioned appeals process, which slowed but never stopped
his killing spree: he averaged almost two executions a month during the course of
his term.
But he never forgot – or forgave – the judicial interference with his dominion over
life and death. How it must have rankled, to think that this judicial brake on wholesale
state-sponsored slaughter still existed in the Homeland, when he – the great
Commander, breaker of nations – could now order the "extra-judicial killing" of
anyone on earth whom he arbitrarily deemed a "terrorist" and send mighty armies
to grind tens of thousands of people into bloody mulch. Who would dare put fetters
on the god-like sway of the "unitary executive"?
So now he has taken his revenge. The backdoor measure in the Patriot Act decrees
that responsibility for awarding fast-track death-penalty status to the states will
now be the sole prerogative of the U.S. Attorney General – one Alberto Gonzales.
Yes, the fawning minion whose perversions of law on behalf of his boss have abetted
murderous war, systematic torture, mass corruption, assassination, abduction,
rendition, dictatorship – and the slipshod Texas death machinery – will now decide
if states are legally scrupulous enough to resume lickety-split executions. You can
hear those sausage grinders gearing up all over America.
God only knows what festering psychic wounds drive these spiritual cripples and
their obsession with death. But for them, power isn't real unless it's written on the
body of another human being – a prisoner, guilty or not; an "enemy," real or imagined;
or the multitude of slaughtered innocents whose only crime was living in a land that
the cripples wanted to conquer.
Chris Floyd
This is an expanded version of the column appearing in the March 17 edition of
The Moscow Times. .
Wrap...
Had to grin at some of these new books coming...
From Publishers Lunch Weekly:
FICTION/DEBUT:
Iranian-American Anita Amirrezvani's debut THE BLOOD OF FLOWERS, eight years in the making, an historical novel set in 17th century Iran, to Judy Clain at Little, Brown, at auction, by Emma Sweeney at the Emma Sweeney Agency.
Rights to Mondadori in Italy, and Livorno in Greece, in pre-empts. Auctions are still underway in Holland and Germany, with offers and/or auction plans in numerous other territories.
THRILLER:
The Queen of the South and Captain Alatriste author Arturo Prez-Reverte's story of a war photographer who is being pursued with murderous intent by the subject of one of his most famous images, to Jennifer Hershey of Random House, by Howard Morhaim of the Howard Morhaim Literary Agency (NA).
THE LAST TEMPLAR author Raymond Khoury's next novel, another high-concept thriller, again to Dutton, by Jay Mandel at William Morris Agency, and his next two novels to Orion in the UK.
GENERAL/OTHER:
Mohsin Hamid's second novel THE RELUCTANT FUNDAMENTALIST, about a young, Princeton-educated Pakistani working in NY and in love with society woman who must decide where his true loyalties lie in a post 9/11 world, to Becky Saletan at Harcourt (she published his first novel at FSG), for publication in spring 2007, by Jay Mandel at the William Morris Agency (NA).
UK rights to Simon Prosser at Hamish Hamilton, in a pre-empt, by Eugenie Furniss at William Morris UK. Dutch rights to De Bezige Bij.
UK:
Chetan Bhagat's ONE NIGHT AT THE CALL CENTRE, Richard Curtis meets 'The Office', exposing the culture of call centers in India, about six troubled friends who one night get a call from God, to Jane Lawson for Doubleday/Black Swan, in a nice deal, by Mary Clemmey, on behalf of Rupa & Company.j.lawson@transworld-publishers.co.uk
BIOGRAPHY:
Simon Nasht's THE LAST EXPLORER: Hubert Wilkins: Hero of the Great Age of Exploration (NO MORE BEYOND in the UK), from his childhood in outback Australia and his achievements as war photographer in WWI, spy, scientist, adventurer on air and sea, world-wide celebrity, and eventually mystic, to Cal Barksdale at Arcade and Hugh Andrew at Birlinn, for publication in October 2006, by Isobel Dixon of Blake Friedmann.
Brian Jones's WASHINGTON IRVING, a new biography of the first American writer to make his pen his primary means of support, author of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow and Rip van Winkle, quintessential New Yorker, presidential confidant, diplomat, lawyer, and more, to Casey Ebro at Arcade, for publication in spring 2007, by Jonathan Lyons at McIntosh & Otis (NA).
HISTORY/POLITICS/CURRENT AFFAIRS:
Tom Murphy's RECLAIMING THE SKY: Aviation's Untold Story of Heroism and Hope from the Ground Up, exploring the untold side of events of 9/11 by the lead ground aviation employees at Newark, Logan, and Dulles airports expecting a routine day, to Jacquie Flynn at Amacom, for publication on 9/11/2006, in a nice deal, by Sharlene Martin at Martin Literary Management (world). Sharlene@MartinLiteraryManagement.com
LAT investigative reporter Stephen Braun and BLOOD FROM STONES author Douglas Farah's MERCHANTS OF DEATH, about America's dangerous love-hate relationship with gray-market military contractors, especially Viktor Bout, to Eric Nelson at Wiley, in a very nice deal, by Gail Ross at Gail Ross Literary Agency (world).monorato@wiley.com
NARRATIVE:
Queen's University in Toronto instructor Ana Siljak's THE GIRL ASSASSIN: Vera Zasulich and Russia's Trial of the Century, about an aristocrat who attempted to assassinate the governor of St. Petersburg in 1878, and her trial, to Diane Reverand at St. Martin's, in a pre-empt, by Henry Dunow at Dunow, Carlson & Lerner.diane.reverand@stmartins.com
UK:
Tim Hilton's biography of Vincent Van Gogh, to Arabella Pike at Harper, for publication in 2009, by Sarah Lutyens at Lutyens & Rubinstein. Italian rights to Mondadori.
