Hot Potato Mash

LEGALIZED ABORTION AT STAKE IN THE 2008 ELECTION

What follows are not scare tactics but facts. And when taken together they present a stark picture of what a John McCain presidency would mean to a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. Anyone who is pro-choice should think long and hard before casting a vote for John McCain.

Note that the next president will undoubtedly appoint at least one but probably a handful of Supreme Court justices and that many of the likely vacancies will come from the four member moderate/pro-legalized abortion wing. Justice Stevens is 88 years old, Justice Ginsburg is 75 years old and has fought cancer, Justice Breyer is 69 years old and Justice Souter is 68 years old and allegedly longs to retire to his New Hampshire home.

Meanwhile, as Jeffrey Toobin (a moderate Supreme Court expert) recently wrote in a must read article about a McCain speech addressed to the religious right, legalized abortion is on the table in a McCain presidency:

"In short, this one passage in McCain's speech amounted to a dog whistle for the right -- an implicit promise that he will appoint Justices who will eliminate the right to privacy, permit states to ban abortion, and allow the execution of teen-agers."

And McCain has told Fox News: "I do not support Roe vs. Wade. It should be overturned."

The importance of these statements and beliefs cannot be understated because the Supreme Court already consists of four conservative radicals who, along with conservative Judge Anthony Kennedy, have been chipping away at legalized abortion over the last few years. The replacement of just one judge from the liberal/moderate pro-abortion wing with a McCain appointee would tip the balance and all but guarantee the end of legalized abortion in most states, if not the country.

An April 2007 Court decision that criminalized partial birth abortion evidenced the radicalness of the ultra-conservative Court members:

"Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child. The Act recognizes this reality as well. Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision... While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow."

I wrote the following about the decision in April 2007:

"Isn't that special! Five old, rich, white (with all apologies to Clarence Thomas), Jesus fearing/loving men have decided that they know what's best for women who otherwise may come to regret their choices in life and suffer depression. In other words, women are dumb and need men to tell them what to do. Interestingly, the Paternal Five are not troubled by the lack of reliable evidence supporting their position because it seems unexceptional to themselves. Or, who needs evidence when something is so plain to the eye (of at least 55% of Supreme Court Justices). Ladies and gentlemen, announcing the arrival of the faith based Supreme Court!"

As it turns out, there is plenty of evidence that the Paternal Five are full of it. Earlier this month the American Psychological Association released a study that debunked much of the Supreme Court's reasoning, concluding that a single abortion does not pose a mental health threat to women.

Facts be damned! The conservative justices were making a clear statement that they know what is best for women and that that does not include abortion. And the only thing standing in the way of criminalizing abortion altogether is one more radical judge -- the kind that John McCain has repeatedly promised to appoint to the Supreme Court:

"McCain has cited Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito as being his model justices, and he's also praised Scalia, one of the most conservative justices ever to sit on the Supreme Court."

And McCain's views were shaped long before he picked the ultra-conservative Christianist Sarah Palin as his running mate. The even more radical Palin believes that abortion should only be legal when a mother's life is at stake. Thus, she is against abortion even in cases of incest and rape. Palin has stated that she would choose life even if her own daughter was raped.

Making matters even worse, both McCain and Palin support policies that make it more likely that women will have unplanned pregnancies. They both support abstinence only education which has been proven ineffective by government studies. And they oppose the much more effective safe-sex education. Sadly, such policy choices have also led to a huge increase in teenage STD cases. In fact, 26% of teenage girls are infected with an STD according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

McCain has also worked to cut funding for family planning and opposes requiring insurance companies to cover prescription birth control. And as Governor, Palin has cut funds that would help teenage mothers.

So grim is the McCain/Palin ticket for supporters of women's rights issues that the co-chair of Republicans For Choice said the following this week:

"Well, it means we have to work harder. We have to make sure that the McCain/Palin administration... don't make these issues, the social issues, the central portion of their policy agenda, as Bush has done. We have a lot of work to do. We don't believe McCain would -- he really doesn't care much about the issue, even though he has an almost perfect pro-life voting record."

And on the prospect of overturning Roe v. Wade:

"The only thing that gives me comfort is that Democrats are going to win the Senate."

But it is the president who nominates Supreme Court judges. And while it is true that the Senate must confirm those picks, it is worth noting that four Democrats voted for Samuel Alito in 2006 and 22 Democrats voted for John Roberts in 2005. Further, there is no guarantee that Democrats will hold onto the Senate in two years.

