"News roundup including did Bully Boy break the law?"
Did Bully Boy break the law by authorizing spying on American citizens and circumventing the FISA courts? If so, how many years can someone be sentenced to for that crime? We'll highlight a radio discussion on that issue, but first, news on Iraq, Morocco, Afghanistan, the Phillipines, Russia, Chile, Israel, activism and more.
As reported on The Daily Iraq Wire, December 25th wasn't a day of peace in Iraq. Two bombs went off in Iraq injuring seven Iraqis. In addition, a reported al Qaeda group in Iraq announced Sunday that they had kidnapped and killed four Arabs who had been "working with the US authorities and the Iraqi government in the fortified Green Zone in central Baghdad."
Monday violence and unrest continued. Deepa Babington, reporting for the Irish Examiner, notes that Baghdad saw five explosions today killing eight and wounding thirty-eight. Outside of Baghdad, there were attacks in Falluja where a suicide bomber killed himself and two police recruits. In Dhabab, five Iraqi soldiers were killed.
Reporting for IPS, Gareth Porter reports today a "looming confrontation" between Shi'ites in Iraq and the American officials who are urging the disbanding of Shi'ite paramilitary groups. American officials fear groups may have close ties to Iran. The "looming confrontation" emerged when American officials decided to make an issue of the "torture houses" run by Shi'ites. "Decided?" Major R. John Stukey and others first reported the existance of "torture houses" in June of 2005. From June to November, US officials remained silent.
As of Monday, US military fatalities in Iraq stand at 2169, official count with 56 of those fatalities for the month of December. Iraq Body Count, which gathers totals by following media reports, estimates that as few as 27,592 and as many as 31,115 Iraqis have died thus far since the invasion.
In other war news, Agence France-Presse reports the American military is claiming that "very soon" the number of troops serving in Iraq will drop from 19,000 to 2, 5000.
In activism news, NOW is calling for action on Samuel Alito, Jr.'s Supreme Court nomination:
There is work to be done, both in Washington, DC and throughout the country. As a part of Freedom Winter 2006, NOW and Feminist Majority Foundation are working together to bring grassroots activists to DC between January 3 and January 20. We're also encouraging activists to organize in their communities.
More information can be found online at NOW as well as online at the Feminist Majority Foundation. In related news, Ms. Magazine has compiled "the top ten news stories for women in 2005." Topping the list, Sandra Day O'Connor's announcement that she will step down from the Supreme Court bench. Planned Parenthood has also compiled a look back at the year 2005. Their look back begins with a listing of the five best and five worst places to get birth control prescriptions filled:
Best
Brooks/Eckerd Corporation
Costco
CVS
Harris
Teeter
Kmart
Worst
Rite Aid
Target
Walgreens
Wal-Mart
Winn-Dixie
In international news, Al Jazeera reports that Augusto Pinochet will finally stand trial for the deaths and disappearances carried out under his dictator regime as the head of Chile. Chile's Supreme Court, in a three to two vote, ruled that Pinochet is fit to stand trial. The BBC reports that charges will be filed Tuesday against four US marines for rape. The four are currently at the US embassy in Manila and "it is unclear whether it will hand over the marines." Abdul Rahman Khuzairan reports, for Islam.Online. net, that on Sunday a sit in was staged in Casablanca by Morocco's Equity and Reconciliation Forum "to protest the mass grave found recently with the remains of 82 people." Canada's Star Phoenix reports that Monday in St. Petersburg, shoppers in one store were exposed to a mysterious gas: "Boxes containing timers wired to glass vials were discovered at the scene of the attack and three other stores in the same chain in Russia's second-largest city." And in Tut-tut Tuttle news, the Finanical Times reports that car dealer and contributor of $70,000 worth of donations to the GOP in 2004, Robert Tuttle continues to stumble in his post as US ambassador to England. For the second time, Tuttle has been forced to issue a correction to the BBC following an interview. Embassy work, not as easy as moving cars off a lot.
"Have we made poverty history?" asks The Independent of London? The debt relief in 2008 will go not to Africa but to Iraq and Nigeria. In addition the United States is backing off from it's earlier committments. Also reporting for The Independent, Maxine Frith notes that charities and aid workers believe that Live 8, and those involved in the concerts, "hijacked" the effort and gave the world a false sense of resolution when the problems of world poverty contine. Meera Selva reports from Africa that the people supposed to benefit from the concerts in London's Hyde Park have seen little difference in their lives. One woman tells Selva, "We have problems in Africa, big problems. What can plastic bracelets and pop concerts do to solve them?"
Reuters reports Israeli helicopters firing three missiles into Gaza. This comes as Al Jazeera reports that the Israeli government has announced intentions to build an additional 200 homes on the West Bank. The BBC reports, in other news from the region, that Ariel Sharon has been urged to "curb his appetite" by doctors as he awaits sugery "to close a small hole which doctors found in his heart after he had a minor stroke."
For The KPFA Evening News Anthony Fest spoke Monday evening to Christopher Pyle, "a consultant to Congress in the drafting of the surveillance act, today he teaches political science at Mount Holyoke College in Massachusettes." (What follows is a rough transcript, use the link to listen to the archived broadcast.)
Pyle: The Church Committee was set up because during the Watergate era we had discovered extensive domestic surveillance operations by a number of agencies including the FBI, military intelligence, the CIA and, the largest intelligence agency of all, the National Security Agency. It does electronic intercepts worldwide. It has stations around the world. It picks up communications off of statellites. It picks them off of landlines and it searches them with a dictionary of watch words. And during the 1970s, we discovered that the National Security Agency had maintained files on about 75,000 Americans and they particularly targeted political activists like Dr. Martin Luther King, the folk singer Joan Baez, and the anti-war protestor Dr. Benjamin Spock. We sought to end that massive surveillance, which had no judicial authority what so ever, by passing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. That law said that if the government, when the government wanted to monitor electronic communications it had to go to a special court to gain a national security authorization, a speciall warrant. And for a number of years, it appears that the government did go to the special court and was able to conduct its monitoring with special warrants. But three years ago, the Bush administration decided that this was inconveinent for some reason that's not fully understood. And they just ignored the court and began collecting, uh, information rather broadly. The law itself says that it's the exclusive method by which monitoring may take place and that anybody who violates the law is guilty of a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
Fast: So there's no leeway for interpretation here, it's uh, it's black and white that if you don't go through the FISA court, you are in violation of the law?
Pyle: Exactly. So what we have here is the rather extraordinary situation of a president who has admitted to committing a felony. Now he says that Congress excused him by passing the resolution against al Qaeda but that says nothing about electronic surveillance. And then he says that the Constitution excuses him because the Constitution places him above the law. There's actually a secret memo produced by the Justice Department to justify torture that says that a war time president can ignore the criminal law of the United States. There's no basis for this in law, there's no basis for this in the history of Constitutional law and Constitutional interpretation and that's of course why the memo was kept secret because if it had ever seen the light of day it would have been laughed out of court. Well now it's seen the light of day and assertions based on that theory have seen the light of day and we're not laughing because we realize the government is really out of control.
Fast: Doubtless the techonology of surveillance is incrompably more powerful today than it was in the 1960s. Is there any indication yet exactly how wide, how wide a net the NSA was casting or how many people had been surveilled?
Pyle: No. The initial reports by the New York Times were that up to 500 people at a time had been targeted but perhaps thousands had been intercepted. And if they were, let's say, monitoring all e-mails and searching all e-mails in the United States for certain code words or phrases then it would be probably hundreds of thousands or millions of people who would have been monitored, not simply 500 people targeted at any given time. But we really don't know. But what we know is that the judges on the FISA court are extremely upset. One of them has already resigned because of this. The others want to know particularly whether this warrant-less spying was being used to then produce probable cause for specific warranted spying. In other words, infecting the very process with illegaly obtained information.
Fast: Since the administration was apparently conducting surveillance that was more in the nature of data mining then watching individuals is there any legal grounds under which they could conduct that kind of operation?
Pyle: No, that is what was known in the common law as a general search. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution forbids general searches. The second clause of the Fourth Amendment says that the warrants must be obtained that specify the place to be searched and and the things to be seized. The FISA warrants specify the persons who are the targets of the intercepts. There has to be specifity. There can't be a great dragnet collecting everything and then sorting it by computer and putting everybody under suspicion.
Did Bully Boy break the law? Better question, after trotting out Vicky Toe-Jam in print and on
TV to put forward false claims about the Congessional act passed in the 80s to prevent the outing of CIA agents, why has the mainstream media been so reluctant to pursue people who helped with the drafting of the FISA act?
The above is news you may have missed and was compiled by Wally, Rebecca, Mike, Kat, Jim, Jess, Ty, Cedric, Elaine, Betty, and C.I.
kpfa
the kpfa evening news
christopher pyle
andrew fast
afghanistan
iraq
phillipines
morocco
poverty
augusto pinochet
russia
israel
birth control
the daily jot
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
kats korner
cedrics big mix
the third estate sunday review
the common ills
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Expectations (personal and professional)
Happy holidays. I hope you are enjoying the weekend whether it's a time for celebration or not. Gatherings this time of year can be filled with expectations and frustrations so if you're struggling or worried, do not feel that you are alone or that "It's just you." Rebecca wrote about this last night in her "christmas and no nerves of steel" post. If you think you can relate to that, please check it out. If you don't think it has anything to do with you, please consider reading it because it probably will reflect someone in any gathering. Expectations, both real and imagined, weigh heavy this time of year.
Also check out Mike's Mikey Likes It! because he's writing at the same time. We're in his room and he's on his computer and I'm on my laptop. Which is a good time to say thank you to the McKinnon family for inviting me to spend the holidays with them. (A thank you to Nina, Mike's girlfriend, as well.) I know I noted this at The Third Estate Sunday Review and, I believe, also at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude while I was filling in for Rebecca, but I'm not sure it's up here. So if anyone's wondering why I'm spending Christmas with the McKinnons or spent Thanksgiving with C.I., my parents died while I was a young teenager. My only surviving family is a very wonderful older brother who now lives in Europe. Originally, he would fly in for the holidays but, quite honestly, the two of us together at the holidays can sometimes be depressing. He now makes a point to avoid the holidays. I usually grab Thanksgiving with C.I. who is a friend of many years and I'm welcome (C.I. would say "more than welcome") to grab Christmas as well. However, the guest list at Christmas triples from the list for Thanksgiving and I'll usually either spend Christmas alone, with a date's family or with friends. This year I'm very fortunate to be spending it with friends and I thank the McKinnon's for their hospitality.
Now here are two items from Democracy Now! Friday that you're hopefully already aware of but are worth noting.
Federal Judge Calls Gitmo Detentions "Unlawful" (Democracy Now!)
This news on Guantanamo Bay: the Washington Post is reporting a federal judge has ruled the detention of two ethnic Uighurs at the U.S. prison is "unlawful", but says he does not have the authority to release them. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Robertson said the government has taken too long to release Abu Bakker Qassim and Adel Abdu Hakim -- who have been jailed for four years. The two have been cleared for release, but not returned to China where they would likely face torture or execution.. The two men are among nine detainees that remain at Guantanamo despite having been declared "no longer enemy combatants." In his ruling, Judge Robertson wrote: "The government's use of the Kafka-esque term 'no longer enemy combatants' deliberately begs the question of whether these petitioners ever were enemy combatants."
Justice Dept. Admits Spy Program Does Not Comply With FISA (Democracy Now!):
The disclosure comes as the Justice Department has admitted that the President's eavesdropping program does not comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Along with another wiretapping statute, FISA defines itself as: "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted." The admission came in a letter to Congress Thursday.
Mike's providing commentary on those so be sure to check out his site; I'm just noting them because there's something else I want to focus on.
I'm utilizing two articles for this, an Associated Press article that ran in most papers (including the New York Times) and an article from The Nation. The link I provide to the AP article is care of the Mercury News which does not require registration to be read. With regards to The Nation, you need to be a subscriber to read the article online. I don't subscribe to The Nation. That's not a slap at that magazine. I subscribe to periodicals and journals for my profession. Otherwise, I utilize book stores. (Sadly, a very large chain.) I prefer to purchase magazines. I usually purchase every issue of The Nation (so subscribing would be cheaper) but I enjoy walking up to the sales counter with my purchases as well as having the ability not to purchase an issue of any magazine containing a story or stories that I have no interest in (or may have a strong objection to). One of the things my father was big on was taking us to the bookstore every Saturday. We'd be encouraged to pick out a book or magazine (toys weren't as prevalent at bookstores when I was a child and videos -- videotapes or DVD -- had yet to emerge). From there, we'd go to lunch at my father's favorite deli. (My mother, in case you're wondering, had Saturday afternoon's "off." This was something that began after I was born when my mother, rightly, gave an ultimatum that she couldn't work full time, be the primary person responsible for keeping the house clean and raise two children without any break. For the first seven years of my brother's life she had struggled to be everything to everyone. After I was born, she stayed home three weeks with me before returning to work and quickly realized that attempting to do everything would drive her crazy. Fortunately, my father was smart enough to grasp both that she was serious and that she did, indeed, deserve at least five hours to herself once a week.)
I thought I was just attempting to make sure that no Nation reader took it as an insult that I didn't subsribe (I do read the magazine regularly); however, probably due to the season, I obviously wanted to take a trip down memory lane. Thanks to everyone reading for their indulgence.
Thank you as well to C.I. because I didn't pack the issue, the December 26th issue devoted to exploring torture, and the article isn't available to nonsubscribers online. C.I. scanned the article and e-mailed it to me. The link I'll provide for the article does allow you to read the opening.
Starting Thursday, and continuing through today, various papers have run an obit on
Heinrich Gross who passed away December 15th at the age of 90. The name may not be familiar to you. "Heinrich Gross, accused of Nazi experiments" is the headline the AP article ran under in the San Jose Mercury News. In the New York Times, on Thursday, the article ran under the heading "Heinrich Gross, 90, Psychiatrist At Nazi Death Clinic in Austria."
