Swedish Meatballs
1 day ago
For anyone who has lived under an authoritarian regime, phone tapping—or at least the threat of it—is always a given. But U.S. citizens have always been lucky enough to believe themselves protected from such government intrusion. So why have they reacted so insipidly to yet another post-9/11 erosion of U.S. civil liberties?Then there's this from Desmond Tutu:
I'm sure there are many well-meaning Americans who agree with their president's explanation that it's all a necessary evil (and that patriotic citizens will not be spied on unless they dial up Osama bin Laden). But the nasty echoes of apartheid South Africa should at least give them pause.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the South African Anglican leader who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his principled fight for justice in his native country. "It's unbelievable," he told me in an interview, "that a country that many of us have looked to as the bastion of true freedom could now have eroded so many of the liberties we believed were upheld almost religiously."Communist. Read More......
Tutu recalled teaching in Jacksonville, Fla., when Bush won re-election in 2004. "I was shocked," he said, "because I had naively believed all these many years that Americans genuinely believed in freedom of speech. [But I] discovered there that when you made an utterance that was remotely contrary to what the White House was saying, then they attacked you. For a South African the déjà vu was frightening. They behaved exactly the same way that used to happen here—vilifying those who are putting forward a slightly different view." Tutu made these comments to me exactly a year ago next week.
Gwen Stefani confirmed she is indeed pregnant while performing Wednesday at a concert in Ft. Lauderdale.Read More......
In search of a terrorist nuclear bomb, the federal government since 9/11 has run a far-reaching, top secret program to monitor radiation levels at over a hundred Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C., area, including mosques, homes, businesses, and warehouses, plus similar sites in at least five other cities, U.S. News has learned. In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance, although no search warrants or court orders were ever obtained, according to those with knowledge of the program. Some participants were threatened with loss of their jobs when they questioned the legality of the operation, according to these accounts....Read More......
"The targets were almost all U.S. citizens," says the source. "A lot of us thought it was questionable, but people who complained nearly lost their jobs. We were told it was perfectly legal."
The Supreme Court ruled last year that the congressional resolution implicitly authorized the administration to seize and hold a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant, an action that Gonzales called more intrusive than electronic surveillance. The detention power was upheld in the case of Louisiana-born Yaser Esam Hamdi, who was captured while fighting in Afghanistan.Now, let me walk you through why Gonzales just proved our case:
1. Gonzales says that the Supreme Court said the congressional resolution going to war in Afghanistan clearly authorized the Bush administration to hold US citizens as enemy combatants.Ok then. But, let's revisit what Gonzales just admitted:
2. Gonzales' argument is that eavesdropping on an American is MUCH less intrusive than seizing that same person as an enemy combattant, therefore, he argues, the Supreme Court also ruled that the congressional resolution authorized domestic eavesdropping without a warrant.
3. So Gonzales is saying that Supreme Court cases and the congressional resolution apply equally to holding enemy combatants as they do to spying on Americans.
1. The Bush administration is saying that the same Supreme Court cases, and same congressional authorization for war in Afghanistan, cover both nabbing enemy combatant Americans and eavesdropping on Americans inside the US.So, thanks Alberto. If you want to use those Supreme Court cases to hang your hat on, go for it. So where is the list of names and when do you plan to contact the people you spied on? Read More......
2. But those Supreme Court cases found that the congressional authorization for war, while permitting the government to secretly nab American enemy combatants, still includes a requirement that those nabbed citizens be given the right to challenge their nabbed status in court.
3. Thus Gonzales is admitting that those Supreme Court cases, and the congressional authorization, provide American citizens the right to challenge in court the government decision to intrude on their civil liberties.
4. So Gonzales admits that the Bush administration must notify every American spied on so that those Americans can exercise their constitutional right to challenge the administration's domestic eavesdropping in court, and the administration is acting unconstitutionally and in violation of the Supreme Court rulings and congressional authorizations if they do not notify those who were spied on AND permit them to challenge the spying in court.
Large demonstrations broke out across the country Friday to denounce parliamentary elections that protesters say were rigged in favor of the main religious Shiite coalition....Love this quote:
Several hundred thousand people demonstrated after noon prayers in southern Baghdad Friday, many carrying banners decrying last week's elections. Many Iraqis outside the religious Shiite coalition allege that the elections were unfair to smaller Sunni Arab and secular Shiite groups.
"We refuse the cheating and forgery in the elections," one banner read.
During Friday prayers at Baghdad's Umm al-Qura mosque, the headquarters of the Association of Muslim Scholars, a major Sunni clerical group, Sheik Mahmoud al-Sumaidaei told followers they were "living a conspiracy built on lies and forgery."
"You have to be ready during these hard times and combat forgeries and lies for the sake of Islam," he said.
"living a conspiracy built on lies and forgery."Tell me about it. Read More......
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote in a June 1985 memo that the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion should be overturned.Let's see how Alito tries to squirm out of this one. He's had an excuse or obfuscation for everything else from his past. And, if he wants Roe to go, he'll take a lot of other privacy rights with him. Read More......
In a recommendation to the solicitor general on filing a friend-of-court brief, Alito said that the government "should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled."
As Senate majority leader at the time, I helped negotiate that law with the White House counsel's office over two harried days. I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance.It's almost unbelievable how the White House just plain lies. And the media laps it up. Remember what Murtha said about the Bush team: Just because they say it, doesn't make it true. Read More......
The Republican-controlled Congress is staggering home for the holidays. Democrats, demoralized after last year's election losses, have a spring in their step after outmaneuvering President Bush and GOP congressional leaders in a series of session-ending clashes.Okay, winning is much, much better than losing. Let's hope the Democrats in Congress take that spring in their step and turn it into legislative majorities in 2006. Read More......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
© 2010 - John Aravosis | Design maintenance by Jason Rosenbaum
Send me your tips: americablog AT starpower DOT net