Jasvinder Sanghera's memoir of leaving home at age 14 to avoid a forced marriage (she went on to create a refuge for Asian women trying to escape forced marriages and related dire consequences), to Rupert Lancaster at Hodder & Stoughton, in a pre-empt, by Mark Lucas at Lucas Alexander Whitley (UK/Commonwealth).
FOREIGN:
Anna Porter's THE STORYTELLER: Memory, Secrets, Magic and Lies, originally published in 2000, will be published in fall 2006 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution, and KASZTNER'S TRAIN, set during the last years of WWII in Budapest, and focuses on the heroic efforts of a Hungarian Jew to save the Jews of the city, for publication in fall 2007, to Douglas & McIntyre, the latter in partnership with Walker, by John Pearce at Westwood Creative Artists (NA).
Wrap...
FICTION/DEBUT:
Iranian-American Anita Amirrezvani's debut THE BLOOD OF FLOWERS, eight years in the making, an historical novel set in 17th century Iran, to Judy Clain at Little, Brown, at auction, by Emma Sweeney at the Emma Sweeney Agency.
Rights to Mondadori in Italy, and Livorno in Greece, in pre-empts. Auctions are still underway in Holland and Germany, with offers and/or auction plans in numerous other territories.
THRILLER:
The Queen of the South and Captain Alatriste author Arturo Prez-Reverte's story of a war photographer who is being pursued with murderous intent by the subject of one of his most famous images, to Jennifer Hershey of Random House, by Howard Morhaim of the Howard Morhaim Literary Agency (NA).
THE LAST TEMPLAR author Raymond Khoury's next novel, another high-concept thriller, again to Dutton, by Jay Mandel at William Morris Agency, and his next two novels to Orion in the UK.
GENERAL/OTHER:
Mohsin Hamid's second novel THE RELUCTANT FUNDAMENTALIST, about a young, Princeton-educated Pakistani working in NY and in love with society woman who must decide where his true loyalties lie in a post 9/11 world, to Becky Saletan at Harcourt (she published his first novel at FSG), for publication in spring 2007, by Jay Mandel at the William Morris Agency (NA).
UK rights to Simon Prosser at Hamish Hamilton, in a pre-empt, by Eugenie Furniss at William Morris UK. Dutch rights to De Bezige Bij.
UK:
Chetan Bhagat's ONE NIGHT AT THE CALL CENTRE, Richard Curtis meets 'The Office', exposing the culture of call centers in India, about six troubled friends who one night get a call from God, to Jane Lawson for Doubleday/Black Swan, in a nice deal, by Mary Clemmey, on behalf of Rupa & Company.j.lawson@transworld-publishers.co.uk
BIOGRAPHY:
Simon Nasht's THE LAST EXPLORER: Hubert Wilkins: Hero of the Great Age of Exploration (NO MORE BEYOND in the UK), from his childhood in outback Australia and his achievements as war photographer in WWI, spy, scientist, adventurer on air and sea, world-wide celebrity, and eventually mystic, to Cal Barksdale at Arcade and Hugh Andrew at Birlinn, for publication in October 2006, by Isobel Dixon of Blake Friedmann.
Brian Jones's WASHINGTON IRVING, a new biography of the first American writer to make his pen his primary means of support, author of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow and Rip van Winkle, quintessential New Yorker, presidential confidant, diplomat, lawyer, and more, to Casey Ebro at Arcade, for publication in spring 2007, by Jonathan Lyons at McIntosh & Otis (NA).
HISTORY/POLITICS/CURRENT AFFAIRS:
Tom Murphy's RECLAIMING THE SKY: Aviation's Untold Story of Heroism and Hope from the Ground Up, exploring the untold side of events of 9/11 by the lead ground aviation employees at Newark, Logan, and Dulles airports expecting a routine day, to Jacquie Flynn at Amacom, for publication on 9/11/2006, in a nice deal, by Sharlene Martin at Martin Literary Management (world). Sharlene@MartinLiteraryManagement.com
LAT investigative reporter Stephen Braun and BLOOD FROM STONES author Douglas Farah's MERCHANTS OF DEATH, about America's dangerous love-hate relationship with gray-market military contractors, especially Viktor Bout, to Eric Nelson at Wiley, in a very nice deal, by Gail Ross at Gail Ross Literary Agency (world).monorato@wiley.com
NARRATIVE:
Queen's University in Toronto instructor Ana Siljak's THE GIRL ASSASSIN: Vera Zasulich and Russia's Trial of the Century, about an aristocrat who attempted to assassinate the governor of St. Petersburg in 1878, and her trial, to Diane Reverand at St. Martin's, in a pre-empt, by Henry Dunow at Dunow, Carlson & Lerner.diane.reverand@stmartins.com
UK:
Tim Hilton's biography of Vincent Van Gogh, to Arabella Pike at Harper, for publication in 2009, by Sarah Lutyens at Lutyens & Rubinstein. Italian rights to Mondadori.
Jasvinder Sanghera's memoir of leaving home at age 14 to avoid a forced marriage (she went on to create a refuge for Asian women trying to escape forced marriages and related dire consequences), to Rupert Lancaster at Hodder & Stoughton, in a pre-empt, by Mark Lucas at Lucas Alexander Whitley (UK/Commonwealth).
FOREIGN:
Anna Porter's THE STORYTELLER: Memory, Secrets, Magic and Lies, originally published in 2000, will be published in fall 2006 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution, and KASZTNER'S TRAIN, set during the last years of WWII in Budapest, and focuses on the heroic efforts of a Hungarian Jew to save the Jews of the city, for publication in fall 2007, to Douglas & McIntyre, the latter in partnership with Walker, by John Pearce at Westwood Creative Artists (NA).
Wrap...
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
The dreaded Carlisle Group strikes again...