"Heinrich Gross, accused of Nazi experiments: PROMINENT DOCTOR ESCAPED PROSECUTION" (William J. Cole, Associated Press):
Dr. Heinrich Gross, a psychiatrist who worked at a clinic where the Nazis killed and conducted cruel experiments on thousands of children, died Dec. 15, his family announced Thursday. He was 90.
Dr. Gross, who was implicated in nine deaths as part of a Nazi plot to eliminate ``worthless lives,'' had escaped trial in March after a court ruled he suffered from severe dementia. No cause of death was given in a brief statement issued by his family.
Dr. Gross was a leading doctor in Vienna's infamous Am Spiegelgrund clinic. Historians and survivors of the clinic had accused him of killing or taking part in the clinic's experiments on thousands of children deemed by the Nazis to be physically, mentally or otherwise unfit for Adolf Hitler's vision of a perfect world.
The article explains how three times, Gross (I'm refusing to call him "Doctor") was tried but escaped conviction. In the 50s, "the case was thrown out because of a legal technicality." In the eighties, a case was "dismissed because the 30-year statute of limitations on manslaughter had expired." When Gross stood trial in 2000, he escaped conviction because he was found "unfit for trial because of advanced dementia."
Gross is accused (in my opinion, for good reason) of perverting science and his oath to aid the Nazis in torture and killings. This is a perversion of his profession.
He misused science. (Gross maintained his innocence until the end, again, my opinion is he was guilty.) He forsook his oath, he betrayed the principle of first do no harm. He placed a government's interest over the interests of of providing care. He allowed politics to trump medicine.
We can look back in horror (and should) but despite all the "never again"s that greeted the revelations of the crimes committed under the Nazi regimes (torture, genocide, etc.), we shouldn't take comfort in the fact that we all learned something from it.
That's not the case. Were it the case, the revelations in Jane Mayer's "The Experiment" (The New Yorker) wouldn't have been so appalling. I've addressed this topic at The Third Estate Sunday Review and C.I.'s addressed it several times at The Common Ills.
"Jane Mayer's 'The Experiment' (The New Yorker)" (The Common Ills):
I'll try to summarize the article but that's not an easy task. Mayer's taken a trip to Guantanamo Bay. It was an orchestrated trip by the military. At one point, a prisoner starts speaking to her of how he's been treated and her military guide hustles her out of the area quickly and to the charges made by the prisoner offers a "joke" about how the prisoner can speak English pretty well.
Time and again, Mayer's told there's no problem, that it's isolated individuals when there are problems. But via other sources, she's able to make an argument that the incidents are not only not isolated, they're the result of research and planning.
SERE comes into the story. SERE is a military unit that pops up in the aftermath of WWII. It was supposed to gather information that would help American troops to withstand pressure (and torture) if they were captured. SERE stands for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape. Originally created for the Air Force, post Vietnam, it grows to include the Navy and the Army.At Guantamano, there are "bisquits." Bisquits is "military jargon" for Behavioral Science Consultation Teams. These behavioral scientists appear to be utilizing techniques developed to help American troops resist during capture in an inverse manner -- using techniques to break the imprisoned at Guantamano down.
This raises ethical issues (which Mayer deals with, this is a summary of her article). Apparently prisoners medical files (containing information gathered by doctors) are raided to help with brainstorming ideas. Is someone afraid of the dark? Well, let's use that.
While the bisquists (Behavioral Science Consultation Teams) have apparent free access to medical files, that's not the case for everyone. Dr. John S. Edmondson ("a Navy captain who oversees the facility's medical command") claims that, "I believe we've complied with the requests [for medical records] that have reached me." Rob Kirsh ("who represents six Guantanamo detaineeds") has a paper trail that proves otherwise. Even with waivers from his clients, his requests for their medical records has been denied in multiple letters "from the Justice Department." Regarding this denial, Mayer quotes Arthur Caplan ("a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania") who notes, "Prisoners, even terrorists, have the right to their medical records, according to federal laws, common laws, the American Medical Association, and court trials."
With various documents and various sources (including a graduate of SERE who had posted at Juan Cole's Informed Comment) "The Experiment" gathers together the "isolated incidents" and demonstrates a pattern (in my reading of the article).
Techniques and actions used on American soldiers to keep them from "cracking" (my term, not Mayer's) are apparently now being used to "crack" (see previous parenthetical) prisoners.
The SERE program has always been shrouded in the secrecy of national security. Which is not unlike the attempts to find out what the Bully Boy did or did not authorize (or Donald Rumsfeld for that matter).
Would someone crack to stop a woman from being raped? Well, hey, let's try that. That appears to be the motivation and why one prisoner was told if he talked the (fake) rape would stop. There's also the case of a man and a woman having sex in a computer room next to an interrogation room with the door open.
How does that get approved? "Give it up for your country?" I'm not quite sure and I'm trying very hard not to interject my own thoughts here and provide a summary of the article so I'll move on.
There have been people pointing out that the actions were unethical or illegal or immoral (or two or all three). One person who speaks to Mayer, former FBI official who was at Guantanamo, states that he and other FBI agents did not want to participate in these actions:Some of these techniques, I don't want to see, or be part of. I took an oath to the Constitution to uphold the laws against enemies both inside the U.S. and out. The D.O.D. [Department of Defense] guy got really upset. He said he took the oath, too. I told him that we must have different interpretations.
Concerns are raised regarding "force drift." That's when "interrogators encountering resistance begin to lose the ability to restrain themselves." If you'll think of it in terms of parenting, you'll relate that to the "power struggle." There's also a "seductive" component of these techniques, as an attorney for several prisoners -- Marc Falkoff -- notes. Falkoff asserts that "a mass suicide attempt at Guantanamo, in August 2003, in which two dozens or so detainees tried to hang or strangle themselves, was provoked by Koran mistreatment . . ."
That's a SERE technique. Only on American soil, while "testing" American soldiers, they used a Bible. They might tear pages out of it or kick it around or some other method. But it was developed here with the Bible. (Again, I'm holding my tongue and just attempting to summarize.)
The question is posed (and I'd argue throughout the article) by at least one person in the article of what are we becoming? What does it say about us when we "do things that our enemies do, like using torture?"We'll close out this summary by noting that doctors have participated as "bisquits" (though not all "bisquits" are doctors -- some are p.h.d.s) with the comments of Jonathan Moreno (bioethicist):
Guantanamo is going to haunt us for a long time. The Hippocratic oath is the oldest ethical code we have. We might abandon our morality about other professions. But the medical profession is sort of the last gasp. If we give that up, we've given up our core values.
What does it say about us when we accept this behavior? A debate has raged in the medical professions largely behind closed doors. The Nation addresses this debate.
"The Silence of the Doctors" (Jonathan H. Marks, The Nation):
After 9/11 some American healthcare personnel were once again asked to step into the breach and help Army interrogators conduct aggressive interrogations. They have, among others, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller -- former camp commander at Guantanamo Bay -- to thank for this. Miller considered the participation of Behavioral Science Consultation Teams -- known colloquially as "Biscuits" -- to be an "essential" part of the interrogation process. Having introduced the first Biscuit to the Guantanamo facility in late 2002, Miller urged the deployment of a similar team at Abu Ghraib in late 2003. These Biscuits were staffed at various times by psychologists and/or psychiatrists.
[. . .]
One of the functions of Biscuit health professionals is to help interrogators tailor interrogation "stressors" to the personality of each detainee -- particularly "high-value detainees." In one example -- reported by Neil [A.] Lewis in the New York Times -- interrogators were told by a Biscuit that a detainee's medical files recorded his severe phobia of the dark, and the Biscuit suggested ways that fear could be manipulated to make the detainees cooperate.
[. . .]
According to a resolution of the General Assembly adopted without dissent in 1982, it is a "gross contravention of medical ethics" for health professionals to be complicit in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. They are also required not to use their knowledge and skills to assist with an interrogation that may adversely affect a detainee's health and is not in accordance with international law. Medical personnel who helped design and monitor aggressive interrogations like those [. . .] have undoubtedly fallen afoul of this ethical mandate.
Marks notes that the American Psychiatric Association, Physicians for Human Rights, and Physicians for Social Responsibility have spoken out against medical professional participating in programs that aid torture; however, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association have struggled (to put it mildly) to find their voice. As C.I. noted (no link because I'm rushing to finish this) at some point, Marks does as well, the American Psychological Association included on its task force to explore this issue "psychologists who work or have worked for the military -- in some cases at SERE schools."
As I stated, I'm rushing. (I'm attending mass with the McKinnons shortly.) But to nutshell this, what is going on is unacceptable. The death of Heinrich Gross should be an occasion to review how a climate for perversion of medical ethics can take place and it should make us take a serious look at what road we're currently on when medical professionals are using their skills and knowledge to assist interrogators in devising 'pressure points' (my term) for interrogations. That is a perversion of the profession. If we allow this perversion to continue, we aid in the creation of a climate that allowed Gross and others actions to be seen as worthy to their own government, as useful, as helping.
We have duties and obligations. We take an oath. We betray that, our training and our very reason for existance when we put serving a governmental policy ahead of the aims of our profession.
In closing, I'll recommend that you check out "Kat's Korner: Breaking through the 'conventional truths' with No Secrets" and "Kat's Korner: Blunt's got the goods" which are two musical commentaries Kat has provided and a third one will go up Sunday at The Common Ills so look for that as well.
Happy Holidays and Peace on Earth.
Also check out Mike's Mikey Likes It! because he's writing at the same time. We're in his room and he's on his computer and I'm on my laptop. Which is a good time to say thank you to the McKinnon family for inviting me to spend the holidays with them. (A thank you to Nina, Mike's girlfriend, as well.) I know I noted this at The Third Estate Sunday Review and, I believe, also at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude while I was filling in for Rebecca, but I'm not sure it's up here. So if anyone's wondering why I'm spending Christmas with the McKinnons or spent Thanksgiving with C.I., my parents died while I was a young teenager. My only surviving family is a very wonderful older brother who now lives in Europe. Originally, he would fly in for the holidays but, quite honestly, the two of us together at the holidays can sometimes be depressing. He now makes a point to avoid the holidays. I usually grab Thanksgiving with C.I. who is a friend of many years and I'm welcome (C.I. would say "more than welcome") to grab Christmas as well. However, the guest list at Christmas triples from the list for Thanksgiving and I'll usually either spend Christmas alone, with a date's family or with friends. This year I'm very fortunate to be spending it with friends and I thank the McKinnon's for their hospitality.
Now here are two items from Democracy Now! Friday that you're hopefully already aware of but are worth noting.
Federal Judge Calls Gitmo Detentions "Unlawful" (Democracy Now!)
This news on Guantanamo Bay: the Washington Post is reporting a federal judge has ruled the detention of two ethnic Uighurs at the U.S. prison is "unlawful", but says he does not have the authority to release them. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Robertson said the government has taken too long to release Abu Bakker Qassim and Adel Abdu Hakim -- who have been jailed for four years. The two have been cleared for release, but not returned to China where they would likely face torture or execution.. The two men are among nine detainees that remain at Guantanamo despite having been declared "no longer enemy combatants." In his ruling, Judge Robertson wrote: "The government's use of the Kafka-esque term 'no longer enemy combatants' deliberately begs the question of whether these petitioners ever were enemy combatants."
Justice Dept. Admits Spy Program Does Not Comply With FISA (Democracy Now!):
The disclosure comes as the Justice Department has admitted that the President's eavesdropping program does not comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Along with another wiretapping statute, FISA defines itself as: "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted." The admission came in a letter to Congress Thursday.
Mike's providing commentary on those so be sure to check out his site; I'm just noting them because there's something else I want to focus on.
I'm utilizing two articles for this, an Associated Press article that ran in most papers (including the New York Times) and an article from The Nation. The link I provide to the AP article is care of the Mercury News which does not require registration to be read. With regards to The Nation, you need to be a subscriber to read the article online. I don't subscribe to The Nation. That's not a slap at that magazine. I subscribe to periodicals and journals for my profession. Otherwise, I utilize book stores. (Sadly, a very large chain.) I prefer to purchase magazines. I usually purchase every issue of The Nation (so subscribing would be cheaper) but I enjoy walking up to the sales counter with my purchases as well as having the ability not to purchase an issue of any magazine containing a story or stories that I have no interest in (or may have a strong objection to). One of the things my father was big on was taking us to the bookstore every Saturday. We'd be encouraged to pick out a book or magazine (toys weren't as prevalent at bookstores when I was a child and videos -- videotapes or DVD -- had yet to emerge). From there, we'd go to lunch at my father's favorite deli. (My mother, in case you're wondering, had Saturday afternoon's "off." This was something that began after I was born when my mother, rightly, gave an ultimatum that she couldn't work full time, be the primary person responsible for keeping the house clean and raise two children without any break. For the first seven years of my brother's life she had struggled to be everything to everyone. After I was born, she stayed home three weeks with me before returning to work and quickly realized that attempting to do everything would drive her crazy. Fortunately, my father was smart enough to grasp both that she was serious and that she did, indeed, deserve at least five hours to herself once a week.)
I thought I was just attempting to make sure that no Nation reader took it as an insult that I didn't subsribe (I do read the magazine regularly); however, probably due to the season, I obviously wanted to take a trip down memory lane. Thanks to everyone reading for their indulgence.
Thank you as well to C.I. because I didn't pack the issue, the December 26th issue devoted to exploring torture, and the article isn't available to nonsubscribers online. C.I. scanned the article and e-mailed it to me. The link I'll provide for the article does allow you to read the opening.
Starting Thursday, and continuing through today, various papers have run an obit on
Heinrich Gross who passed away December 15th at the age of 90. The name may not be familiar to you. "Heinrich Gross, accused of Nazi experiments" is the headline the AP article ran under in the San Jose Mercury News. In the New York Times, on Thursday, the article ran under the heading "Heinrich Gross, 90, Psychiatrist At Nazi Death Clinic in Austria."
