Tonight's Debate--Email Action!!!

I'd like to add a little something to the mix. Mr. McCain endured "brainwashing" during his time at the Hanoi Hilton, during which time he "sided" with the Vietnamese who were defending their nation. This condition seems to have been repeated throughout his career, as Mr. McCain continues to change position based upon whom ever he thinks is in control. Since he was "brainwashed" into supporting the Vietnamese cause, how does Mr. McCain know he isn't brainwashed today?
McCain Tonight
By David Swanson, Fri, 2008-09-26
Prior to tonight's debate and each time during it that John McCain brags about his torture victimhood (or Jim Lehrer does it for him) or any of the participants touch on the topic of torture in any way without mentioning the facts below, please send Mr. Lehrer a note at onlineda@newshour.org along these lines.
Dear Jim Lehrer,
Are you aware of the following history?
In February 2008, John McCain voted against a bill that would supposedly have banned torture, and then applauded Bush for vetoing the bill.
In 2006 McCain voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act which supposedly left torture decisions up to the president.
In 2005 John McCain championed the McCain Detainee Amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill for 2005, which passed the Congress and was signed into law by Bush, adding one more redundant ban on torture to existing U.S. law, despite Vice President Cheney having lobbied hard against it. But McCain allowed a major loophole for the CIA and then kept quiet when Bush threw out the whole thing with a "signing statement." Bush and Cheney's administration continued to torture without any apparent slow-down or alteration in actual policy whatsoever.
Some Background:
On February 7, 2002, President George W. Bush signed a directive purporting to authorize torture.
In 1994 the United States ratified the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), requiring that the United States work to prevent all forms of torture.
In 1992 the United States ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), banning torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
In 1968 John McCain was tortured.
In 1949 the United States ratified the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, banning violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture, as well as outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.
In 1948 the United States ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights banning torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
In 1791 the United States ratified the Bill of Rights, banning cruel and unusual punishment. [my bold]
In 1788 the United states ratified the Constitution, ordaining that all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.
So, why, Mr. Lehrer, could you not ask Senator McCain this question:
If you will reverse yourself on torture, why should anyone believe there is anything you would not reverse yourself on? In other words, why should we listen to a word you say?
And, why, Mr. Lehrer, could you not ask Senator Obama whether he too believes the United States can toss out international law and authorize war crimes if it sees fit? And if not, why does he believe those crimes should not be prosecuted? [my emphasis]
Sincerely,
We the People
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/36336

Goodbye "Inalienable Rights"

Gitmo 'Justice' for US Citizens?
By Robert Parry
July 21, 2008
A conservative-dominated U.S. Appeals Court has opened the door for President George W. Bush or a successor to throw American citizens – as well as non-citizens – into a legal black hole by designating them “enemy combatants,” even if they have engaged in no violent act and are living on U.S. soil.
The federal Appeals Court in Richmond, Virginia, ruled 5-4 on July 15 that Bush had the right, while prosecuting the “war on terror,” to hold Qatari citizen (and Peoria, Illinois, resident) Ali al-Marri indefinitely as an “enemy combatant.”
But some of the court’s more liberal judges expressed alarm, saying the legal reasoning that denied al-Marri meaningful due process not only trampled on American legal traditions but could be used to lock up U.S. citizens as well.
“For over two centuries of growth and struggle, peace and war, the Constitution has secured our freedom through the guarantee that, in the United States, no one will be deprived of liberty without due process of law,” wrote Judge Diana Motz, a Bill Clinton appointee, who dissented against the court’s approval of sweeping presidential powers.
[...] Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court has a slim 5-4 majority in favor of limiting Bush’s authority to deny basic constitutional rights to people designated “enemy combatants,” but the replacement of one member of the majority with another Alito or Roberts would tip the balance and effectively permit the rewriting of the U.S. Constitution.
Though the July 15 ruling was convoluted and did call for a federal District Court to afford al-Marri some more rights, the Appeals Court decision effectively upheld Bush’s assertion of nearly unlimited power to have people detained as “enemy combatants.”
The ruling suggested that even American citizens – if they are deemed “enemy combatants” – could be subjected to Bush’s military commissions, where truncated legal rights make proving a person’s guilt much easier than in civilian courts.
Stunned Realization
Previously, the New York Times editorial page and some liberal legal experts had criticized Bush’s high-handed approach toward non-citizens, but had assured Americans that the military commissions would not apply to them.
But at Consortiumnews.com, we noted that language buried in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 seemed to cover – indeed even target – U.S. citizens. [See “Who Is ‘Any Person’ in Tribunal Law? or our book, Neck Deep.]
For instance, one section dealing with penalties stated that “any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission,” according to the law.
Another clause stated that “any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission … may direct.” [Emphasis added]
[...] But it took the Appeals Court ruling – and the blunt language from Judge Motz about denying constitutional rights to U.S. citizens – to catch the New York Times’ attention.
In a July 20 editorial, the Times wrote that the Appeals Court's “decision gives the President sweeping power to deprive anyone – citizens as well as non-citizens – of their freedom. …
“The implications are breathtaking. The designation ‘enemy combatant,’ which should apply only to people captured on a battlefield, can now be applied to people detained inside the United States. Even though Mr. Marri is not an American citizen, the court’s reasoning appears to apply equally to citizens.”
[...] In effect, Bush’s interpretation of his own powers – allowing him to imprison, torture and kill at his discretion – trumps the Founders’ vision that everyone possesses certain “unalienable rights” that a government can’t take away.
[...] In siding with Bush, conservative Appeals Court judges noted al-Marri had offered only a general denial of the accusations against him and failed to rebut the specific charges. Al-Marri’s lawyers argued that their client should have a right to confront his accusers and not be put in a position of having to prove his innocence.
[...] “While a showcase of American values, an open and public criminal trial may also serve as a platform for suspected terrorists,” [Judge Harvie] Wilkinson [a Ronald Reagan appointee who is often cited as a possible Republican Supreme Court nominee].wrote. “Terror suspects may use the bully pulpit of a criminal trial in an attempt to recruit others to their cause. Likewise, terror suspects may take advantage of the opportunity to interact with others during trial to pass critical intelligence to their allies.”
[...] “A citizen, no less than an alien, can be an enemy combatant,” [my bold] administration lawyer David B. Salmons told the Appeals Court in oral arguments on Feb. 1, 2007, adding that the courts cannot interfere with the President’s wartime judgments on such matters.
Salmons insisted that Bush is not interested in using this power too broadly, but argued that the judgment on whom is deemed an “enemy combatant” must solely be at the discretion of President Bush. [NYT, Feb. 2, 2007]
What may be decided in Election 2008 is whether the U.S. Supreme Court will be stocked with like-minded legal theorists.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/072108.html