Take a look at this:
Carlyle Group Explores Acquisition of Port Operationshttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031406A.shtmlPrivate equity firm The Carlyle Group established a team to acquire public-purpose facilities, such as ports, a day after a United Arab Emirates company said it would transfer newly acquired operations at American ports to a US organization.
Wrap...
Carlyle Group Explores Acquisition of Port Operationshttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031406A.shtmlPrivate equity firm The Carlyle Group established a team to acquire public-purpose facilities, such as ports, a day after a United Arab Emirates company said it would transfer newly acquired operations at American ports to a US organization.
Wrap...
There are books...and then there are BOOKS!!!
And I've just had the pleasure of reading two top-notch fictions. In Feb, there was Robert Ferrigno's "Prayers For the Assassin"...one astounding, unbelievable situtation set in the USA, a few years in the future. I was just horrorified by the scenario Ferrigno set up, with the top half of the nation Islamic and the bottom half Bible Belt. Still horrifies me to think of such a thing.
Then, several days ago, here comes Chris Fox's "The Devil's Halo". Lemme tell you right now, you don't EVER, under any circumstances, want to see one of those. "The Devil's Halo" is an extraordinary tale about a guy involved in industrial espionage. So okay...most of us think we know what that is...people from one country sneaking in and stealing industrial secrets from another country. Hah. Talk about understatements. From the time I started that novel, my hair was standing on end. I've seen narrow escapes, but I've not seen anything to match what happens to the main characters here. There are villains that more than match-up with the brains and capabilities of the heroes. Action moves all over Russia and Europe, into and out of the US, and launches into deep space. All backed up by technical, military, govenmental and industrial details that the reader had best pay close attention to. If one ever wanted to know how things work at all those levels, here's one fascinating place to learn. "The Devil's Halo" is one complex piece of work. Played hell with my adrenaline levels, I can tell you that.
Chris Fox has created one awesome piece of work here. Published by Hutchinson, a division of Random House Limited in London, I learned it's also available on Amazon.com. Good thing. And I'm left looking at this computer through narrowed eyes. Industrial electronics...quantum theory...love and kisses...torture...espionage...intel...Delta Force...and most devastatingly horrifying, the monstrous Devil's Halo. Whoa!!!
Of course the joy of it all, when I find a novel this good, is turning it over to a particular person with more expertise in the area and eventually enjoying what he has to say. In this case, "The Devil's Halo" will be put in the hands of a dear friend and fellow writer who worked for the NSA and knows things I will never know about the territory Chris Fox has chosen to examine. Is he ever gonna love this book!
And just this morn I've just been informed that I'm going to be forced to wait until the end of May to get hold of T.J. Waters' "Class 11", the first CIA training class formed after 9/11. It's been vetted by CIA people but publication keeps getting postponed....I begin to seriously wonder about that....yeah.....
Last, but most assuredly not least, I've just pre-ordered the newest novel of one of my favorite writers. Lee Child's "The Hard Way" will also be out in May. Hah. Excellent. And another long wait for the truly good stuff continues...
Wrap...
Then, several days ago, here comes Chris Fox's "The Devil's Halo". Lemme tell you right now, you don't EVER, under any circumstances, want to see one of those. "The Devil's Halo" is an extraordinary tale about a guy involved in industrial espionage. So okay...most of us think we know what that is...people from one country sneaking in and stealing industrial secrets from another country. Hah. Talk about understatements. From the time I started that novel, my hair was standing on end. I've seen narrow escapes, but I've not seen anything to match what happens to the main characters here. There are villains that more than match-up with the brains and capabilities of the heroes. Action moves all over Russia and Europe, into and out of the US, and launches into deep space. All backed up by technical, military, govenmental and industrial details that the reader had best pay close attention to. If one ever wanted to know how things work at all those levels, here's one fascinating place to learn. "The Devil's Halo" is one complex piece of work. Played hell with my adrenaline levels, I can tell you that.
Chris Fox has created one awesome piece of work here. Published by Hutchinson, a division of Random House Limited in London, I learned it's also available on Amazon.com. Good thing. And I'm left looking at this computer through narrowed eyes. Industrial electronics...quantum theory...love and kisses...torture...espionage...intel...Delta Force...and most devastatingly horrifying, the monstrous Devil's Halo. Whoa!!!
Of course the joy of it all, when I find a novel this good, is turning it over to a particular person with more expertise in the area and eventually enjoying what he has to say. In this case, "The Devil's Halo" will be put in the hands of a dear friend and fellow writer who worked for the NSA and knows things I will never know about the territory Chris Fox has chosen to examine. Is he ever gonna love this book!
And just this morn I've just been informed that I'm going to be forced to wait until the end of May to get hold of T.J. Waters' "Class 11", the first CIA training class formed after 9/11. It's been vetted by CIA people but publication keeps getting postponed....I begin to seriously wonder about that....yeah.....
Last, but most assuredly not least, I've just pre-ordered the newest novel of one of my favorite writers. Lee Child's "The Hard Way" will also be out in May. Hah. Excellent. And another long wait for the truly good stuff continues...
Wrap...
Monday, March 13, 2006
A Republican speaks...with authority....
From The Guardian:
Dictatorship is the danger
A Reagan-appointed supreme court justice voices her fears over attacks on US democracy Jonathan Raban
Monday March 13, 2006
The Guardian
Linking the words "America" and "dictatorship" is a daily staple of leftwing blogs, which thrive on the idea that Bush administration policies since 9/11 are taking the country ever closer to totalitarian rule. Liberal fears that democracy is endangered by Republicans in Congress are so widespread, so endemic to the jittery political climate in the US, that they hardly bear repeating. It'll surprise no one to learn that another voice was added to the chorus last Thursday, warning that recent attacks on the American judiciary were putting the democratic fabric in jeopardy and were the first steps down the treacherous path to dictatorship.