"Heinrich Gross, accused of Nazi experiments: PROMINENT DOCTOR ESCAPED PROSECUTION" (William J. Cole, Associated Press):
Dr. Heinrich Gross, a psychiatrist who worked at a clinic where the Nazis killed and conducted cruel experiments on thousands of children, died Dec. 15, his family announced Thursday. He was 90.
Dr. Gross, who was implicated in nine deaths as part of a Nazi plot to eliminate ``worthless lives,'' had escaped trial in March after a court ruled he suffered from severe dementia. No cause of death was given in a brief statement issued by his family.
Dr. Gross was a leading doctor in Vienna's infamous Am Spiegelgrund clinic. Historians and survivors of the clinic had accused him of killing or taking part in the clinic's experiments on thousands of children deemed by the Nazis to be physically, mentally or otherwise unfit for Adolf Hitler's vision of a perfect world.
The article explains how three times, Gross (I'm refusing to call him "Doctor") was tried but escaped conviction. In the 50s, "the case was thrown out because of a legal technicality." In the eighties, a case was "dismissed because the 30-year statute of limitations on manslaughter had expired." When Gross stood trial in 2000, he escaped conviction because he was found "unfit for trial because of advanced dementia."
Gross is accused (in my opinion, for good reason) of perverting science and his oath to aid the Nazis in torture and killings. This is a perversion of his profession.
He misused science. (Gross maintained his innocence until the end, again, my opinion is he was guilty.) He forsook his oath, he betrayed the principle of first do no harm. He placed a government's interest over the interests of of providing care. He allowed politics to trump medicine.
We can look back in horror (and should) but despite all the "never again"s that greeted the revelations of the crimes committed under the Nazi regimes (torture, genocide, etc.), we shouldn't take comfort in the fact that we all learned something from it.
That's not the case. Were it the case, the revelations in Jane Mayer's "The Experiment" (The New Yorker) wouldn't have been so appalling. I've addressed this topic at The Third Estate Sunday Review and C.I.'s addressed it several times at The Common Ills.
"Jane Mayer's 'The Experiment' (The New Yorker)" (The Common Ills):
I'll try to summarize the article but that's not an easy task. Mayer's taken a trip to Guantanamo Bay. It was an orchestrated trip by the military. At one point, a prisoner starts speaking to her of how he's been treated and her military guide hustles her out of the area quickly and to the charges made by the prisoner offers a "joke" about how the prisoner can speak English pretty well.
Time and again, Mayer's told there's no problem, that it's isolated individuals when there are problems. But via other sources, she's able to make an argument that the incidents are not only not isolated, they're the result of research and planning.
SERE comes into the story. SERE is a military unit that pops up in the aftermath of WWII. It was supposed to gather information that would help American troops to withstand pressure (and torture) if they were captured. SERE stands for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape. Originally created for the Air Force, post Vietnam, it grows to include the Navy and the Army.At Guantamano, there are "bisquits." Bisquits is "military jargon" for Behavioral Science Consultation Teams. These behavioral scientists appear to be utilizing techniques developed to help American troops resist during capture in an inverse manner -- using techniques to break the imprisoned at Guantamano down.
This raises ethical issues (which Mayer deals with, this is a summary of her article). Apparently prisoners medical files (containing information gathered by doctors) are raided to help with brainstorming ideas. Is someone afraid of the dark? Well, let's use that.
While the bisquists (Behavioral Science Consultation Teams) have apparent free access to medical files, that's not the case for everyone. Dr. John S. Edmondson ("a Navy captain who oversees the facility's medical command") claims that, "I believe we've complied with the requests [for medical records] that have reached me." Rob Kirsh ("who represents six Guantanamo detaineeds") has a paper trail that proves otherwise. Even with waivers from his clients, his requests for their medical records has been denied in multiple letters "from the Justice Department." Regarding this denial, Mayer quotes Arthur Caplan ("a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania") who notes, "Prisoners, even terrorists, have the right to their medical records, according to federal laws, common laws, the American Medical Association, and court trials."
With various documents and various sources (including a graduate of SERE who had posted at Juan Cole's Informed Comment) "The Experiment" gathers together the "isolated incidents" and demonstrates a pattern (in my reading of the article).
Techniques and actions used on American soldiers to keep them from "cracking" (my term, not Mayer's) are apparently now being used to "crack" (see previous parenthetical) prisoners.
The SERE program has always been shrouded in the secrecy of national security. Which is not unlike the attempts to find out what the Bully Boy did or did not authorize (or Donald Rumsfeld for that matter).
Would someone crack to stop a woman from being raped? Well, hey, let's try that. That appears to be the motivation and why one prisoner was told if he talked the (fake) rape would stop. There's also the case of a man and a woman having sex in a computer room next to an interrogation room with the door open.
How does that get approved? "Give it up for your country?" I'm not quite sure and I'm trying very hard not to interject my own thoughts here and provide a summary of the article so I'll move on.
There have been people pointing out that the actions were unethical or illegal or immoral (or two or all three). One person who speaks to Mayer, former FBI official who was at Guantanamo, states that he and other FBI agents did not want to participate in these actions:Some of these techniques, I don't want to see, or be part of. I took an oath to the Constitution to uphold the laws against enemies both inside the U.S. and out. The D.O.D. [Department of Defense] guy got really upset. He said he took the oath, too. I told him that we must have different interpretations.
Concerns are raised regarding "force drift." That's when "interrogators encountering resistance begin to lose the ability to restrain themselves." If you'll think of it in terms of parenting, you'll relate that to the "power struggle." There's also a "seductive" component of these techniques, as an attorney for several prisoners -- Marc Falkoff -- notes. Falkoff asserts that "a mass suicide attempt at Guantanamo, in August 2003, in which two dozens or so detainees tried to hang or strangle themselves, was provoked by Koran mistreatment . . ."
That's a SERE technique. Only on American soil, while "testing" American soldiers, they used a Bible. They might tear pages out of it or kick it around or some other method. But it was developed here with the Bible. (Again, I'm holding my tongue and just attempting to summarize.)
The question is posed (and I'd argue throughout the article) by at least one person in the article of what are we becoming? What does it say about us when we "do things that our enemies do, like using torture?"We'll close out this summary by noting that doctors have participated as "bisquits" (though not all "bisquits" are doctors -- some are p.h.d.s) with the comments of Jonathan Moreno (bioethicist):
Guantanamo is going to haunt us for a long time. The Hippocratic oath is the oldest ethical code we have. We might abandon our morality about other professions. But the medical profession is sort of the last gasp. If we give that up, we've given up our core values.
What does it say about us when we accept this behavior? A debate has raged in the medical professions largely behind closed doors. The Nation addresses this debate.
"The Silence of the Doctors" (Jonathan H. Marks, The Nation):
After 9/11 some American healthcare personnel were once again asked to step into the breach and help Army interrogators conduct aggressive interrogations. They have, among others, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller -- former camp commander at Guantanamo Bay -- to thank for this. Miller considered the participation of Behavioral Science Consultation Teams -- known colloquially as "Biscuits" -- to be an "essential" part of the interrogation process. Having introduced the first Biscuit to the Guantanamo facility in late 2002, Miller urged the deployment of a similar team at Abu Ghraib in late 2003. These Biscuits were staffed at various times by psychologists and/or psychiatrists.
[. . .]
One of the functions of Biscuit health professionals is to help interrogators tailor interrogation "stressors" to the personality of each detainee -- particularly "high-value detainees." In one example -- reported by Neil [A.] Lewis in the New York Times -- interrogators were told by a Biscuit that a detainee's medical files recorded his severe phobia of the dark, and the Biscuit suggested ways that fear could be manipulated to make the detainees cooperate.
[. . .]
According to a resolution of the General Assembly adopted without dissent in 1982, it is a "gross contravention of medical ethics" for health professionals to be complicit in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. They are also required not to use their knowledge and skills to assist with an interrogation that may adversely affect a detainee's health and is not in accordance with international law. Medical personnel who helped design and monitor aggressive interrogations like those [. . .] have undoubtedly fallen afoul of this ethical mandate.
Marks notes that the American Psychiatric Association, Physicians for Human Rights, and Physicians for Social Responsibility have spoken out against medical professional participating in programs that aid torture; however, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association have struggled (to put it mildly) to find their voice. As C.I. noted (no link because I'm rushing to finish this) at some point, Marks does as well, the American Psychological Association included on its task force to explore this issue "psychologists who work or have worked for the military -- in some cases at SERE schools."
As I stated, I'm rushing. (I'm attending mass with the McKinnons shortly.) But to nutshell this, what is going on is unacceptable. The death of Heinrich Gross should be an occasion to review how a climate for perversion of medical ethics can take place and it should make us take a serious look at what road we're currently on when medical professionals are using their skills and knowledge to assist interrogators in devising 'pressure points' (my term) for interrogations. That is a perversion of the profession. If we allow this perversion to continue, we aid in the creation of a climate that allowed Gross and others actions to be seen as worthy to their own government, as useful, as helping.
We have duties and obligations. We take an oath. We betray that, our training and our very reason for existance when we put serving a governmental policy ahead of the aims of our profession.
In closing, I'll recommend that you check out "Kat's Korner: Breaking through the 'conventional truths' with No Secrets" and "Kat's Korner: Blunt's got the goods" which are two musical commentaries Kat has provided and a third one will go up Sunday at The Common Ills so look for that as well.
Happy Holidays and Peace on Earth.
Friday, December 23, 2005
"Peace is the favor you do that you're not required to"
I'm blogging. I'm at Mike's for the holiday weekend. Mike and Nina picked me up at the airport and quickly got me in a better mood. I've had bad flights but this one truly was a nightmare.
That was from the woman on my right who apparently used an entire bottle of perfume before getting on the flight to the man on my left who played the very old, very tired line of "Don't I know you?" and continued to strike out with a plethora of old lines throughout the flight.
There seemed to be some confusion over my repeated statement of "I'm not interested." Apparently that can also be read as, "I'm playing coy. Please continue to annoy me." It got so bad that the flight attendent took pity on me and moved me to another section. (For which I've already written a note of praise to the airline that I'll attempt to mail tomorrow. I would do that at any time but this is an especially hard time for flight attendents and for people in food service so if someone takes the time to go out of their way to assist you, please consider dropping a note of thanks so that they stand a chance of recognition for going above and beyond their job standards. Do it as soon as you can because, if you're like me, you may end up putting it off until "later" and then never getting around to it.)
The McKinnons have a very warm and welcoming home. Let me note again my thanks for their opening up their holiday to include me.
Report: NYPD Planted Undercover Agents At Protests, Rallies, Vigil (Democracy Now!):
The New York Times says it has obtained videotapes that show the New York Police Department conducting surveillance by planting undercover officers at anti-war protests, bike rallies, and even a street vigil for a dead cyclist. The officers held protest signs, held flowers with mourners, rode their bicycles and videotaped the people present.
In one case, the faked arrest of an undercover officer at a demonstration outside the Republican National Convention led to a serious confrontation between riot police and bystanders that led to the arrest of two people. The bystanders had shouted "Let him go!" The Times says the tapes show at least 10 undercover operatives taking part in seven public gatherings since the Republican Convention in August 2004.
I'm noting the above item and only one tonight due to the late hour.
How does that happen? The tone gets set from the top. The Bully Boy created an environment hostile to civil liberties. The public was the enemy. That didn't start with encouraging government agencies to treat information requests in a manner that wouldn't have flown in the Clinton years.
The news is not that shocking in light of the Bully Boy's own attacks on civil liberties and spying which may be the worst thing of all. We may be so used to the outrage that it is now the norm.
This is how torture and all of the other things Bully Boy's inflicted upon the nation in our names harms us as a people. It's obvious how it harms our image in the eyes of the world. It's obvious how it harms our own troops should they be captured in a future war. But what it does to the people in this country is lower all of our standards.
We build up a tolerance for the outrage and after awhile it may take something even more shocking to arouse our sensibilities and sense of outrage. If your next door neighbor moves in and blasts music around the clock so loud that the windows shake, you may be irritated and outraged. But if the music continues to blast at annoying level but not so loud that your windows shake, you may see it as an improvement. We do develop tolerances.
That's why it is very important to speak out when you can. If you don't speak out on this, you may stay silent on the next thing and the thing after. What's done in our name, is done in our name. Bully Boy doesn't represent the nation's feelings or attitudes by acting upon them; however, as a figure head, he can set the tone.
If torture and spying on Americans doesn't rouse you to find your voice, nothing may. The country stands for something and what it stands for today is so far from what we always hope our nation will represent.
Be sure to read C.I.'s "NYT: 'New York Police Covertly Join In at Protest Rallies' aka Jim Dwyer tries to cover what didn't interest the paper in real time" which puts into perspective both the New York Times' previous lack of interest and the fact that Democracy Now! actually covered the events that the Times is only now aware of.
Tonight/this morning's peace quote is mine. I am tired so the wording isn't all it should be. But I really did appreciate the flight attendent's help this evening.
"Peace Quote:"
Peace is the favor you do that you're not required to.
That was from the woman on my right who apparently used an entire bottle of perfume before getting on the flight to the man on my left who played the very old, very tired line of "Don't I know you?" and continued to strike out with a plethora of old lines throughout the flight.
There seemed to be some confusion over my repeated statement of "I'm not interested." Apparently that can also be read as, "I'm playing coy. Please continue to annoy me." It got so bad that the flight attendent took pity on me and moved me to another section. (For which I've already written a note of praise to the airline that I'll attempt to mail tomorrow. I would do that at any time but this is an especially hard time for flight attendents and for people in food service so if someone takes the time to go out of their way to assist you, please consider dropping a note of thanks so that they stand a chance of recognition for going above and beyond their job standards. Do it as soon as you can because, if you're like me, you may end up putting it off until "later" and then never getting around to it.)
The McKinnons have a very warm and welcoming home. Let me note again my thanks for their opening up their holiday to include me.