Finally, McCain's pick of Palin to be his VP all but proves that he is beholden to the religious right whose top desire is to outlaw abortion. McCain's top two choices for vice president -- Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge -- were shot down by the religious right because of their pro-abortion stances. So McCain settled on Palin, a choice which has been met with overwhelming approval by James Dobson and other far right religious extremists.

Make no mistake about it, legalized abortion as we know it is at stake in this election.

HAPPY 4th of July

From Joseph Galloway at McClatchy:

How dare they rip the Fourth Amendment?

Early next week the U.S. Senate will vote on an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with a few small amendments intended to immunize telecommunications corporations that assisted our government in the warrantless and illegal wiretapping it has grown to love.

That such a gutting of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution even made it out of committee is yet another stain on the gutless and seemingly powerless Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.

That a majority on both sides of the aisle — not least of them the presumptive nominees for president of both political parties — intend to vote for such a violation of Americans' right to privacy and of the sanctity of their personal communications is a stunning surrender to those who want us to live in fear forever.

We are living in a time when the right of habeas corpus — which simply put is your right to be brought before a proper court of law where the government is made to prove that there is good and legal reason to detain you — recently survived by a margin of only one vote at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now these bad actors are prepared to set aside your right to privacy — written into the Constitution as a key part of our Bill of Rights — with hardly a nod in the direction of the true patriots who rebelled against an English king and his army to guarantee those rights.

That they will do this while the last empty phrases of the political windbags at the Fourth of July celebrations are still echoing across a thousand city parks and the bright red, white and blue bunting and blizzard of American flags still flap in the breeze is little short of breath-taking.

How dare they?

Those denizens of the White House and Capitol Hill and all those gray granite buildings that line avenues with names like Constitution and Independence in the nation's capitol would have us believe that we must trade our rights, all of our rights, for some measure of security from the terrorists.

They would have us believe that a nation of 300 million people must surrender what a million other Americans gave their lives in war to protect in order to protect us from a couple of hundred fanatics hiding in caves in Waziristan.

Benjamin Franklin himself wrote of such a debate:

"Those who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The fact that British troops, operating on flimsy general warrants handed out by local magistrates, were kicking in the doors of ordinary Americans and rifling through their pantries and papers in search of smuggled, untaxed goods was a prime reason why our ancestors rebelled against their king and went to war.

This is WHY we celebrate the Fourth of July. This is why the vote on renewing the expanded version of FISA and whitewashing the egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment for seven long years by our government is important.

If neither John McCain, the Republican, or Barrack Obama, the Democrat, can find the courage to oppose such a violation of so basic a right, then what are we to do for a president, a successor to George W. Bush, The Decider, who has since 9/11 decided what rights you are entitled to keep, what laws he will or will not obey, and whether you will be protected by these words of the Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That's it. That's the Fourth Amendment. That is what these folks in Washington, D.C., have violated continuously and in secret for seven long years.

Somewhere across an ocean and a desert, hiding in his cave, a man of hate named Osama bin Laden is laughing up the sleeve of his dirty robe at the thought that he and a small handful of fellow fanatics could tie a great nation in knots — knots of fear stoked by our own leaders.

We have done incalculably more and greater damage to ourselves since September 11, 2001, than a thousand bin Ladens and ten thousand al Qaida recruits could ever have done to us.

Franklin D. Roosevelt famously declared that "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." Now it would seem that we have no one to fear but ourselves and our leaders.

The questions I pose are these:

How can even one senator on either side of the aisle in good conscience vote in favor of this law that does nothing to enhance our security and everything to diminish our rights as a free people?

How can both men who seek to become our next president cast such a vote when both should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder declaring that they would govern by our consent and with our approval, not by wielding the coercive and corrosive and corrupt powers that King George III and his latter-day namesake from Texas thought are theirs by divine right?

civil_liberties, Joseph Galloway

DEMOCRATS COLLUDING WITH BUSH TO GUT 4th AMENDMENT TO COVER THEIR OWN CULPABILITY

That's right folks. Democrats will pass a Bill in the House tomorrow that will eviscerate the 4th Amendment and grant after the fact immunity to lawbreaking corporations in an effort to cover their own asses. Is it possible to get any more craven?