What is surprising - more than that, electrifying - is that the voice belonged to Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired a few weeks ago from the supreme court. O'Connor is a Republican and a Reagan nominee. Regarded as the "swing vote" on the court, she swung the presidential election to George Bush in 2000.
Equally surprising is that O'Connor's speech to an audience of lawyers at Georgetown University was attended by just one reporter, the diligent legal correspondent for National Public Radio, Nina Totenberg. No transcript or recording of the speech has been made available, so we have only Totenberg's notes to go on. But - assuming they are accurate - the notes are political dynamite.
O'Connor's voice was "dripping with sarcasm", according to Totenberg, as she "took aim at former House GOP [Republican] leader Tom DeLay. She didn't name him, but she quoted his attacks on the courts at a meeting of the conservative Christian group Justice Sunday last year when DeLay took out after the courts for rulings on abortions, prayer and the Terri Schiavo case.
"It gets worse, she said, noting that death threats against judges are increasing. It doesn't help, she said, when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with."
Then she spoke the D-word. "I, said O'Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former communist countries where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O'Connor said we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."
Delivered by someone who was, until recently, one of the nine guardians of the US constitution, these are spine-chilling opinions, and you might have thought they'd have been all over the papers the next day. Not so. I happened to catch Totenberg's NPR report last Friday, and have been following up references to it. A cable TV talkshow and a handful of blogs have mentioned Totenberg's piece: otherwise there's been a disquieting silence, as if the former justice had laid an unsavoury egg and had best be politely ignored.
Why did O'Connor choose such a closed forum to air her thoughts? Why was Totenberg the only reporter present? The possibility that America is sliding toward dictatorship or an unprecedented form of corporate oligarchy ought to be a matter of world concern. And if O'Connor believes what she is reported to have said, surely she owes it to the world to make public the prepared text of her remarks, which so far have the dubious character of the scores of unverifiable leaks that have passed for news in the compulsively secretive world of the Bush administration. It's unsurprising that, say, Colin Powell chooses to leak rather than speak out, but when a supreme court justice prefers to whisper her fears to a coterie audience, it's hard to avoid the inference that the whisper itself speaks volumes about the imperilled democracy it purports to describe.
Death threats to judges figured importantly in O'Connor's speech, with good reason. Last year, an Illinois federal judge found her husband and mother murdered, and a Georgia state judge was shot dead in his courtroom. Within days, Senator John Cornyn of Texas mused: "I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence."
DeLay, speaking of the judges who had ruled that Schiavo be allowed to die, said: "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behaviour."
These are peculiar times, and when Republican politicians appear to endorse the killing of judges who make rulings of which they disapprove, it's maybe understandable that a distinguished judge like Sandra Day O'Connor, expressing views calculated to enrage Republican politicians, might sensibly look to a small podium with a weak sound system for fear of being heard too clearly by the likes of Cornyn and DeLay.
Wrap...
Dictatorship is the danger
A Reagan-appointed supreme court justice voices her fears over attacks on US democracy Jonathan Raban
Monday March 13, 2006
The Guardian
Linking the words "America" and "dictatorship" is a daily staple of leftwing blogs, which thrive on the idea that Bush administration policies since 9/11 are taking the country ever closer to totalitarian rule. Liberal fears that democracy is endangered by Republicans in Congress are so widespread, so endemic to the jittery political climate in the US, that they hardly bear repeating. It'll surprise no one to learn that another voice was added to the chorus last Thursday, warning that recent attacks on the American judiciary were putting the democratic fabric in jeopardy and were the first steps down the treacherous path to dictatorship.
What is surprising - more than that, electrifying - is that the voice belonged to Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired a few weeks ago from the supreme court. O'Connor is a Republican and a Reagan nominee. Regarded as the "swing vote" on the court, she swung the presidential election to George Bush in 2000.
Equally surprising is that O'Connor's speech to an audience of lawyers at Georgetown University was attended by just one reporter, the diligent legal correspondent for National Public Radio, Nina Totenberg. No transcript or recording of the speech has been made available, so we have only Totenberg's notes to go on. But - assuming they are accurate - the notes are political dynamite.
O'Connor's voice was "dripping with sarcasm", according to Totenberg, as she "took aim at former House GOP [Republican] leader Tom DeLay. She didn't name him, but she quoted his attacks on the courts at a meeting of the conservative Christian group Justice Sunday last year when DeLay took out after the courts for rulings on abortions, prayer and the Terri Schiavo case.
"It gets worse, she said, noting that death threats against judges are increasing. It doesn't help, she said, when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with."
Then she spoke the D-word. "I, said O'Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former communist countries where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O'Connor said we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."
Delivered by someone who was, until recently, one of the nine guardians of the US constitution, these are spine-chilling opinions, and you might have thought they'd have been all over the papers the next day. Not so. I happened to catch Totenberg's NPR report last Friday, and have been following up references to it. A cable TV talkshow and a handful of blogs have mentioned Totenberg's piece: otherwise there's been a disquieting silence, as if the former justice had laid an unsavoury egg and had best be politely ignored.
Why did O'Connor choose such a closed forum to air her thoughts? Why was Totenberg the only reporter present? The possibility that America is sliding toward dictatorship or an unprecedented form of corporate oligarchy ought to be a matter of world concern. And if O'Connor believes what she is reported to have said, surely she owes it to the world to make public the prepared text of her remarks, which so far have the dubious character of the scores of unverifiable leaks that have passed for news in the compulsively secretive world of the Bush administration. It's unsurprising that, say, Colin Powell chooses to leak rather than speak out, but when a supreme court justice prefers to whisper her fears to a coterie audience, it's hard to avoid the inference that the whisper itself speaks volumes about the imperilled democracy it purports to describe.
Death threats to judges figured importantly in O'Connor's speech, with good reason. Last year, an Illinois federal judge found her husband and mother murdered, and a Georgia state judge was shot dead in his courtroom. Within days, Senator John Cornyn of Texas mused: "I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence."