Report: NYPD Planted Undercover Agents At Protests, Rallies, Vigil (Democracy Now!):
The New York Times says it has obtained videotapes that show the New York Police Department conducting surveillance by planting undercover officers at anti-war protests, bike rallies, and even a street vigil for a dead cyclist. The officers held protest signs, held flowers with mourners, rode their bicycles and videotaped the people present.
In one case, the faked arrest of an undercover officer at a demonstration outside the Republican National Convention led to a serious confrontation between riot police and bystanders that led to the arrest of two people. The bystanders had shouted "Let him go!" The Times says the tapes show at least 10 undercover operatives taking part in seven public gatherings since the Republican Convention in August 2004.
I'm noting the above item and only one tonight due to the late hour.
How does that happen? The tone gets set from the top. The Bully Boy created an environment hostile to civil liberties. The public was the enemy. That didn't start with encouraging government agencies to treat information requests in a manner that wouldn't have flown in the Clinton years.
The news is not that shocking in light of the Bully Boy's own attacks on civil liberties and spying which may be the worst thing of all. We may be so used to the outrage that it is now the norm.
This is how torture and all of the other things Bully Boy's inflicted upon the nation in our names harms us as a people. It's obvious how it harms our image in the eyes of the world. It's obvious how it harms our own troops should they be captured in a future war. But what it does to the people in this country is lower all of our standards.
We build up a tolerance for the outrage and after awhile it may take something even more shocking to arouse our sensibilities and sense of outrage. If your next door neighbor moves in and blasts music around the clock so loud that the windows shake, you may be irritated and outraged. But if the music continues to blast at annoying level but not so loud that your windows shake, you may see it as an improvement. We do develop tolerances.
That's why it is very important to speak out when you can. If you don't speak out on this, you may stay silent on the next thing and the thing after. What's done in our name, is done in our name. Bully Boy doesn't represent the nation's feelings or attitudes by acting upon them; however, as a figure head, he can set the tone.
If torture and spying on Americans doesn't rouse you to find your voice, nothing may. The country stands for something and what it stands for today is so far from what we always hope our nation will represent.
Be sure to read C.I.'s "NYT: 'New York Police Covertly Join In at Protest Rallies' aka Jim Dwyer tries to cover what didn't interest the paper in real time" which puts into perspective both the New York Times' previous lack of interest and the fact that Democracy Now! actually covered the events that the Times is only now aware of.
Tonight/this morning's peace quote is mine. I am tired so the wording isn't all it should be. But I really did appreciate the flight attendent's help this evening.
"Peace Quote:"
Peace is the favor you do that you're not required to.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
"Rise, hope of ages, arise like the sun!"
I've got a light
Though it refuses to burn
I've got a life
It ain't over
It ain't over
I've got a way
It's the only thing that's mine
Rebecca quoted the song above last night. It's from Eurythmics' Ultimate Collection and Kat recommended it to her. I got the CD today and I'm listening to it and another one. The song seemed to have something to say about what's going on right now. You've got so much going on regarding the spying. The Bully Boy's out of control and they offer spin one moment and the next reporters actually refute it. It's how the press is supposed to work. I think Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! are providing the best perspective, no surprise, but it's good to see the mainstream media actually pay a little bit of attention to a story that actually matters.
I mentioned that I'm listening to two CDs tonight. The other one? We all picked our favorite Christmas song at The Third Estate Sunday Review:
Mike: "Away In A Manger" by Joan Baez, off her Noel CD. My parents play that CD like crazy. They got it for Christmas two Christmas ago to replace their worn out vinyl version.
Cedric: Aaron Neville's "Bells Of St. Mary." I know it from the radio and have no idea what album it would be on.
Kat: I'll go with Joni Mitchell's "River" which isn't technically a Christmas song but it opens with, "It's coming on Christmas/ They're cutting down trees . . ." It originally appeared on Blue.
Elaine: Stevie Nicks' "Silent Night" off A Very Special Christmas. "Well it was a" and "You know it was a" and other vamps plus Stevie's voice make it my must hear every Christmas.
Rebecca: "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" off Barbra Streisand's Christmas Album.
Ty: "Ava Maria" by Diana Ross on A Very Special Season. I love that whole album. The production is really light and there's no attempt to smother her voice. It's a really great CD and one that my family has listened to forever.
Dona: I'll go with a song from Noel as well and imagine that Ava will too. We've become big Joan Baez fans and in our joint CD collection this is the only Christmas album we have. I'll go with "O Come, O Come, Emmanuel" because that's always a song I enjoyed singing at Christmas.
Jim: Don't know an album it's on but Marvin Gaye's "I Want To Come Home For Christmas." It's always been a favorite of mine.
Jess: "Happy X-Mas (War Is Over)" by John Lennon and Yoko Ono. I've always loved the song. "So this is Christmas and what have you done . . ." I think it asks us to think beyond ourselves. And it's a song worth listening to.
Wally: My mom loves Carly Simon so I'll go with "Twelve Gates To The City" from Christmas Is Almost Here. It's got a really strong beat to it.
Ava: I think I'll go with Carly as well. We've got the soundtrack to This Is My Life and she has a song on that entitled "The Night Before Christmas." I'll also note that although Dona and I were building a joint collection that we intend to split up evenly when we graduate, it's to be split in half. Hint to Jim who's been eyeing some of the CDs.
C.I.: We're talking about what we listen to at Christmas time and, since it's already been noted before by Elaine, Christmas to me is always the Doors. For the last ten years, it would be The Best Of The Doors, double disc. Prior to that it was The Best Of The Doors single disc collection.
Betty: "Silver Bells" by the Supremes off their Merry Christmas CD.
And, yes, we asked our reader's sister for her pick as well.
Cathy: "Adeste fideles" by Placido Domingo and Jose Carreras primarily but any recording will do.
I was familiar with almost all the songs above. You can't decorate the Christmas tree with C.I., for instance, without having the Doors on the background. (That's not a joke. In e-mails and in person, people ask me if that's true? It is true.) All of the songs are good selections that I enjoy except for one that I didn't know. Ty's pick was one he felt really strong about and we were all saying, "You should have talked about that!" Because he mentions the song in the feature but after we were done with it and the editorial, Betty asked him about the song and Ty went into five minutes on it. He really loves that song.
Ty and I may be the ones who say the least in any discussion. We're fine with listening. But I really wish Ty had talked about why he enjoyed "Ava Marie" when we were noting our
reason(s) for the feature. He sold me on the song.
I've been attempting to find it all week. It's an import and not easy to locate (or wasn't for me).
So finally today, I was able to locate it and, since Rebecca had talked about Eurythmics the night before, I grabbed their CD too. I'll probably write about the Diana Ross CD next time. Not the way Kat would. It won't be a review. Kat's the musical genuis. But this really is a wonderful album.
Now let's focus on an important issue in the news. You know which one, the one Rebecca's covering, C.I. is covering, and of course, my blog twin continues to cover it so remember to check out Mike's site (Mikey Likes It!) for his commentary. Don't forget that Wally's covering it to. He was planning on taking a bit of a break this week but this issue is important to him and so he's been weighing in at The Daily Jot when he could have been relaxing and enjoying the holiday time with his family. Let's get to the issue.
Surveillance Court Judge Resigns in Protest of Bush Spy Program (Democracy Now!):
This news on the Bush administration's domestic espionage program: the Washington Post is reporting a judge has resigned from the country's top spy court in protest of the secret program in which the National Security Agency has eavesdropped on Americans without court-approved warrants. U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, submitted his resignation Monday. The court is regarded as the only authority to authorize wire-taps for domestic espionage.
Why would a judge resign a post? Because the judge is obviously dismayed to learn that FISA's been circumvented by the Bully Boy. Also because some of the warrents FISA did issue may have been issued after Bully Boy learned of things via illegal eavesdropping. For more on this,
see Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer 's Washington Post article entitled"Spy Court Judge Quits In ProtestJurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel."
Bush in 2004: "Wiretap Requires A Court Order" (Democracy Now!):
President Bush has argued eavesdropping without court-approved warrants is legal under authority granted by Congress shortly after 9/11. But in April of last year President Bush told reporters wire-taps were only conducted with court approval.
President Bush, April 20, 2004: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
The White House is now claiming Bush was referring only to actions taken under the Patriot Act.
In 2004, he publicly said it required a court order. Of course, while he was saying that, the NSA was already listening in without one. By the way, while we're noting the foolish (Bully Boy is criminally foolish), let's note Fact Check Org which is foolish and useless and could use some fact checking of it's own. Let's note their scolding of the ACLU in September 2004. Predominately the focus was the Patriot Act the ACLU ran. But note this howler of embarrassing proportions in light of the news:
The ad implies the government is "treating us all like suspects," but so far there's no evidence of that.
So quick to carry water for the Bully Boy, so quick to bend over and attack the ad that "They lied" -- uh, yes, Bully Boy said it, but he, uh, thought WMD were found in Iraq, yes, uh Condi did say of Saddam "We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon" but that's not a lie and it's not a lie because we say so.
They are beyond useless. Kerry is wrong because he went by an Oct. 9th Washington Post article in a debate on the night of the 9th. The Washington Post retracted the story days later. So Kerry is wrong. But with Bully Boy they bent over backwards to avoid stating the obvious. Here's an obvious statement, Fact Check Org. needs a fact checker.
Fact Check Org's attitude seems to be "We say Condi didn't lie because (shaped) intelligence backed her up and we ignore that intelligence was shaped and the fact that in real time her comments were disputed." They can't synthesize information and while reports from the BBC or other mainstream foreign media outlets are ignored, they rush to cite The Washington Times as if that's a reputable paper. They bent over backwards in what appears to be an effort to demonstrate that they had no bias. They just look now like they had no brains.
They look foolish now but if they'd paid attention to reports at the time they wouldn't.
Now I'm going to note something Mike's mother had noted at The Common Ills.
"Bush Takes the Crown" (Matthew Rothschild, This Just In, The Progressive):
Add this to the long list of impeachable offenses that George W. Bush has committed, and put it at the top.
The President swears an oath of office that he will uphold the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws of the land.
The law against domestic spying without a warrant he has executed, all right. He shot it in the head.
When The New York Times revealed on December 16 (after sitting on the story for a year and omitting details at the request of Administration officials!) that Bush ordered the National Security Agency to monitor "the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years," I expected Bush to deny it or to say he was going to review the policy.
Instead, he is vehemently defending that policy, citing his authority under the Constitution as commander in chief and Congress's authorization to go after Al Qaeda. He did so in his radio address on Saturday and in his press conference on Monday.
But these were the very same rationales that the Bush Administration put forward last year at the Supreme Court in the case of Yaser Hamdi, one of the U.S. citizens Bush detained without charge or trial.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, did not buy those arguments at all. "A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens," O'Connor wrote.
It's an article worth noting but I'm also noting it in reply to some questions in e-mails: will I be posting Thursday night? I intend to. I'll be staying with Mike's family for Christmas at the kind invitation of Mike's mother who asked me after Thanksgiving. I always have a standing offer with C.I. but I prefer to grab Thanksgiving because Christmas is more elaborate. You have more house guests and you've got even more cooking to do. (C.I. does that. You're lucky to be able to help peel potatoes. But I always feel guilty when I turn in for the night knowing that C.I.'s up the entire night making sure everything's perfect.) I met Mike's parents when we were all protesting in D.C. back in September. His mother had actually invited me to Thanksgiving then but, unless my brother's in the country, I usually grab that holiday with C.I. But it was a sincere invitation.
So I'll get there Thursday night and hopefully be able to put something up at some point Thursday night. Mike says we'll both post after each other but I would like to spend some time with Mike's mother who is very cool. So is his father but Mike's mother and I share an interest in the same books and we're looking forward to swapping out some of the ones we kept telling each other, "Well if you liked that, you have to read this book called . . ."
If I'm not able to post Thursday night, this was a pretty long entry for me.
Be sure to check out C.I.'s "Governmental spying/snooping" which talks about what's going on today and what went on under Richard Nixon.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
The dark night is over and dawn has begun. Rise, hope of the ages, arise like the sun! All speech, flow to music; all hearts, beat as one.
John Greenleaf Whittier
Though it refuses to burn
I've got a life
It ain't over
It ain't over
I've got a way
It's the only thing that's mine
Rebecca quoted the song above last night. It's from Eurythmics' Ultimate Collection and Kat recommended it to her. I got the CD today and I'm listening to it and another one. The song seemed to have something to say about what's going on right now. You've got so much going on regarding the spying. The Bully Boy's out of control and they offer spin one moment and the next reporters actually refute it. It's how the press is supposed to work. I think Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! are providing the best perspective, no surprise, but it's good to see the mainstream media actually pay a little bit of attention to a story that actually matters.
I mentioned that I'm listening to two CDs tonight. The other one? We all picked our favorite Christmas song at The Third Estate Sunday Review:
Mike: "Away In A Manger" by Joan Baez, off her Noel CD. My parents play that CD like crazy. They got it for Christmas two Christmas ago to replace their worn out vinyl version.
Cedric: Aaron Neville's "Bells Of St. Mary." I know it from the radio and have no idea what album it would be on.
Kat: I'll go with Joni Mitchell's "River" which isn't technically a Christmas song but it opens with, "It's coming on Christmas/ They're cutting down trees . . ." It originally appeared on Blue.
Elaine: Stevie Nicks' "Silent Night" off A Very Special Christmas. "Well it was a" and "You know it was a" and other vamps plus Stevie's voice make it my must hear every Christmas.
Rebecca: "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" off Barbra Streisand's Christmas Album.
Ty: "Ava Maria" by Diana Ross on A Very Special Season. I love that whole album. The production is really light and there's no attempt to smother her voice. It's a really great CD and one that my family has listened to forever.
Dona: I'll go with a song from Noel as well and imagine that Ava will too. We've become big Joan Baez fans and in our joint CD collection this is the only Christmas album we have. I'll go with "O Come, O Come, Emmanuel" because that's always a song I enjoyed singing at Christmas.