Your Service is Required

Children of the 20th Century wars must bear witness to the tragedies our government has imposed upon the world in the surge for world domination. We cannot call it anything else. Africa, America, Europe, Vietnam, Iraq, what country will next suffer from such "liberation" ? Warmongers and financial manipulators leave bullet holes and bomb craters wherever they go, with our silent complicity. We then have the audacity to ask why they hate us. There is no they, only WE, the people who work for our daily bread. It is up to us, not US, to bring down those who care nothing for our life and liberty. Please, for decency sake, take some form of action on January 11, even if only by wearing a bit of orange as you go about the day. Start a conversation, don't be afraid! You may be surprised by who agrees with you.

Friday, January 11, 2008
The 6 year anniversary of the first prisoners being brought to Guantánamo

"There is little question of how history will respond to Guantánamo…it will be looked back on with condescension and bemusement. How could we be so foolish, misguided, cruel? How we will respond is a legal question and a political question. But it is most of all a moral question. Will we respond with courage or cowardice? This is our choice."
--- Joseph Margulies, a lawyer challenging the indefinite detention of the prisoners at Guantánamo
On January 11th, 2002, twenty hooded and shackled men shuffled off a plane from Afghanistan, arriving at the U.S. prison at Guantánamo. In an attempt to sidestep the Geneva Convention protections for prisoners of war, the Bush administration created a new category of "enemy combatant" for these men captured in the "war on terror."
We call on the United States government to:
* Repeal the Military Commissions Act and restore Habeas Corpus.
* Charge and try or release all detainees.
* Clearly and unequivocally forbid torture and all other forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, by the military, the CIA, prison guards, civilian contractors, or anyone else.
* Pay reparations to current and former detainees and their families for violations of their human rights.
* Shut down Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and all other U.S. prisons overseas, including secret CIA detention facilities.
http://www.witnesstorture.org/

Is Resistance Futile?

from GI Special:

“Thought Crimes,” HR 1955 Passed With 404 Votes.
Submit, Ye Citizens, Silently to State Murder.

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955, titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.
The full text is available at www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=110-1955 with 404 votes in favor..
A close reading within an historical context – keeping especially in mind the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and Presidential Executive Orders, pursuant to which the government has engaged in massive surveillance of its own citizens, as well as detentions, extraordinary renditions, assassinations, and torture – leads me to the following conclusions:

-- This is a “Thought Crime” bill of the type so often discussed in an Orwellian context.

-- It specifically targets the civilian population of the United States.

-- It defines “Violent Radicalization” as promoting any belief system that the government considers to be extremist.

-- “Homegrown Terrorism” and “Violent Radicalization” are defined as thought crimes.

-- Since the bill does not provide a specific definition of extremist belief system, it will be whatever the government at any given time deems it to be.

A Keeper: U.S. Martial Law Timeline

Please BOOKMARK the link. There is much to absorb and refer to over time.

U.S. Martial Law Timeline

Sarah Meyer, Index Research, August 21, 2007

http://indexresearch.blogspot.com/2007/08/us-martial-law-timeline.html