DeLay, speaking of the judges who had ruled that Schiavo be allowed to die, said: "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behaviour."
These are peculiar times, and when Republican politicians appear to endorse the killing of judges who make rulings of which they disapprove, it's maybe understandable that a distinguished judge like Sandra Day O'Connor, expressing views calculated to enrage Republican politicians, might sensibly look to a small podium with a weak sound system for fear of being heard too clearly by the likes of Cornyn and DeLay.
Wrap...
COWARDS!!!!
From AP via Yahoo.com :
Feingold Draws Little Support for Censure
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago
Democrats distanced themselves Monday from Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold's effort to censure President Bush over domestic spying, maneuvering to prevent a vote that could alienate swing voters. Republicans dared Democrats to vote for the proposal.
"Some Democrats in Congress have decided the president is the enemy," Vice President Dick Cheney told a Republican audience in Feingold's home state.
Feingold, a potential presidential candidate, said on the Senate floor, "The president has violated the law and Congress must respond."
"A formal censure by Congress is an appropriate and responsible first step to assure the public that when the president thinks he can violate the law without consequences, Congress has the will to hold him accountable," Feingold said.
Even as he spoke, Democratic leaders held off the immediate vote that Majority Leader Bill Frist requested. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said he didn't know if there ever would be one.
Throughout the day, Feingold's fellow Democrats said they understood his frustration but they held back overt support for the resolution.
Several said they wanted first to see the Senate Intelligence Committee finish an investigation of the warrantless wiretapping program that Bush authorized as part of his war on terrorism.
Asked at a news conference whether he would vote for the censure resolution, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada declined to endorse it and said he hadn't read it.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said he had not read it either and wasn't inclined simply to scold the president.
"I'd prefer to see us solve the problem," Lieberman told reporters.
Across the Capitol, reaction was similar. Feingold's censure resolution drew empathy but no outright support from Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi "understands Sen. Feingold's frustration that the facts about the NSA domestic surveillance program have not been disclosed appropriately to Congress," her office said in a statement. "Both the House and the Senate must fully investigate the program and assign responsibility for any laws that may have been broken."
Feingold's resolution accuses Bush of violating the Constitution and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
It reads in part:
"Resolved that the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, president of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required."
The resolution says censuring Bush also is warranted by "his failure to inform the full congressional intelligence committees as required by law, and his efforts to mislead the American people about the authorities relied upon by his administration to conduct wiretaps and about the legality of the program."
The only president ever censured by the Senate was Andrew Jackson, in 1834, for removing the nation's money from a private bank in defiance of the Whig-controlled Senate.
In 1999, a censure resolution failed against President Clinton after he was acquitted by the Senate on House impeachment charges that he committed perjury and obstructed justice in the Monica Lewinsky affair.
"This is clearly more serious than what President Clinton was accused of doing," Feingold reporters after his floor speech.
Cheney said Monday, "The outrageous proposition that we ought to protect our enemies' ability to communicate as it plots against America poses a key test of our Democratic leaders."
"The American people already made their decision," Cheney added. "They agree with the president."
Feingold was the lone senator to oppose the 2001 Patriot Act. Two weeks ago, he was joined by three other senators in opposing a renewal of the law with some new curbs on police powers.
Feingold called the curbs meaningless.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.
Wrap...
Feingold Draws Little Support for Censure
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago
Democrats distanced themselves Monday from Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold's effort to censure President Bush over domestic spying, maneuvering to prevent a vote that could alienate swing voters. Republicans dared Democrats to vote for the proposal.
"Some Democrats in Congress have decided the president is the enemy," Vice President Dick Cheney told a Republican audience in Feingold's home state.
Feingold, a potential presidential candidate, said on the Senate floor, "The president has violated the law and Congress must respond."
"A formal censure by Congress is an appropriate and responsible first step to assure the public that when the president thinks he can violate the law without consequences, Congress has the will to hold him accountable," Feingold said.
Even as he spoke, Democratic leaders held off the immediate vote that Majority Leader Bill Frist requested. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said he didn't know if there ever would be one.
Throughout the day, Feingold's fellow Democrats said they understood his frustration but they held back overt support for the resolution.
Several said they wanted first to see the Senate Intelligence Committee finish an investigation of the warrantless wiretapping program that Bush authorized as part of his war on terrorism.
Asked at a news conference whether he would vote for the censure resolution, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada declined to endorse it and said he hadn't read it.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said he had not read it either and wasn't inclined simply to scold the president.
"I'd prefer to see us solve the problem," Lieberman told reporters.
Across the Capitol, reaction was similar. Feingold's censure resolution drew empathy but no outright support from Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi "understands Sen. Feingold's frustration that the facts about the NSA domestic surveillance program have not been disclosed appropriately to Congress," her office said in a statement. "Both the House and the Senate must fully investigate the program and assign responsibility for any laws that may have been broken."
Feingold's resolution accuses Bush of violating the Constitution and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
It reads in part:
"Resolved that the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, president of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required."
The resolution says censuring Bush also is warranted by "his failure to inform the full congressional intelligence committees as required by law, and his efforts to mislead the American people about the authorities relied upon by his administration to conduct wiretaps and about the legality of the program."
The only president ever censured by the Senate was Andrew Jackson, in 1834, for removing the nation's money from a private bank in defiance of the Whig-controlled Senate.
In 1999, a censure resolution failed against President Clinton after he was acquitted by the Senate on House impeachment charges that he committed perjury and obstructed justice in the Monica Lewinsky affair.
"This is clearly more serious than what President Clinton was accused of doing," Feingold reporters after his floor speech.
Cheney said Monday, "The outrageous proposition that we ought to protect our enemies' ability to communicate as it plots against America poses a key test of our Democratic leaders."
"The American people already made their decision," Cheney added. "They agree with the president."