Jim: Don't know an album it's on but Marvin Gaye's "I Want To Come Home For Christmas." It's always been a favorite of mine.
Jess: "Happy X-Mas (War Is Over)" by John Lennon and Yoko Ono. I've always loved the song. "So this is Christmas and what have you done . . ." I think it asks us to think beyond ourselves. And it's a song worth listening to.
Wally: My mom loves Carly Simon so I'll go with "Twelve Gates To The City" from Christmas Is Almost Here. It's got a really strong beat to it.
Ava: I think I'll go with Carly as well. We've got the soundtrack to This Is My Life and she has a song on that entitled "The Night Before Christmas." I'll also note that although Dona and I were building a joint collection that we intend to split up evenly when we graduate, it's to be split in half. Hint to Jim who's been eyeing some of the CDs.
C.I.: We're talking about what we listen to at Christmas time and, since it's already been noted before by Elaine, Christmas to me is always the Doors. For the last ten years, it would be The Best Of The Doors, double disc. Prior to that it was The Best Of The Doors single disc collection.
Betty: "Silver Bells" by the Supremes off their Merry Christmas CD.
And, yes, we asked our reader's sister for her pick as well.
Cathy: "Adeste fideles" by Placido Domingo and Jose Carreras primarily but any recording will do.
I was familiar with almost all the songs above. You can't decorate the Christmas tree with C.I., for instance, without having the Doors on the background. (That's not a joke. In e-mails and in person, people ask me if that's true? It is true.) All of the songs are good selections that I enjoy except for one that I didn't know. Ty's pick was one he felt really strong about and we were all saying, "You should have talked about that!" Because he mentions the song in the feature but after we were done with it and the editorial, Betty asked him about the song and Ty went into five minutes on it. He really loves that song.
Ty and I may be the ones who say the least in any discussion. We're fine with listening. But I really wish Ty had talked about why he enjoyed "Ava Marie" when we were noting our
reason(s) for the feature. He sold me on the song.
I've been attempting to find it all week. It's an import and not easy to locate (or wasn't for me).
So finally today, I was able to locate it and, since Rebecca had talked about Eurythmics the night before, I grabbed their CD too. I'll probably write about the Diana Ross CD next time. Not the way Kat would. It won't be a review. Kat's the musical genuis. But this really is a wonderful album.
Now let's focus on an important issue in the news. You know which one, the one Rebecca's covering, C.I. is covering, and of course, my blog twin continues to cover it so remember to check out Mike's site (Mikey Likes It!) for his commentary. Don't forget that Wally's covering it to. He was planning on taking a bit of a break this week but this issue is important to him and so he's been weighing in at The Daily Jot when he could have been relaxing and enjoying the holiday time with his family. Let's get to the issue.
Surveillance Court Judge Resigns in Protest of Bush Spy Program (Democracy Now!):
This news on the Bush administration's domestic espionage program: the Washington Post is reporting a judge has resigned from the country's top spy court in protest of the secret program in which the National Security Agency has eavesdropped on Americans without court-approved warrants. U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, submitted his resignation Monday. The court is regarded as the only authority to authorize wire-taps for domestic espionage.
Why would a judge resign a post? Because the judge is obviously dismayed to learn that FISA's been circumvented by the Bully Boy. Also because some of the warrents FISA did issue may have been issued after Bully Boy learned of things via illegal eavesdropping. For more on this,
see Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer 's Washington Post article entitled"Spy Court Judge Quits In ProtestJurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel."
Bush in 2004: "Wiretap Requires A Court Order" (Democracy Now!):
President Bush has argued eavesdropping without court-approved warrants is legal under authority granted by Congress shortly after 9/11. But in April of last year President Bush told reporters wire-taps were only conducted with court approval.
President Bush, April 20, 2004: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
The White House is now claiming Bush was referring only to actions taken under the Patriot Act.
In 2004, he publicly said it required a court order. Of course, while he was saying that, the NSA was already listening in without one. By the way, while we're noting the foolish (Bully Boy is criminally foolish), let's note Fact Check Org which is foolish and useless and could use some fact checking of it's own. Let's note their scolding of the ACLU in September 2004. Predominately the focus was the Patriot Act the ACLU ran. But note this howler of embarrassing proportions in light of the news:
The ad implies the government is "treating us all like suspects," but so far there's no evidence of that.
So quick to carry water for the Bully Boy, so quick to bend over and attack the ad that "They lied" -- uh, yes, Bully Boy said it, but he, uh, thought WMD were found in Iraq, yes, uh Condi did say of Saddam "We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon" but that's not a lie and it's not a lie because we say so.
They are beyond useless. Kerry is wrong because he went by an Oct. 9th Washington Post article in a debate on the night of the 9th. The Washington Post retracted the story days later. So Kerry is wrong. But with Bully Boy they bent over backwards to avoid stating the obvious. Here's an obvious statement, Fact Check Org. needs a fact checker.
Fact Check Org's attitude seems to be "We say Condi didn't lie because (shaped) intelligence backed her up and we ignore that intelligence was shaped and the fact that in real time her comments were disputed." They can't synthesize information and while reports from the BBC or other mainstream foreign media outlets are ignored, they rush to cite The Washington Times as if that's a reputable paper. They bent over backwards in what appears to be an effort to demonstrate that they had no bias. They just look now like they had no brains.
They look foolish now but if they'd paid attention to reports at the time they wouldn't.
Now I'm going to note something Mike's mother had noted at The Common Ills.
"Bush Takes the Crown" (Matthew Rothschild, This Just In, The Progressive):
Add this to the long list of impeachable offenses that George W. Bush has committed, and put it at the top.
The President swears an oath of office that he will uphold the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws of the land.
The law against domestic spying without a warrant he has executed, all right. He shot it in the head.
When The New York Times revealed on December 16 (after sitting on the story for a year and omitting details at the request of Administration officials!) that Bush ordered the National Security Agency to monitor "the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years," I expected Bush to deny it or to say he was going to review the policy.
Instead, he is vehemently defending that policy, citing his authority under the Constitution as commander in chief and Congress's authorization to go after Al Qaeda. He did so in his radio address on Saturday and in his press conference on Monday.
But these were the very same rationales that the Bush Administration put forward last year at the Supreme Court in the case of Yaser Hamdi, one of the U.S. citizens Bush detained without charge or trial.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, did not buy those arguments at all. "A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens," O'Connor wrote.
It's an article worth noting but I'm also noting it in reply to some questions in e-mails: will I be posting Thursday night? I intend to. I'll be staying with Mike's family for Christmas at the kind invitation of Mike's mother who asked me after Thanksgiving. I always have a standing offer with C.I. but I prefer to grab Thanksgiving because Christmas is more elaborate. You have more house guests and you've got even more cooking to do. (C.I. does that. You're lucky to be able to help peel potatoes. But I always feel guilty when I turn in for the night knowing that C.I.'s up the entire night making sure everything's perfect.) I met Mike's parents when we were all protesting in D.C. back in September. His mother had actually invited me to Thanksgiving then but, unless my brother's in the country, I usually grab that holiday with C.I. But it was a sincere invitation.
So I'll get there Thursday night and hopefully be able to put something up at some point Thursday night. Mike says we'll both post after each other but I would like to spend some time with Mike's mother who is very cool. So is his father but Mike's mother and I share an interest in the same books and we're looking forward to swapping out some of the ones we kept telling each other, "Well if you liked that, you have to read this book called . . ."
If I'm not able to post Thursday night, this was a pretty long entry for me.
Be sure to check out C.I.'s "Governmental spying/snooping" which talks about what's going on today and what went on under Richard Nixon.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
The dark night is over and dawn has begun. Rise, hope of the ages, arise like the sun! All speech, flow to music; all hearts, beat as one.
John Greenleaf Whittier
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
"No one can be at peace unless he [or she] has his freedom"
Do you scream or dig in? That may be the question right now as the revelations about Bully Boy and his administration spying continue to pour out. I think we stand tall and hope you do as well.
I'm focusing on this issue because I think it's important. Rebecca's covering it and C.I. is as well. Of course, my blog twin continues to cover it so remember to check out Mike's site (Mikey Likes It!) for his commentary. Also, please make time for Wally's site, The Daily Jot. He has a nice roundup on the topic of spying on American citizens: "Electronic Peeping Tom Bully Boy."
That's what Bully Boy is, an electronic peeping tom.
FBI Spied on Greenpeace, PETA, Catholic Worker (Democracy Now!):
In Washington, newly released documents show counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been monitoring domestic activist groups including Greenpeace, Catholic Worker, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and PETA, the People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The documents indicate the F.B.I. monitored protests organized by the groups and used confidential informants inside the organizations to gain intelligence. In one case, government records show the FBI launched a terrorism investigation of PETA in Norfolk, Virginia.
As C.I. noted, building on The Third Estate Sunday Review's editorial, "We are all the outlaws in the eyes of the Bully Boy." Who's the "uniter"? Not the Bully Boy who feels you're with him or against him and, if you're against him, it's okay to spy on you.
I was unaware that the presidential election every four years came with a loyalty oath but apparently Bully Boy thinks it does. He's made it a point to govern only for those who voted for him while going out of his way to penalize those who opposed him. Sich the IRS on the NAACP? No problem for the Bully Boy. Eject people from gatherings based upon bumper stickers and t-shirts? No problem for the Bully Boy. The documentation that recently came out is something the ACLU has been seeking for some time. This is just the beginning.
Documents Show FBI Agents Tracked PETA For Years (Democracy Now!):
According to the Washington Post, the documents offer no proof of PETA's involvement in illegal activity. But more than 100 pages of heavily censored FBI files show the agency used secret informants and tracked the group's events for years. The FBI also monitored political activities on college campuses. One FBI file included a contact list for students and peace activists who attended a 2002 conference at Stanford University aimed at ending sanctions then in place in Iraq.
Well maybe that's why the FBI hasn't been able to find Osama bin Laden? They've been too busy trailing and spying on PETA? It's as though Bully Boy's accepted Pat Robertson and Billy Graham's son's "logic" re: 9/11. It's certainly not about terrorism, their actions, unless it's to demonstrate that a homegrown terrorist can occupy the White House for five years now.
Reports Expose Growing Domestic Surveillance (Democracy Now!):
This is the third major recent revelation about domestic spying. Last week NBC News revealed the Pentagon has been monitoring peaceful anti-war protesters and the New York Times exposed how President Bush ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without court-approved warrants. Ann Beeson, of the American Civil Liberties Union said "It's clear that this administration has engaged every possible agency, from the Pentagon to N.S.A. to the F.B.I., to engage in spying on Americans."
Again, this is just a small portion, the documents. There's much more to come.
For the ACLU files on some of the FBI spying click here.
Let's note the following for an important point made.
"NYT: 'F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show'" (The Common Ills):
From Lichtblau's article:
F.B.I. officials said Monday that their investigators had no interest in monitoring political or social activities and that any investigations that touched on advocacy groups were driven by evidence of criminal or violent activity at public protests and in other settings.
"Driven by evidence of criminal or violent activity at public protests and in other settings"? Where are the charges for this evidence? Is the Justice Dept. suggesting that they have evidence and aren't prosecuting people?
Good point. Where are the charges, if they have evidence? Or maybe, as with Jose Padilla, they'd prefer to smear for now and admit they have nothing later?
C.I. mentioned an article to me on the phone today.
"Nothing New About NSA Spying on Americans" (Earl Ofari Hutchinson, CounterPunch):
The September 11 terror attacks, and the heat Bush administration took for its towering intelligence lapses, gave Bush the excuse to plunge even deeper into domestic spying. But Bush also recognized that if word got out about NSA domestic spying, it would ignite a firestorm of protest. Fortunately it did. Despite Bush's weak, and self-serving national security excuse that it thwarted potential terrorist attacks, none of which is verifiable, the Supreme Court, the NSA's own mandate, and past executive orders explicitly bar domestic spying without court authorization. The exception is if there is a grave and imminent terror threat. That's the shaky legal dodge that Bush used to justify domestic spying.
Bush, and his defenders, discount the monumental threat and damage that spying on Americans poses to civil liberties. But it can't and shouldn't be shrugged off. During the debate over the creation of a domestic spy agency in 2002, even proponents recognized the potential threat of such an agency to civil liberties. As a safeguard they recommended that the agency not have expanded wiretap and surveillance powers or law enforcement authority, and that the Senate and House intelligence committees have strict oversight over its activities.
These supposed fail-safe measures were hardly ironclad safeguards against abuses, but they understood that domestic spying is a civil liberties nightmare minefield that has blown up and wreaked havoc on American's lives in the past. The FBI is the prime example. During the 1950s and 1960s, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover kicked FBI domestic spying into high gear. FBI agents compiled secret dossiers, illegally wiretapped, used undercover plants, and agent provocateurs, sent poison pen letters, and staged black bag jobs against black activists and anti-war groups.
Bush's claim that domestic spying poses no risk to civil liberties is laughable. Congress should demand that Bush and the NSA come clean on domestic spying, and then promptly end it.
How's this playing out in your area? My hope would be that people are already talking about it but, if not, I hope you're bringing it up.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom.
Malcolm X
I'm focusing on this issue because I think it's important. Rebecca's covering it and C.I. is as well. Of course, my blog twin continues to cover it so remember to check out Mike's site (Mikey Likes It!) for his commentary. Also, please make time for Wally's site, The Daily Jot. He has a nice roundup on the topic of spying on American citizens: "Electronic Peeping Tom Bully Boy."
That's what Bully Boy is, an electronic peeping tom.
FBI Spied on Greenpeace, PETA, Catholic Worker (Democracy Now!):
In Washington, newly released documents show counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been monitoring domestic activist groups including Greenpeace, Catholic Worker, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and PETA, the People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The documents indicate the F.B.I. monitored protests organized by the groups and used confidential informants inside the organizations to gain intelligence. In one case, government records show the FBI launched a terrorism investigation of PETA in Norfolk, Virginia.