To put this law in context, even the Republican controlled Congress couldn't get this legislation passed. But now that the Dem leadership has been exposed to have had knowledge about the Bush administration's illegal spying on Americans (and did nothing), Dems are jumping at the bit to coverup their actions.

And just where o where is Barack Obama? As the Democratic Party leader all he need do is make a simple phone call telling Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to shelve the destruction of the 4th Amendment until after the election. Yet, despite his repeated claims to be adamantly opposed to this legislation and for the rule of law, he remains dead silent. Nice leadership.

Face it people, unless Barack Obama changes course by tomorrow he will prove himself to just another politician. And the right wing noise machine will be able to rightfully claim that Obama is all rhetoric and no substance.

PLEASE CALL THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN AND TELL THEM TO KILL THIS BILL BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE: (866) 675-2008 [Dial 6, then 0, on the menu]

Keith Olbermann

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

This is the most important and exciting thing to hit politics since Barack Obama. A broad coalition is being formed -- including Glenn Greenwald, the ACLU and the guys behind Ron Paul's money bombs -- to fight against granting retroactive immunity to telecoms. The campaign will target Democrats that are betraying the Constitution like Steny Hoyer who is spearheading the effort for Dems. Glenn has much more on the campaign and on the lying and conniving Hoyer here and here.

UPDATE: See this great article about the Strange Bedfellows coalition.

THE LAST ROUNDUP

Is the government compiling a secret list of citizens to detain under martial law?

The scariest article I have ever read!

Bush administration, main core, martial law

Dennis Kucinich Files 35 Articles Of Impeachment Against George W. Bush

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) presented 35 Articles of Impeachment on the House floor tonight. They are a must read for all Americans. But until a transcript is up check out Articles 28 and 29 which are near and dear to my heart:

Article 28: Tampering with Free and Fair Elections (7:20)

Article 29: Violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Part 1, 8:54)

Article 29: Violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Part 2, 9:39)

Brad has much more

"The Courage to Survive" (Dennis Kucinich)

Democracy, Dennis Kucinich, elections, George W. Bush

VIDEO EXCLUSIVE: Dr. William Pepper on James Earl Ray's Innocence, Sirhan Sirhan's Innocence, 9/11 Truth and Prosecuting War Crimes

Dr. William F. Pepper is an internationally acclaimed lawyer who defended James Earl Ray in a 1999 civil trial (supported by Martin Luther King's family) where the jury found Ray not responsible for the MLK assassination. Now Pepper is defending Sirhan Sirhan for the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, a case he says is “an easier one than the assassination of Martin King and the innocence of James Earl Ray”.

Last Wednesday Pepper spoke about all of his projects, including 9/11 truth and prosecuting the Bush administration for war crimes, to a packed celebrity filled house in Los Angeles. Among those in attendance were Ed Asner, Gina Belafonte, Judd Nelson and 9/11 author Professor David Ray Griffin. Videos of his talk follow below... 

Part 1 (6:21) - Introduction 

In Part 1 Pepper talks about his background, childhood and motivation. He also speaks about the time he spent in Cuba playing baseball where he got to know Fidel Castro. According to Pepper, Castro foresaw much of what is happening in the United States today:

“When, in that massive country to the north, the masses of the people ever understand what it is that their ruling class has done to them and is doing to them, there will be such a torrent of opposition. They will rise like never before and then there will be the world’s greatest social revolution, the American second revolution.”

The video concludes with Pepper explaining how he came to work for Robert F. Kennedy and Martin King: 

 

Part 2 (5:36) - Martin Luther King, Jr. Assassination/James Earl Ray Innocence 

“Took me ten years to convince myself that [James Earl Ray] was an absolute patsy” - Dr. William Pepper 

In Part 2 Pepper begins with the Martin King assassination and explains how he became involved with James Earl Ray's defense some nine years later. He also goes into detail about the 30 day civil trial against Loyd Jowers, et al, where a jury found Ray not responsible for King's assassination after listening to 70 witnesses under oath. 

Pepper believes that Ray's civil trial should serve as a template for getting out the truth in a wide range of cover-ups including the Robert F. Kennedy assassination and 9/11. He thinks using the courts is an effective way to get the truth into the public record despite the efforts by the mainstream media to prevent its dissemination to the public.