Feingold was the lone senator to oppose the 2001 Patriot Act. Two weeks ago, he was joined by three other senators in opposing a renewal of the law with some new curbs on police powers.
Feingold called the curbs meaningless.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.
Wrap...
Sunday, March 12, 2006
A real profile in courage: Sen. Russ Feingold....
To read his resolution of censure pertaining to Bush, go here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/censureresolution.pdf
Wrap...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/censureresolution.pdf
Wrap...
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Hah! Frist?!!! HAH!!!!
March 11, 2006
Frist Wins Republican Straw Poll
By REUTERS
Filed at 9:56 p.m. ET
MEMPHIS, Tennessee (Reuters) - More than 20 months before any real votes are cast, Republican Senate leader Bill Frist of Tennessee won a straw poll on Saturday of party activists choosing their early favorite in the 2008 White House race.
Frist, who packed the home-state crowd with supporters wearing blue ``Frist is my leader'' buttons, won nearly 37 percent of the 1,427 votes cast by delegates to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was second with 13 percent, while Sen. George Allen of Virginia finished tied for third with President George W. Bush, whose name was added to the ballot by 10 percent of the delegates at the urging of Arizona Sen. John McCain.
The poll results, while meaning little in the long run, could give the top two finishers, Frist and Romney, a boost in recognition heading into the 2008 campaign.
The win for Frist followed a tough year in which he became the target of a federal probe of his stock sales and was criticized for his Senate leadership.
Frist and Romney were among six possible presidential candidates who spoke to the gathering of nearly 2,000 activists from 26 states in what served as an unofficial kickoff to the 2008 race. All registered delegates were eligible to vote in the poll, sponsored by political tip sheet The Hotline.
Other potential candidates who attended the convention were Allen, McCain, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
McCain, in what rivals said was an acknowledgment he would not perform that well in the poll, told his supporters to write down Bush's name. No vote totals were immediately announced for Brownback and Huckabee.
With Bush in his final term and Vice President Dick Cheney not running for president, the White House race in 2008 is wide open for Republicans and Democrats.
Public opinion polls show McCain and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who did not attend the conference, are the most popular and well known of the possible Republican White House contenders.
Most potential White House hopefuls played down the importance of the straw poll, although Frist said on Saturday that ``I guess I hope I do pretty well'' given the voting was in his home state.
``I wouldn't put too much emphasis on polls, polls are just snapshots,'' Frist said.
Wrap...
Frist Wins Republican Straw Poll
By REUTERS
Filed at 9:56 p.m. ET
MEMPHIS, Tennessee (Reuters) - More than 20 months before any real votes are cast, Republican Senate leader Bill Frist of Tennessee won a straw poll on Saturday of party activists choosing their early favorite in the 2008 White House race.
Frist, who packed the home-state crowd with supporters wearing blue ``Frist is my leader'' buttons, won nearly 37 percent of the 1,427 votes cast by delegates to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was second with 13 percent, while Sen. George Allen of Virginia finished tied for third with President George W. Bush, whose name was added to the ballot by 10 percent of the delegates at the urging of Arizona Sen. John McCain.
The poll results, while meaning little in the long run, could give the top two finishers, Frist and Romney, a boost in recognition heading into the 2008 campaign.
The win for Frist followed a tough year in which he became the target of a federal probe of his stock sales and was criticized for his Senate leadership.
Frist and Romney were among six possible presidential candidates who spoke to the gathering of nearly 2,000 activists from 26 states in what served as an unofficial kickoff to the 2008 race. All registered delegates were eligible to vote in the poll, sponsored by political tip sheet The Hotline.
Other potential candidates who attended the convention were Allen, McCain, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
McCain, in what rivals said was an acknowledgment he would not perform that well in the poll, told his supporters to write down Bush's name. No vote totals were immediately announced for Brownback and Huckabee.
With Bush in his final term and Vice President Dick Cheney not running for president, the White House race in 2008 is wide open for Republicans and Democrats.
Public opinion polls show McCain and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who did not attend the conference, are the most popular and well known of the possible Republican White House contenders.
Most potential White House hopefuls played down the importance of the straw poll, although Frist said on Saturday that ``I guess I hope I do pretty well'' given the voting was in his home state.
``I wouldn't put too much emphasis on polls, polls are just snapshots,'' Frist said.
Wrap...
Phony Repub rebellion....
From the New York Times:
March 11, 2006
Editorial
About That Rebellion ...
We keep hearing that the Republicans in Congress are in revolt against the president.
Some rebellion.
Yes, the Republicans defied President Bush on the United Arab Emirates ports deal. But it wasn't over a major principle, like the collapse of Congressional supervision of the executive branch or the incredibly lax security in the nation's ports, or even the security issues posed by this particular deal.
The Republicans dumped the ports deal into the harbor because of xenophobia and electoral tactics. Republican pollsters have been saying the president could be a liability in the fall elections, so lawmakers posed as rebels for voters who, they think, want rebels. They know those voters are unhappy about globalization, and specifically hostile toward Arabs.
The idea that a happy few are charging the White House ramparts is ridiculous. Republican lawmakers don't just turn a blind eye when they learn that the president is making profoundly bad choices, like cutting constitutional corners, abrogating treaties and even breaking the law. They actually legalize the president's misdeeds.
Take domestic spying, held up as another area of Republican revolt. The program violates the law. Congress knows it. The public knows it. Even President Bush knows it. (He just says the law doesn't apply to him.) In response, the Capitol Hill rebels are boldly refusing to investigate the program — or any other warrantless spying that is going on. They are trying to rewrite the law to legalize warrantless spying. And meanwhile, they've created new subcommittees to help the president go on defying the law.
Over the last couple of years, Republican lawmakers have been given proof that American soldiers and intelligence agents abused, tortured and even killed prisoners, or sent them to other countries to be tortured. Without hesitation, the Republicans did nothing — no serious investigation, no accountability.