As C.I. noted, building on The Third Estate Sunday Review's editorial, "We are all the outlaws in the eyes of the Bully Boy." Who's the "uniter"? Not the Bully Boy who feels you're with him or against him and, if you're against him, it's okay to spy on you.
I was unaware that the presidential election every four years came with a loyalty oath but apparently Bully Boy thinks it does. He's made it a point to govern only for those who voted for him while going out of his way to penalize those who opposed him. Sich the IRS on the NAACP? No problem for the Bully Boy. Eject people from gatherings based upon bumper stickers and t-shirts? No problem for the Bully Boy. The documentation that recently came out is something the ACLU has been seeking for some time. This is just the beginning.
Documents Show FBI Agents Tracked PETA For Years (Democracy Now!):
According to the Washington Post, the documents offer no proof of PETA's involvement in illegal activity. But more than 100 pages of heavily censored FBI files show the agency used secret informants and tracked the group's events for years. The FBI also monitored political activities on college campuses. One FBI file included a contact list for students and peace activists who attended a 2002 conference at Stanford University aimed at ending sanctions then in place in Iraq.
Well maybe that's why the FBI hasn't been able to find Osama bin Laden? They've been too busy trailing and spying on PETA? It's as though Bully Boy's accepted Pat Robertson and Billy Graham's son's "logic" re: 9/11. It's certainly not about terrorism, their actions, unless it's to demonstrate that a homegrown terrorist can occupy the White House for five years now.
Reports Expose Growing Domestic Surveillance (Democracy Now!):
This is the third major recent revelation about domestic spying. Last week NBC News revealed the Pentagon has been monitoring peaceful anti-war protesters and the New York Times exposed how President Bush ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without court-approved warrants. Ann Beeson, of the American Civil Liberties Union said "It's clear that this administration has engaged every possible agency, from the Pentagon to N.S.A. to the F.B.I., to engage in spying on Americans."
Again, this is just a small portion, the documents. There's much more to come.
For the ACLU files on some of the FBI spying click here.
Let's note the following for an important point made.
"NYT: 'F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show'" (The Common Ills):
From Lichtblau's article:
F.B.I. officials said Monday that their investigators had no interest in monitoring political or social activities and that any investigations that touched on advocacy groups were driven by evidence of criminal or violent activity at public protests and in other settings.
"Driven by evidence of criminal or violent activity at public protests and in other settings"? Where are the charges for this evidence? Is the Justice Dept. suggesting that they have evidence and aren't prosecuting people?
Good point. Where are the charges, if they have evidence? Or maybe, as with Jose Padilla, they'd prefer to smear for now and admit they have nothing later?
C.I. mentioned an article to me on the phone today.
"Nothing New About NSA Spying on Americans" (Earl Ofari Hutchinson, CounterPunch):
The September 11 terror attacks, and the heat Bush administration took for its towering intelligence lapses, gave Bush the excuse to plunge even deeper into domestic spying. But Bush also recognized that if word got out about NSA domestic spying, it would ignite a firestorm of protest. Fortunately it did. Despite Bush's weak, and self-serving national security excuse that it thwarted potential terrorist attacks, none of which is verifiable, the Supreme Court, the NSA's own mandate, and past executive orders explicitly bar domestic spying without court authorization. The exception is if there is a grave and imminent terror threat. That's the shaky legal dodge that Bush used to justify domestic spying.
Bush, and his defenders, discount the monumental threat and damage that spying on Americans poses to civil liberties. But it can't and shouldn't be shrugged off. During the debate over the creation of a domestic spy agency in 2002, even proponents recognized the potential threat of such an agency to civil liberties. As a safeguard they recommended that the agency not have expanded wiretap and surveillance powers or law enforcement authority, and that the Senate and House intelligence committees have strict oversight over its activities.
These supposed fail-safe measures were hardly ironclad safeguards against abuses, but they understood that domestic spying is a civil liberties nightmare minefield that has blown up and wreaked havoc on American's lives in the past. The FBI is the prime example. During the 1950s and 1960s, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover kicked FBI domestic spying into high gear. FBI agents compiled secret dossiers, illegally wiretapped, used undercover plants, and agent provocateurs, sent poison pen letters, and staged black bag jobs against black activists and anti-war groups.
Bush's claim that domestic spying poses no risk to civil liberties is laughable. Congress should demand that Bush and the NSA come clean on domestic spying, and then promptly end it.
How's this playing out in your area? My hope would be that people are already talking about it but, if not, I hope you're bringing it up.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom.
Malcolm X
Monday, December 19, 2005
It lives inside us
It's cold and getting colder. I hope everyone found a moment of peace this weekend (hard as that can be these days). Remember to check out Mike's site (Mikey Likes It!) for his commentary.
Bush Okd Secret Wiretapping of Americans Without Warrants (Democracy Now!):
President Bush has admitted that he secretly ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without ever seeking constitutionally required court approved warrants. The president initially refused to answer any questions about the secret program but on Saturday he spoke openly about it and defended the practice
President Bush: "I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."
The admission came just days after NBC News reported the Pentagon has vastly expanded its domestic surveillance operations including the monitoring of peaceful anti-war protesters.
He has betrayed the nation. Someone can try to pretty it up all they want but that is what he did. Let's move to the second one.
Sen. Leahy: No More Secret Orders, Secret Courts, Secret Torture (Democracy Now!):
Many legal experts have accused the President of breaking the law by ordering the wiretappings without a court warrant as required under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT): "This warrant-less eavesdropping program is not authorized by the patriot act, it's not authorized by any act of congress, and it's not overseen by any court. And according to reports it has been conducted under a secret presidential order, based on secret legal opinions by the same justice department, lawyers who argued secretly, that the president could order the use of torture. Mr. President, it is time to have some checks and balances in this country, we are a democracy. We are a democracy. Let's have checks and balances, not secret orders and secret courts and secret torture, and on and on."
King Bully Boy and his court of fools. They aren't working for America. They're working for King Bully Boy. They're loyalties aren't with the public, aren't with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any belief, written or not, that speaks to the higher nature of what our nation is supposed to aspire to.
They are working for a crook. Outing CIA agents, lying and scare mongering a nation into war, spying on citizens, refusing citizens access to public events . . . It's a long, long list. Mike told me about our online latter day Dylan (C.I.'s term) and how he embarrassed himself today. He used to stand tall but now he rushes to hold hands with someone he's inferred is the enemy. That's truly sad. It's also truly sad that he (and his hand holding mate) think they can hand down rules on how people must converse. A bit of the Bully Boy seems to be seeping in. That's all I'll say on it because C.I.'s biting the tongue re: latter day Dylan and, if I write more on this, I won't be able to.
The affront isn't from people who speak in their own voices, it's from those who remain silent.
What's going on in the oval office needs to be called out by people in their own voices, in their own way of speaking. Not to call it out is far more dangerous and destructive than to use what someone feels are the "wrong words." We need to be discussing this, all of us, because if we don't, if we stay silent, we're saying it's okay and we're turning our backs on what we are supposed to believe in.
When you do that, you destroy your own character as well as the nation's character.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
We used to wonder where war lived, what it was that made it so vile. And now we realize that we know where it lives, that it is inside ourselves.
Albert Camus
Bush Okd Secret Wiretapping of Americans Without Warrants (Democracy Now!):
President Bush has admitted that he secretly ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without ever seeking constitutionally required court approved warrants. The president initially refused to answer any questions about the secret program but on Saturday he spoke openly about it and defended the practice
President Bush: "I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."
The admission came just days after NBC News reported the Pentagon has vastly expanded its domestic surveillance operations including the monitoring of peaceful anti-war protesters.
He has betrayed the nation. Someone can try to pretty it up all they want but that is what he did. Let's move to the second one.
Sen. Leahy: No More Secret Orders, Secret Courts, Secret Torture (Democracy Now!):
Many legal experts have accused the President of breaking the law by ordering the wiretappings without a court warrant as required under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT): "This warrant-less eavesdropping program is not authorized by the patriot act, it's not authorized by any act of congress, and it's not overseen by any court. And according to reports it has been conducted under a secret presidential order, based on secret legal opinions by the same justice department, lawyers who argued secretly, that the president could order the use of torture. Mr. President, it is time to have some checks and balances in this country, we are a democracy. We are a democracy. Let's have checks and balances, not secret orders and secret courts and secret torture, and on and on."
King Bully Boy and his court of fools. They aren't working for America. They're working for King Bully Boy. They're loyalties aren't with the public, aren't with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any belief, written or not, that speaks to the higher nature of what our nation is supposed to aspire to.
They are working for a crook. Outing CIA agents, lying and scare mongering a nation into war, spying on citizens, refusing citizens access to public events . . . It's a long, long list. Mike told me about our online latter day Dylan (C.I.'s term) and how he embarrassed himself today. He used to stand tall but now he rushes to hold hands with someone he's inferred is the enemy. That's truly sad. It's also truly sad that he (and his hand holding mate) think they can hand down rules on how people must converse. A bit of the Bully Boy seems to be seeping in. That's all I'll say on it because C.I.'s biting the tongue re: latter day Dylan and, if I write more on this, I won't be able to.
The affront isn't from people who speak in their own voices, it's from those who remain silent.
What's going on in the oval office needs to be called out by people in their own voices, in their own way of speaking. Not to call it out is far more dangerous and destructive than to use what someone feels are the "wrong words." We need to be discussing this, all of us, because if we don't, if we stay silent, we're saying it's okay and we're turning our backs on what we are supposed to believe in.
When you do that, you destroy your own character as well as the nation's character.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
We used to wonder where war lived, what it was that made it so vile. And now we realize that we know where it lives, that it is inside ourselves.
Albert Camus
Friday, December 16, 2005
Monica Benderman: "What Peace Needs"
Remember to check out Mike's site (Mikey Likes It!) for his commentary.
WTO Talks At Standstill in Hong Kong (Democracy Now!):
In Hong Kong, considerable divisions between industrialized and developing countries at the ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization are lowering expectations for significant agreements before talks end Sunday.
European Union Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson: "It is hard to see where progress can be achieved in Hong Kong if talks continue in their present direction. I do not want to contemplate failure at Hong Kong. So much is at stake. Equally, I see no point in an outcome here that simply locks in low ambition, diminishes benefits for developing countries and falls short of our responsibilities to the global economy."
EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson. Negotiations have stalled on a number of key trade issues. On Thursday, the Group of 77 -- the coalition of 132 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in the Third World -- announced they would reject any deal that eliminates protections for their farmers and access to foreign markets. Another group of developing nations, the Group of 20 -- which represents half the world’s population -- accused the US and European Union of holding up talks by refusing to cut state agricultural subsidies.
Meanwhile, outside the meetings, thousands of protesters continue to make their voices heard.
Oxfam’s Alison Woodhead: "The system in theory should work, but at the moment it's riggedin favour of the richest countries. The rich countries benefit from the trade rules as they exist at the moment. They're able to protect their own markets and destroy the markets of poorer countries."
The WTO probably enrages so many due to the false manner in which it presents itself. Rebecca likens it to The New Republic. It talks about "fairness" but developing nations are not idiots and they've seen what the WTO and the IMF can do (such as Argentina). Some see the orgs as modern day colonization and I would agree with that.
Report: Bush-Enacted NSA Program Monitors Phone Conversations, E-Mails (Democracy Now!):
The New York Times is reporting the National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals without court-approved warrants. Under a Bush administration directive enacted in 2002, the agency has monitored the international phone calls and e-mails of hundreds, and possibly thousands of people inside the country. The National Security Agency’s mission is to spy on communications abroad. Although officials said the program had helped thwart at least two potential attacks, most people monitored by the N.S.A. have never been charged with a crime.
The Times says it delayed publishing details of the program after a request from the Bush administration at least one year ago. At the request of the White House, the Times also says it has omitted information administration officials said could be useful to terrorists. The disclosure comes two days after NBC News revealed the Pentagon has kept detailed records on the events and meetings of anti-war groups across the country.
The news of the NSA spying came out at the perfect time. I'm not thrilled that the New York Times sat on the story for a year or that the government had a say in the editing process. However, in terms of today, when the Patriot Act was being pushed in the Senate, the news of the spying came at the perfect time. I really think that helped prevent the act from being pushed through for a blind renewal.
Suggested readings, Cedric's "Megachurches and a megabully," Seth's "Tales from Holiday Retail," Rebecca's "screech has no customer service skills (are you surprised)" and C.I.'s "Other Items" which rightly takes the New York Times to task for looking at Iraq and seeing only males.
Yes, if you sense that I'm rushing tonight, you are correct. But before I post and hit the door, let me note one more thing.
"What Peace Needs" (Monica Benderman, CounterPunch):
The Regional Corrections Facility at Ft. Lewis, Washington is vintage World War II. The windows are cracked and can't be closed. It's below freezing on most nights now.
I could go on--but what good will it do in this country of warmongers, idealistic pacifists, and evangelicals? Nothing like love for a cause--any cause--as long as it's impersonal enough that everyone can remain detached, can share their emotions through the war cries and protest chants, staring out into a field of people whose gazes are just as vacant as the featured speaker of the day.
The military prison is filled with the usual criminal element, narcotics and alcohol abusers, thieves, and child molesters. It has been said that the best chance of parole from this facility is for the child molesters--tells you a lot about our society--the society that professes such a high moral standard that we can dare to invade other countries to bring that same standard to their shores.
In among the criminals, sleeping on a three inch thick mattress, sitting in plastic chairs staring at the walls all day, and waiting for months at a time to have his request for a call to his attorney fulfilled, is one who is furthest from the criminal element, a man the Anti-War movement lovingly refers to as a "Prisoner of Conscience." Labels, always the labels. Sgt. Kevin Benderman stands for everything that should be right in this country. This man stands for liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, FREEDOM to be himself and live as he chooses.