 

Part 3 (9:56) - Robert F. Kennedy Assassination/Sirhan Sirhan Innocence 

“I found from just a preliminary examination of the record that [the Sirhan Sirhan case] on the law, on the facts of the case, was an easier one than the assassination of Martin King and the innocence of James Earl Ray” - Dr. William Pepper 

In the first half of Part 3 Pepper details the startling evidence that necessitates a second shooter in the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. For starters the medical examiner states that Kennedy was shot four times from the rear including one shot about an inch behind his right ear which conflicts with all the witness testimony that Sirhan was always three to five feet in front of the likely Democratic presidential nominee.

Secondly, the analysis of audio recordings from the assassination with formerly unavailable new technology has led to the determination that 13 shots were fired at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. Sirhan's gun only held 8 bullets. In other words: 

“There had to be a second shooter there” - Dr. William Pepper

In the second half of Part 3 Pepper details the efforts taken by the prison and the Department of Corrections to prevent his legal team from psychoanalyzing Sirhan Sirhan.

Part 4 (4:59) - Robert F. Kennedy Assassination (Continued) 

In Part 4 Pepper continues the RFK assassination discussion and his efforts to clear Sirhan Sirhan whom he says is innocent:

“The problem we face is if we get our client clearly innocent of the killing of Bob Kennedy – which he is, clearly innocent of that killing – he has five other counts of attempted murder” - Dr. William Pepper

In addition to the belief in Sirhan's innocence Pepper believes the case is important because it is representative of a larger problem facing the country:

“Each of the things I’m talking about are symptomatic of a pervasive sickness in this country. This is not the country we were all led to believe it was or should have been. This is what has emerged because we have had a small group of criminals grab power over a period of time following the orders of the people in the shadows who really do dominate life and justice and the injustices that exist in the society.” - Dr. William Pepper

Part 5 (8:36) - 9/11 

“The 9/11 matter is, in my lifetime, the most traumatic assault on democracy and the safety of this Republic.” - Dr. William Pepper

Part 5 is dedicated to finding out the truth about 9/11. Pepper supports two different ways for accomplishing this goal. First, he backs an effort to create a new commission to investigate 9/11 by New York state referendum. Volunteers are currently trying to get the necessary 30,000 signatures from registered New York voters to get the measure on the ballot.

The second approach is to once again file a lawsuit in the courts. Pepper is leading this effort on behalf of the Jersey Girls and plans to sue, among others, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who is widely believed to have sent $100,000 to lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohammed Atta.

Part 6 (8:03) - War Crimes 

“I’m determined that what I saw in Vietnam and what is happening in Iraq will not go unpunished. Absolutely determined that that’s the case. What that means is this entire gang of war criminals in Washington are going to have to be prosecuted” - Dr. William Pepper

Part 6 covers what Pepper believes is his most important project -- the prosecution of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, David Addington, Doug Feith and Richard Pearl, et al, for war crimes.

Pepper plans to accomplish this monumental task by following the precedent set in the case of Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet. In that case, a Spanish judge issued an international arrest warrant for Pinochet whose charges including 94 counts of torture.

Ultimately Pepper hopes for a conviction in absentia of the American war criminals which would prevent the guilty from ever stepping foot outside of the United States.

NOTE: To order a DVD of the night's entire programming, which includes a lively Q & A session with Dr. William Pepper and a talk by Professor David Ray Griffin on new 9/11 evidence, please contact Kathleen at quantumysticKFR@gmail.com to request a copy.

“An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King, New and Updated Edition” (William F. Pepper)

“Orders to Kill: The Truth Behind the Murder of Martin Luther King, Jr” (William F. Pepper)

Technorati Tags: 11, administration, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, Dr. WIlliam Pepper, Fidel Castro, George W. Bush, iraq, James Earl Ray, Jersey Girls, Martin Luther King Jr., puppy, Robert F. Kennedy, september11, Sirhan Sirhan, torture, war crimes

Supreme Court Expert Jeffrey Toobin Says Voter ID Laws Are 'A Very Clear Attempt By Republicans To Stop Democrats From Voting'

Supreme Court expert Jeffrey Toobin explained to Bill Moyers last night that the real intent behind GOP sponsored Voter ID laws which the Supreme Court recently ruled were Constitutional was "to stop Democrats from voting":

Jeffrey Toobin: "I thought it was a bad decision but a predictable one. Because it was a very clear attempt by Republicans to stop Democrats from voting. I don't think there is any doubt about what the motivation was of that law. It didn't say that in the text of the law and the aim of stopping fraud was one that we all can embrace. But the fact is electoral fraud scarcely exists in this country. The real agenda was to help Republicans."