Congressional and White House negotiators then watered down the new anti-torture law, which Mr. Bush said did not really apply to him anyway. And they passed another law actually encouraging the abuse of prisoners by allowing the use of coerced evidence at hearings on the prisoners' status.
After 9/11, Mr. Bush created a network of prisons outside the American legal system so he could hold people indefinitely without any hearings. When the Supreme Court said twice that he was reaching beyond his powers, the Republicans in Congress were determined not to let this assault on the rule of law continue. So they rose as one, and legalized the president's actions. In case there was any confusion about its resolve, Congress told the courts that they could no longer rule on these matters. Mr. Bush got the message, loud and clear. He sent his lawyers right out to inform the judges, including the Supreme Court, that they had to drop all the cases that were already before them.
And all this does not even include the act of open rebellion by which the Senate is helping the White House cover up the hyping of intelligence on Iraq.
With rebels like these, who needs loyalists?
Wrap...
March 11, 2006
Editorial
About That Rebellion ...
We keep hearing that the Republicans in Congress are in revolt against the president.
Some rebellion.
Yes, the Republicans defied President Bush on the United Arab Emirates ports deal. But it wasn't over a major principle, like the collapse of Congressional supervision of the executive branch or the incredibly lax security in the nation's ports, or even the security issues posed by this particular deal.
The Republicans dumped the ports deal into the harbor because of xenophobia and electoral tactics. Republican pollsters have been saying the president could be a liability in the fall elections, so lawmakers posed as rebels for voters who, they think, want rebels. They know those voters are unhappy about globalization, and specifically hostile toward Arabs.
The idea that a happy few are charging the White House ramparts is ridiculous. Republican lawmakers don't just turn a blind eye when they learn that the president is making profoundly bad choices, like cutting constitutional corners, abrogating treaties and even breaking the law. They actually legalize the president's misdeeds.
Take domestic spying, held up as another area of Republican revolt. The program violates the law. Congress knows it. The public knows it. Even President Bush knows it. (He just says the law doesn't apply to him.) In response, the Capitol Hill rebels are boldly refusing to investigate the program — or any other warrantless spying that is going on. They are trying to rewrite the law to legalize warrantless spying. And meanwhile, they've created new subcommittees to help the president go on defying the law.
Over the last couple of years, Republican lawmakers have been given proof that American soldiers and intelligence agents abused, tortured and even killed prisoners, or sent them to other countries to be tortured. Without hesitation, the Republicans did nothing — no serious investigation, no accountability.
Congressional and White House negotiators then watered down the new anti-torture law, which Mr. Bush said did not really apply to him anyway. And they passed another law actually encouraging the abuse of prisoners by allowing the use of coerced evidence at hearings on the prisoners' status.
After 9/11, Mr. Bush created a network of prisons outside the American legal system so he could hold people indefinitely without any hearings. When the Supreme Court said twice that he was reaching beyond his powers, the Republicans in Congress were determined not to let this assault on the rule of law continue. So they rose as one, and legalized the president's actions. In case there was any confusion about its resolve, Congress told the courts that they could no longer rule on these matters. Mr. Bush got the message, loud and clear. He sent his lawyers right out to inform the judges, including the Supreme Court, that they had to drop all the cases that were already before them.
And all this does not even include the act of open rebellion by which the Senate is helping the White House cover up the hyping of intelligence on Iraq.
With rebels like these, who needs loyalists?
Wrap...
Friday, March 10, 2006
Brand new book!
Had no sooner finished the previous post on books when a new book arrived: Chris Fox's new novel, "The Devil's Halo". Whoopee! It's a spy thriller...right down my alley and I'm dying to get right into it. Random House, UK published. Great cover.
However, company is flying in for the weekend from Reno, so will have to hang on for a few hours. About ruins my constitution.
Wrap...
However, company is flying in for the weekend from Reno, so will have to hang on for a few hours. About ruins my constitution.
Wrap...
Big book signing, many authors, in San Diego...
Welcome to One of the Largest Book Signings Ever in San Diego!
Local Writers Group Host Best-selling Authors Catherine Coulter, Jennifer Crusie,
Bob Mayer and Julia Quinn San Diego
Romance Writers of America, San Diego, announced today one of the largest book
signings ever in San Diego.
In partnership with Barnes and Noble, RWA-San Diego is hosting the
Up Close and Personal Celebrity Book Signing and Romance Festival,
5:00-7:00 PM, Saturday, March 18, 2006,
at the Marriott Mission Valley, 8757 Rio San Diego, San Diego, CA 92108.
Attendance is FREE to the public with books available for purchase at an on-site
bookstore provided by Barnes and Noble. A portion of the proceeds from the
book-signing will go to READ/San Diego, a local adult literacy group that RWASD
has supported for more than seven years.
Featured authors include:Catherine Coulter – Best-selling author of the mystery
FBI series, including Point Blank, and the humorous historical romance Sherbrooke
Series, including Lyon’s Gate.
Jennifer Crusie – Best-selling author of humorous contemporary novels including
Bet Me, Faking It, Fast Women, Welcome to Temptation and more.
Bob Mayer – Best-selling author of contemporary thrillers, science fiction, and
non-fiction, including the Area 51 series; he also writes under his pen name of
Robert Doherty.
Julia Quinn – Award-winning author of humorous historical novels It’s In His Kiss,
When he Was Wicked, To Sir Phillip With Love and more.
Authors also signing: Sandy Blair, Judy Duarte, Crystal Green, Judith Hand,
Madeline Hunter, Lynn Kerstan, Harley Jane Kozak, Judith Laik, Christie Ridgway,
Barbara Royce, Michele Scott, Linda Thomas-Sundstrom, Janet Wellington, and
more.
Other highlights: Giveaways, opportunity drawings, entertainment and other
surprises await attendees.