And thanks to Judy and C.I. I take Thursdays off. Monica Benderman's article came out that day. Judy knew I wouldn't be able to note it here yesterday and suggested it to C.I.
I really feel for Monica and Kevin Benderman. I hope people are paying attention to their story. And when Kevin's released I hope Amy Goodman has them both on Democracy Now! the next day. Last hope, that everyone has a peaceful and pleasant weekend.
WTO Talks At Standstill in Hong Kong (Democracy Now!):
In Hong Kong, considerable divisions between industrialized and developing countries at the ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization are lowering expectations for significant agreements before talks end Sunday.
European Union Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson: "It is hard to see where progress can be achieved in Hong Kong if talks continue in their present direction. I do not want to contemplate failure at Hong Kong. So much is at stake. Equally, I see no point in an outcome here that simply locks in low ambition, diminishes benefits for developing countries and falls short of our responsibilities to the global economy."
EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson. Negotiations have stalled on a number of key trade issues. On Thursday, the Group of 77 -- the coalition of 132 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in the Third World -- announced they would reject any deal that eliminates protections for their farmers and access to foreign markets. Another group of developing nations, the Group of 20 -- which represents half the world’s population -- accused the US and European Union of holding up talks by refusing to cut state agricultural subsidies.
Meanwhile, outside the meetings, thousands of protesters continue to make their voices heard.
Oxfam’s Alison Woodhead: "The system in theory should work, but at the moment it's riggedin favour of the richest countries. The rich countries benefit from the trade rules as they exist at the moment. They're able to protect their own markets and destroy the markets of poorer countries."
The WTO probably enrages so many due to the false manner in which it presents itself. Rebecca likens it to The New Republic. It talks about "fairness" but developing nations are not idiots and they've seen what the WTO and the IMF can do (such as Argentina). Some see the orgs as modern day colonization and I would agree with that.
Report: Bush-Enacted NSA Program Monitors Phone Conversations, E-Mails (Democracy Now!):
The New York Times is reporting the National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals without court-approved warrants. Under a Bush administration directive enacted in 2002, the agency has monitored the international phone calls and e-mails of hundreds, and possibly thousands of people inside the country. The National Security Agency’s mission is to spy on communications abroad. Although officials said the program had helped thwart at least two potential attacks, most people monitored by the N.S.A. have never been charged with a crime.
The Times says it delayed publishing details of the program after a request from the Bush administration at least one year ago. At the request of the White House, the Times also says it has omitted information administration officials said could be useful to terrorists. The disclosure comes two days after NBC News revealed the Pentagon has kept detailed records on the events and meetings of anti-war groups across the country.
The news of the NSA spying came out at the perfect time. I'm not thrilled that the New York Times sat on the story for a year or that the government had a say in the editing process. However, in terms of today, when the Patriot Act was being pushed in the Senate, the news of the spying came at the perfect time. I really think that helped prevent the act from being pushed through for a blind renewal.
Suggested readings, Cedric's "Megachurches and a megabully," Seth's "Tales from Holiday Retail," Rebecca's "screech has no customer service skills (are you surprised)" and C.I.'s "Other Items" which rightly takes the New York Times to task for looking at Iraq and seeing only males.
Yes, if you sense that I'm rushing tonight, you are correct. But before I post and hit the door, let me note one more thing.
"What Peace Needs" (Monica Benderman, CounterPunch):
The Regional Corrections Facility at Ft. Lewis, Washington is vintage World War II. The windows are cracked and can't be closed. It's below freezing on most nights now.
I could go on--but what good will it do in this country of warmongers, idealistic pacifists, and evangelicals? Nothing like love for a cause--any cause--as long as it's impersonal enough that everyone can remain detached, can share their emotions through the war cries and protest chants, staring out into a field of people whose gazes are just as vacant as the featured speaker of the day.
The military prison is filled with the usual criminal element, narcotics and alcohol abusers, thieves, and child molesters. It has been said that the best chance of parole from this facility is for the child molesters--tells you a lot about our society--the society that professes such a high moral standard that we can dare to invade other countries to bring that same standard to their shores.
In among the criminals, sleeping on a three inch thick mattress, sitting in plastic chairs staring at the walls all day, and waiting for months at a time to have his request for a call to his attorney fulfilled, is one who is furthest from the criminal element, a man the Anti-War movement lovingly refers to as a "Prisoner of Conscience." Labels, always the labels. Sgt. Kevin Benderman stands for everything that should be right in this country. This man stands for liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, FREEDOM to be himself and live as he chooses.
And thanks to Judy and C.I. I take Thursdays off. Monica Benderman's article came out that day. Judy knew I wouldn't be able to note it here yesterday and suggested it to C.I.
I really feel for Monica and Kevin Benderman. I hope people are paying attention to their story. And when Kevin's released I hope Amy Goodman has them both on Democracy Now! the next day. Last hope, that everyone has a peaceful and pleasant weekend.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
"Peace won't be found in people who can't face reality"
Remember to check out Mike's site Mikey Likes It! for his take on the two headlines we selected from Democracy Now!
Pentagon Monitoring Anti-War Events Across the Country (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile, NBC News is reporting the Pentagon has been extensively monitoring the events and gatherings of peaceful anti-war groups across the country. A military database obtained by the network lists small activist meetings and events among 1,500 "suspicious incidents" over a 10-month period. The events included a gathering at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Florida, to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. In total, the database listed over four dozen anti-war meetings or protests.
This is something that Matthew Rothschild's been covering. This happened in California, it happened elsewhere. It happened in this country before as well. One time that comes to mind is when another bully was in the White House, Richard Nixon. No, Bully Boy wasn't the first Bully. It's also not hard to see that when you have a Bully Boy in the White House, civil liberties go out in the window because bullies always think they're more important than democracy.
As do the those serving a Bully Boy. Which is a point Ava and C.I. made.
"TV Review: Barbara and Colin remake The Way We Were" (The Third Estate Sunday Review):
This is how he [Colin Powell] wants to be remembered:
"A good public servant somebody who truly believes in his country. . . . Somebody who cared, somebody who served."
Yeah well, Nixon wanted to be remembered a certain way as well. Liar's the way many remember him now. Liar's the way many will remember Colin Powell. Belief in your country doesn't allow you to lie to your country. Belief in your Bully Boy does. That's something this adminstration fails to grasp. They all think they're working for the Bully Boy. Powell makes statements to that effect. He's full of many things including his "service" to the Bully Boy.
The administration is supposed to be working for the country. Presidents come and go. The nation is what is supposed to matter. Belief in your country would mean you tell the peoplethe truth.
That's what happens when the people who are supposed to be upholding the Constitution decide that the Bully Boy, or any single person, is more important than the ideas of democracy.
Iraq Officials Deny Report on Seized Forged Ballots (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile, Iraqi officials are denying a New York Times report that said border guards have seized a tanker filled with thousands of forged electoral ballots headed from Iran. According to the Times, the driver of the vehicle reportedly told interrogators another three trucks carrying forged ballots have already crossed into Iraq.
The article being noted was by Dexter Filkins. Here's C.I. on the story:
Dexter Filkins does love what he's told. (Spoonfed in the Green Zone?) "Police Seize Forged Ballots Headed to Iraq From Iran" relies on "official said" four times. Sometimes, to spice up the single source for his story, an anonymice one, he will add a subclause between "official" and "said." Maybe you'll count more. For fun, go through the article and find named sources and note if they spoke to Filkins or not? (I think you already know the answer to that one.)
So I called C.I. and asked, "What was the tip off, other than it being written by Filkins?" C.I. said listening to Democracy Now! broke the story of possible questions about the story. Reading it, C.I. just noted that the story was basically built around a single source who was anonymous and the rest of the article was an attempt to pad out what couldn't be verified by using public statements from "official sources" on other topics.
I want to note that Mike interviewed new community member "Kansas" and that Rebecca interviewed Martha (who is wonderful) and Maria (who provided the title for this site so you know she's wonderful as well). Following Mike's interview, my name came up. Kansas wondered, actually his wife had wondered, if I'd look at the e-mail he was sent and weigh in?
So reading it, my first question would be this: What was the goal of the person who wrote this e-mail?
The backstory is that the person was supposedly wanting to contact Kansas. She apparently attempted to, after C.I. noted that we had contacted Kansas, and had problems doing so. At which point, Ava contacted Kansas who gave permission for something to be passed on to the woman.
So the woman gets Kansas' e-mail that Ava forwards. The woman writes "apology" in her e-mail heading. It would be easy to conclude that the woman wanted to apologize.
The confusion results from the fact that the woman never apologizes. She doesn't. I read the e-mail. She lectures Kansas on Kat. She notes that she had the wrong e-mail address. That's pretty much it except for the weak ending of "I'm sorry you won't be visiting" her site "anymore."
Did I think it was an apology?
That was Kansas and his wife's question?
No, I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that the text of the e-mail offers any form of an apology. I think to call it an apology is to distort what it is. I also believe, quite firmly, that whether it was intended to be antagonistic or not, it comes off as antagonistic.
Kansas felt he was at a mature site where people conducted themselves in a mature manner. When Maria pointed out the nature of the comments on that site, at that site Maria pointed this out, the woman wrote of how the comments were more than she would like or something similar. There's no statement making that in the e-mail to Kansas, the e-mail that has been labled an "apology."
The sincerity in e-mailing such an e-mail is questionable. Possibly, the woman is so focused on Kat that she couldn't focus on what she thought she was doing. Possibly, the woman wasn't even attempting to be sincere. Possibly, she just wants the last word.
But it's not an apology and labeling it that won't make it one.
Kansas and his wife are offended. They have every right to be. It is a reasonable expectation when someone writes you an apology that it, indeed, be an apology. That's a reasonable expectation. It is a realistic one.
When someone has been hurt and what's labeled as an attempt to apologize for the hurt that was caused isn't a realistic attempt to do that, you have to be realistic because it's not reasonable to expect that someone who thinks that is an apology can be realistic.
Kansas can't blink his eyes and make the woman grasp how she has now twice offended him. What he can do is take steps on his own to avoid further disappointment from the woman.
Hope that addresses the issue.
Peace Quote (from me):
Peace won't be found in people who can't face reality.
Remember Mike's motto:
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
the new york times
the common ills
democracy now
the third estate sunday review
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
kats korner
Pentagon Monitoring Anti-War Events Across the Country (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile, NBC News is reporting the Pentagon has been extensively monitoring the events and gatherings of peaceful anti-war groups across the country. A military database obtained by the network lists small activist meetings and events among 1,500 "suspicious incidents" over a 10-month period. The events included a gathering at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Florida, to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. In total, the database listed over four dozen anti-war meetings or protests.
This is something that Matthew Rothschild's been covering. This happened in California, it happened elsewhere. It happened in this country before as well. One time that comes to mind is when another bully was in the White House, Richard Nixon. No, Bully Boy wasn't the first Bully. It's also not hard to see that when you have a Bully Boy in the White House, civil liberties go out in the window because bullies always think they're more important than democracy.
As do the those serving a Bully Boy. Which is a point Ava and C.I. made.
"TV Review: Barbara and Colin remake The Way We Were" (The Third Estate Sunday Review):
This is how he [Colin Powell] wants to be remembered:
"A good public servant somebody who truly believes in his country. . . . Somebody who cared, somebody who served."
Yeah well, Nixon wanted to be remembered a certain way as well. Liar's the way many remember him now. Liar's the way many will remember Colin Powell. Belief in your country doesn't allow you to lie to your country. Belief in your Bully Boy does. That's something this adminstration fails to grasp. They all think they're working for the Bully Boy. Powell makes statements to that effect. He's full of many things including his "service" to the Bully Boy.
The administration is supposed to be working for the country. Presidents come and go. The nation is what is supposed to matter. Belief in your country would mean you tell the peoplethe truth.
That's what happens when the people who are supposed to be upholding the Constitution decide that the Bully Boy, or any single person, is more important than the ideas of democracy.
Iraq Officials Deny Report on Seized Forged Ballots (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile, Iraqi officials are denying a New York Times report that said border guards have seized a tanker filled with thousands of forged electoral ballots headed from Iran. According to the Times, the driver of the vehicle reportedly told interrogators another three trucks carrying forged ballots have already crossed into Iraq.
The article being noted was by Dexter Filkins. Here's C.I. on the story:
Dexter Filkins does love what he's told. (Spoonfed in the Green Zone?) "Police Seize Forged Ballots Headed to Iraq From Iran" relies on "official said" four times. Sometimes, to spice up the single source for his story, an anonymice one, he will add a subclause between "official" and "said." Maybe you'll count more. For fun, go through the article and find named sources and note if they spoke to Filkins or not? (I think you already know the answer to that one.)
So I called C.I. and asked, "What was the tip off, other than it being written by Filkins?" C.I. said listening to Democracy Now! broke the story of possible questions about the story. Reading it, C.I. just noted that the story was basically built around a single source who was anonymous and the rest of the article was an attempt to pad out what couldn't be verified by using public statements from "official sources" on other topics.
I want to note that Mike interviewed new community member "Kansas" and that Rebecca interviewed Martha (who is wonderful) and Maria (who provided the title for this site so you know she's wonderful as well). Following Mike's interview, my name came up. Kansas wondered, actually his wife had wondered, if I'd look at the e-mail he was sent and weigh in?
So reading it, my first question would be this: What was the goal of the person who wrote this e-mail?
The backstory is that the person was supposedly wanting to contact Kansas. She apparently attempted to, after C.I. noted that we had contacted Kansas, and had problems doing so. At which point, Ava contacted Kansas who gave permission for something to be passed on to the woman.
So the woman gets Kansas' e-mail that Ava forwards. The woman writes "apology" in her e-mail heading. It would be easy to conclude that the woman wanted to apologize.
The confusion results from the fact that the woman never apologizes. She doesn't. I read the e-mail. She lectures Kansas on Kat. She notes that she had the wrong e-mail address. That's pretty much it except for the weak ending of "I'm sorry you won't be visiting" her site "anymore."
Did I think it was an apology?
That was Kansas and his wife's question?
No, I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that the text of the e-mail offers any form of an apology. I think to call it an apology is to distort what it is. I also believe, quite firmly, that whether it was intended to be antagonistic or not, it comes off as antagonistic.
Kansas felt he was at a mature site where people conducted themselves in a mature manner. When Maria pointed out the nature of the comments on that site, at that site Maria pointed this out, the woman wrote of how the comments were more than she would like or something similar. There's no statement making that in the e-mail to Kansas, the e-mail that has been labled an "apology."
The sincerity in e-mailing such an e-mail is questionable. Possibly, the woman is so focused on Kat that she couldn't focus on what she thought she was doing. Possibly, the woman wasn't even attempting to be sincere. Possibly, she just wants the last word.
But it's not an apology and labeling it that won't make it one.
Kansas and his wife are offended. They have every right to be. It is a reasonable expectation when someone writes you an apology that it, indeed, be an apology. That's a reasonable expectation. It is a realistic one.
When someone has been hurt and what's labeled as an attempt to apologize for the hurt that was caused isn't a realistic attempt to do that, you have to be realistic because it's not reasonable to expect that someone who thinks that is an apology can be realistic.
Kansas can't blink his eyes and make the woman grasp how she has now twice offended him. What he can do is take steps on his own to avoid further disappointment from the woman.
Hope that addresses the issue.
Peace Quote (from me):
Peace won't be found in people who can't face reality.
Remember Mike's motto:
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
the new york times
the common ills
democracy now
the third estate sunday review
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
kats korner
Monday, December 12, 2005
Saddened
Remeber to check out Mike's take on the two headlines from Democracy Now! by visiting his site Mikey Likes It!
Stanley Tookie Williams Scheduled to be Executed Tonight (Democracy Now!):
In California the state Supreme Court has unanimously denied an emergency request by lawyers of death row prisoner Stanley Tookie Williams to halt his execution. Williams' life now largely rests in the hands of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. If he is not granted clemency, Williams is scheduled to be executed a minute past midnight tonight pacific time. Williams is a co-founder of the Crips street gang who became an advocate against gang violence while on death row. We'll have more on Williams' case in a few minutes.
This is what we do. You're found guilty of someone, we kill you. That's how simple we see things.
This isn't the way it necessarily is in the rest of the world. But here we just think we're right and we can only see it from that angle.
I look the issues of the case being raised and I see what looks to me like an innocent man.
Others are quite sure of themselves and not at all concerned that an innocent may be exceucted.
Ex-Iraqi General Says Shiites Torturing Sunni in Prisons (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile a former Iraqi general told Agence France Press that he witnessed horrific scenes of torture while he worked in Iraqi-run prisons. He showed the news agency videotapes recorded inside the prison. Men were seen with whip marks and acid burns. One prisoner had lost an eye. Another prisoner had nails driven into his body. The general -- Muntazar al-Samarrai - said at least three people died as a result of torture at the prison, The general - who is a Sunni now living in Jordan - said the abuse is being carried out at nine secret prisons run by pro-Iranian Shiite militias who work for the Interior Ministry.
Every day something else. Yet even so, some people still can't find their voices. After awhile, you seriously do begin to wonder if anything can reach them?
They'll tell you about something they "read" in In Style but if you bring up Iraq, they get a blank look on their faces. If you mention Falluja, watch the confusion spread across their faces.
There are periods in anyone's life where things will be so stressful that they truly do need to shut out the world. But there are people content to veg in front of the TV and "escape" from something they can't name.
They isolate themselves. On an issue as serious as war (or peace), you need to engage.
That's my opinion.
Which brings us to the issue of opinions.
I intended to blog Saturday. That's not an apology. I participated in an all night marathon on Thursday night/Friday morning but that's not an excuse. I will have something up when I can.
On Saturday I intended to blog. Then I saw Cedric had and knew Rebecca had. Kat always blogs on Saturday.
So I thought I would save my voice for Sunday.
I hadn't thought we would end up with a more than all nighter at The Third Estate Sunday Review; however, that is what happened. It will probably happen again.
Tonight I'm blogging.
I am, of course, bothered by what happened to Kat.
I want to avoid naming anyone but obviously we're speaking of Kat. I'm refraining from naming otherwise because C.I. believe we have some sort of peace agreement. Far be it from me to ever be accused of breaking a peace agreement unintentionally.
I don't wish to break it intentionally.
However, I do wish to pick up on thoughts C.I. and Kat have both voiced but I'm not sure the point has gotten across. That will be my attempt at a contribution.
Kat's entire entry that bothered someone is about "can." The ability to do something. She's referring to the ability to hold an opinion in favor or opposed. The argument she sets forward in her post that bothered some people was that a contrary opinion was voiced and there was a dog pile from other posters. It is clear to me from the post Kat did that she was speaking of "can."
"Can" is key to her entry and it is why so many have focused on the fact that, once the responses began, "can" would be left out of a quote she made.
The point Kat was making was that we all have the ability and right to have an opinion. No one has to agree but we have that right to have one.
Dropping the "can" wasn't just missing a word, it was missing the message.
On their end, I don't think they ever grasped Kat's message.
Hopefully, on their end they were attempting to figure out where the breakdown was.
I know on our end, C.I. was trying to present their opinion, as C.I. understood it, all last week. Present it. Not agree with it or endorse it.
What it came down to, besides the message, was the style. Kat's style is not common today. There aren't many women writing about music at large outlets and when they do, they provide an NPR/PBS style of commentary. Kat doesn't speak in that voice.
Her reviews, her writing on topics other than music, are written with passion.
It is too much passion for some people because, while we're used to men arguing passionately about sports, music, film and go down the list of topics, we really don't get that from many women. Maureen Dowd writes like a lazy tiger. I'm not calling her lazy. But I'm saying she's like a tiger lying down that will still send that arm out at the most unexpected place. You may think, "Oh, pretty tiger" and that's just about the time the arm shoots out. But the tiger's not prowling.
A number of people have a problem with Dowd's writing. So it doesn't surprise me that some might have a problem with Kat's. Though she belongs to a long history of women writing about rock, most people today aren't aware of rock criticism. If they do know it, they can usually tell you Lester Bangs' name. But there's a whole history of women doing criticism that they've never heard of or read the work of.
I don't have a problem if another site doesn't like Kat's style or if they disagree with her opinion.
I do have a problem with the implication that Kat can't write as well as someone. Especially when one appears to be presenting a cool, detached look and that's held as the standard.
Kat doesn't have to meet anyone's standard but her own.
Her success, the fact that so many enjoy her writing, is due to her utilizing her own voice.
I don't feel that I do that. I feel like I come off, online, as the most monotone, drab voice in the world. That is one of the many reasons I didn't want to start my own blog. But some people enjoy this site and I'm flattered.
You may prefer me to Kat, but that wouldn't make me better than Kat. Our styles are too different to be compared.
So I think the difference of opinion stems from the fact that Kat is clearly not the style of the other site. That's fine and they can (can) pursue any style of criticism they wish to. They can disagree with Kat's opinion.
But what they cannot do is downgrade the quality or the opinion because they disagree with it when their standards are not her standards. It's not as though she wanted to write like the man involved. Kat would hate writing like that as much as he would hate writing like her. They are both entitled to feel that way.
I don't want to go into what happened but I will note that clearly I felt Kat was wronged.
But the thing that saddens me the most, if there's a peace and apparently there is now, is that I still feel Kat was graded by standards she's never tried to meet, standards she has rejected. In writing, she has rejected them. I am saddened that instead of just noting that she is pursuing a different path than they are, there was a need to downgrade Kat's abilities and talents.
I think that all stems from the same area that makes someone think "can" is just a word that Kat used in a sentence which they forgot to include in their quoting. "Can" isn't just a word. It is the whole point of Kat's writing in pretty much everything she writes.
Stanley Tookie Williams Scheduled to be Executed Tonight (Democracy Now!):
In California the state Supreme Court has unanimously denied an emergency request by lawyers of death row prisoner Stanley Tookie Williams to halt his execution. Williams' life now largely rests in the hands of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. If he is not granted clemency, Williams is scheduled to be executed a minute past midnight tonight pacific time. Williams is a co-founder of the Crips street gang who became an advocate against gang violence while on death row. We'll have more on Williams' case in a few minutes.
This is what we do. You're found guilty of someone, we kill you. That's how simple we see things.
This isn't the way it necessarily is in the rest of the world. But here we just think we're right and we can only see it from that angle.
I look the issues of the case being raised and I see what looks to me like an innocent man.
Others are quite sure of themselves and not at all concerned that an innocent may be exceucted.
Ex-Iraqi General Says Shiites Torturing Sunni in Prisons (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile a former Iraqi general told Agence France Press that he witnessed horrific scenes of torture while he worked in Iraqi-run prisons. He showed the news agency videotapes recorded inside the prison. Men were seen with whip marks and acid burns. One prisoner had lost an eye. Another prisoner had nails driven into his body. The general -- Muntazar al-Samarrai - said at least three people died as a result of torture at the prison, The general - who is a Sunni now living in Jordan - said the abuse is being carried out at nine secret prisons run by pro-Iranian Shiite militias who work for the Interior Ministry.
Every day something else. Yet even so, some people still can't find their voices. After awhile, you seriously do begin to wonder if anything can reach them?
They'll tell you about something they "read" in In Style but if you bring up Iraq, they get a blank look on their faces. If you mention Falluja, watch the confusion spread across their faces.
There are periods in anyone's life where things will be so stressful that they truly do need to shut out the world. But there are people content to veg in front of the TV and "escape" from something they can't name.
They isolate themselves. On an issue as serious as war (or peace), you need to engage.
That's my opinion.
Which brings us to the issue of opinions.
I intended to blog Saturday. That's not an apology. I participated in an all night marathon on Thursday night/Friday morning but that's not an excuse. I will have something up when I can.
On Saturday I intended to blog. Then I saw Cedric had and knew Rebecca had. Kat always blogs on Saturday.
So I thought I would save my voice for Sunday.
I hadn't thought we would end up with a more than all nighter at The Third Estate Sunday Review; however, that is what happened. It will probably happen again.
Tonight I'm blogging.
I am, of course, bothered by what happened to Kat.
I want to avoid naming anyone but obviously we're speaking of Kat. I'm refraining from naming otherwise because C.I. believe we have some sort of peace agreement. Far be it from me to ever be accused of breaking a peace agreement unintentionally.
I don't wish to break it intentionally.
However, I do wish to pick up on thoughts C.I. and Kat have both voiced but I'm not sure the point has gotten across. That will be my attempt at a contribution.
Kat's entire entry that bothered someone is about "can." The ability to do something. She's referring to the ability to hold an opinion in favor or opposed. The argument she sets forward in her post that bothered some people was that a contrary opinion was voiced and there was a dog pile from other posters. It is clear to me from the post Kat did that she was speaking of "can."
"Can" is key to her entry and it is why so many have focused on the fact that, once the responses began, "can" would be left out of a quote she made.
The point Kat was making was that we all have the ability and right to have an opinion. No one has to agree but we have that right to have one.
Dropping the "can" wasn't just missing a word, it was missing the message.
On their end, I don't think they ever grasped Kat's message.
Hopefully, on their end they were attempting to figure out where the breakdown was.
I know on our end, C.I. was trying to present their opinion, as C.I. understood it, all last week. Present it. Not agree with it or endorse it.
What it came down to, besides the message, was the style. Kat's style is not common today. There aren't many women writing about music at large outlets and when they do, they provide an NPR/PBS style of commentary. Kat doesn't speak in that voice.
Her reviews, her writing on topics other than music, are written with passion.
It is too much passion for some people because, while we're used to men arguing passionately about sports, music, film and go down the list of topics, we really don't get that from many women. Maureen Dowd writes like a lazy tiger. I'm not calling her lazy. But I'm saying she's like a tiger lying down that will still send that arm out at the most unexpected place. You may think, "Oh, pretty tiger" and that's just about the time the arm shoots out. But the tiger's not prowling.
A number of people have a problem with Dowd's writing. So it doesn't surprise me that some might have a problem with Kat's. Though she belongs to a long history of women writing about rock, most people today aren't aware of rock criticism. If they do know it, they can usually tell you Lester Bangs' name. But there's a whole history of women doing criticism that they've never heard of or read the work of.
I don't have a problem if another site doesn't like Kat's style or if they disagree with her opinion.
I do have a problem with the implication that Kat can't write as well as someone. Especially when one appears to be presenting a cool, detached look and that's held as the standard.
Kat doesn't have to meet anyone's standard but her own.
Her success, the fact that so many enjoy her writing, is due to her utilizing her own voice.
I don't feel that I do that. I feel like I come off, online, as the most monotone, drab voice in the world. That is one of the many reasons I didn't want to start my own blog. But some people enjoy this site and I'm flattered.
You may prefer me to Kat, but that wouldn't make me better than Kat. Our styles are too different to be compared.
So I think the difference of opinion stems from the fact that Kat is clearly not the style of the other site. That's fine and they can (can) pursue any style of criticism they wish to. They can disagree with Kat's opinion.
But what they cannot do is downgrade the quality or the opinion because they disagree with it when their standards are not her standards. It's not as though she wanted to write like the man involved. Kat would hate writing like that as much as he would hate writing like her. They are both entitled to feel that way.
I don't want to go into what happened but I will note that clearly I felt Kat was wronged.
But the thing that saddens me the most, if there's a peace and apparently there is now, is that I still feel Kat was graded by standards she's never tried to meet, standards she has rejected. In writing, she has rejected them. I am saddened that instead of just noting that she is pursuing a different path than they are, there was a need to downgrade Kat's abilities and talents.
I think that all stems from the same area that makes someone think "can" is just a word that Kat used in a sentence which they forgot to include in their quoting. "Can" isn't just a word. It is the whole point of Kat's writing in pretty much everything she writes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)