For more information call: (858) 449-5551 or visit www.springintoromance.com.
Wrap...
Local Writers Group Host Best-selling Authors Catherine Coulter, Jennifer Crusie,
Bob Mayer and Julia Quinn San Diego
Romance Writers of America, San Diego, announced today one of the largest book
signings ever in San Diego.
In partnership with Barnes and Noble, RWA-San Diego is hosting the
Up Close and Personal Celebrity Book Signing and Romance Festival,
5:00-7:00 PM, Saturday, March 18, 2006,
at the Marriott Mission Valley, 8757 Rio San Diego, San Diego, CA 92108.
Attendance is FREE to the public with books available for purchase at an on-site
bookstore provided by Barnes and Noble. A portion of the proceeds from the
book-signing will go to READ/San Diego, a local adult literacy group that RWASD
has supported for more than seven years.
Featured authors include:Catherine Coulter – Best-selling author of the mystery
FBI series, including Point Blank, and the humorous historical romance Sherbrooke
Series, including Lyon’s Gate.
Jennifer Crusie – Best-selling author of humorous contemporary novels including
Bet Me, Faking It, Fast Women, Welcome to Temptation and more.
Bob Mayer – Best-selling author of contemporary thrillers, science fiction, and
non-fiction, including the Area 51 series; he also writes under his pen name of
Robert Doherty.
Julia Quinn – Award-winning author of humorous historical novels It’s In His Kiss,
When he Was Wicked, To Sir Phillip With Love and more.
Authors also signing: Sandy Blair, Judy Duarte, Crystal Green, Judith Hand,
Madeline Hunter, Lynn Kerstan, Harley Jane Kozak, Judith Laik, Christie Ridgway,
Barbara Royce, Michele Scott, Linda Thomas-Sundstrom, Janet Wellington, and
more.
Other highlights: Giveaways, opportunity drawings, entertainment and other
surprises await attendees.
For more information call: (858) 449-5551 or visit www.springintoromance.com.
Wrap...
Thursday, March 09, 2006
DOJ: Prosecute reporters...
From the Sacramento Bee:
Editorial: Your eyes only
Administration tries to plug leaks
Published 2:15 am PST Thursday, March 9, 2006
Story appeared in Editorials section, Page B8
Ironies abound in how the Bush administration handles classified information. It has set an all-time record for classifying information, yet has been willing to leak classified information to serve its own purposes. But when opponents within the administration do the same, the administration cries foul.
Now, it has gone too far. A Bush Justice Department court filing asserts a novel theory that private citizens and journalists can be prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act simply for receiving and publishing classified information.
This sweeping claim comes in a case brought by the Justice Department against two lobbyists. In conversation, then-Pentagon official Lawrence A. Franklin leaked a controversial proposal by Pentagon neoconservatives to destabilize Iran. Private citizens Steven J. Rosen, director of foreign policy issues for the American-Israel Political Action Committee, and Keith Weissman, its senior Middle East analyst, repeated what they heard to Israeli diplomats, Washington think tank analysts and journalists.
The old view of the espionage law was that it was a crime for a government official who has responsibility for protecting classified information to leak it. In this case, Franklin pleaded guilty. He had a security clearance and had signed an agreement not to transmit classified information to outsiders. He broke the law.
But the Bush administration goes on to assert that people who listen to what a government official has to say and pass it on also have committed a crime - even though, as government outsiders, they may have no way of knowing whether information is classified.
The reality, since the beginning of our republic, is that administration officials often deliberately leak classified information to influence public debate. In other cases, government officials see it as their patriotic duty to expose certain information. They know they are breaking the law and are willing to commit an act of civil disobedience. But private citizens who receive the information have no obligation to preserve classified information. Our laws recognize that, in some circumstances, the only effective restraint on the president and Congress is an informed and critical public.
The Justice Department brief admits in passing that prosecuting the press under espionage laws for publishing classified information leaked by a government source has never taken place. Let's keep it that way.
Wrap...
Editorial: Your eyes only
Administration tries to plug leaks
Published 2:15 am PST Thursday, March 9, 2006
Story appeared in Editorials section, Page B8
Ironies abound in how the Bush administration handles classified information. It has set an all-time record for classifying information, yet has been willing to leak classified information to serve its own purposes. But when opponents within the administration do the same, the administration cries foul.
Now, it has gone too far. A Bush Justice Department court filing asserts a novel theory that private citizens and journalists can be prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act simply for receiving and publishing classified information.
This sweeping claim comes in a case brought by the Justice Department against two lobbyists. In conversation, then-Pentagon official Lawrence A. Franklin leaked a controversial proposal by Pentagon neoconservatives to destabilize Iran. Private citizens Steven J. Rosen, director of foreign policy issues for the American-Israel Political Action Committee, and Keith Weissman, its senior Middle East analyst, repeated what they heard to Israeli diplomats, Washington think tank analysts and journalists.
The old view of the espionage law was that it was a crime for a government official who has responsibility for protecting classified information to leak it. In this case, Franklin pleaded guilty. He had a security clearance and had signed an agreement not to transmit classified information to outsiders. He broke the law.
But the Bush administration goes on to assert that people who listen to what a government official has to say and pass it on also have committed a crime - even though, as government outsiders, they may have no way of knowing whether information is classified.
The reality, since the beginning of our republic, is that administration officials often deliberately leak classified information to influence public debate. In other cases, government officials see it as their patriotic duty to expose certain information. They know they are breaking the law and are willing to commit an act of civil disobedience. But private citizens who receive the information have no obligation to preserve classified information. Our laws recognize that, in some circumstances, the only effective restraint on the president and Congress is an informed and critical public.
The Justice Department brief admits in passing that prosecuting the press under espionage laws for publishing classified information leaked by a government source has never taken place. Let's keep it that way.
Wrap...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)