The reality is that the new Voter ID laws that are sprouting up all over the country as a result of the partisan Supreme Court decision are a poll tax that "makes voting harder for poor, elderly, and disabled citizens without photo IDs" (and nuns) and will result in The Great Disenfranchisement of as many as 21 million Americans.

In fact, the man who led the Bush administration's efforts on the Photo ID front, John Tanner, even admitted that the laws disenfranchise elderly voters. Tanner, who eventually was forced to resign for making insane comments (see below) that I caught on video and blogged about at Brad Blog, called it a "shame" that the elderly would be disenfranchised by Voter ID laws:

"And I think that it is probably true that among those who don't [have Photo IDs] is primarily elderly persons. And that's a shame. You know, creating problems for elderly persons is not good under any circumstance.

Of course, that also ties in to the racial aspect because our society is such that minorities don't become elderly the way white people do. They die first. There are inequities in health care. There are a variety of inequities in this country. And so anything that disproportionately impacts the elderly has the opposite impact on minorities. Just the math is such as that."

Thus, we are left with a situation where the Supreme Court ruled a law Constitutional that the government admits will disenfranchise untold Americans in an effort to prevent voter fraud which the government and the Supreme Court admit is virtually non-existent.

Thus the Supreme Court, the Bush administration and Republican operatives across the country have set back our democracy decades. And this will only be the beginning if John McCain, who wants to appoint more Supreme Court judges in the Bush mold, is elected and gets to replace the 88 year-old Stevens, 75 year-old Ginsburg, 69 year-old Breyer or 68 year-old Souter.

Technorati Tags: Bill Moyers, Election, Jeffrey Toobin, John McCain, John Tanner, Poll Tax, Democracy, Supreme Court, Voter ID

HOW REPUBLICANS QUIETLY HIJACKED THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO SWING ELECTIONS

“Loser Take All: Election Fraud and The Subversion of Democracy, 20002008” (Ig Publishing)

Steven Rosenfeld's contribution the new Mark Crispin Miller anthology on “The Subversion of Democracy” can and should be read at AlterNet:

Jim Crow has returned to American elections, only in the twenty-first century, instead of men in white robes or a barrel-chested sheriff menacingly patrolling voting precincts, we are more likely to see a lawyer carrying a folder filled with briefing papers and proposed legislation about “voter fraud” and other measures to supposedly protect the sanctity of the vote.

Since the 2004 election, activist lawyers with ties to the Republican Party and its presidential campaigns, Republican legislators, and even the Supreme Court -- in a largely unnoticed ruling in 2006 -- have been aggressively regulating most aspects of the voting process. Collectively, these efforts are undoing the gains of the civil rights era that brought voting rights to minorities and the poor, groups that tend to support Democrats.

In addition, the Department of Justice (DOJ), which for decades had fought to ensure that all eligible citizens could vote, now encourages states to take steps in the opposite direction. Political appointees who advocate for stringent requirements before ballots are cast and votes are counted have driven much of the DOJ's Voting Section's recent agenda. As a result, the Department has pushed states to purge voter lists, and to adopt newly restrictive voter ID and provisional ballot laws. In addition, during most of George W. Bush's tenure, the DOJ has stopped enforcing federal laws designed to aid registration, such as the requirement that state welfare offices offer public aid recipients the opportunity to register to vote.

Continue reading the article at AlterNet.

Rosenfeld's piece goes into great detail about the role of the Civil Rights Division of the Voting Rights Section at the DoJ in disenfranchising millions of voters. The recent head of the department, until he was forced to resign after I captured him on video making racially inflammatory comments which I posted at Brad Blog, was John Tanner. In the video below The Washington Post's Dana Milbank repeatedly credits the one line (from my video) for Tanner's downfall.

Technorati Tags: abrams, Bush League Justice, election integrity, Elections, John Tanner, Justice, JIm Crow, voter ID, voter suppression, Voting

The Republican War On Voting

The American Prospect has a new must read piece titled, “The Republican War on Voting: Using the Department of Justice, friendly governors, and its usual propaganda outlets, the GOP has propagated the myth of voter fraud to purge the rolls of non-Republicans”:

“Sharrard's cautionary tone was a response to the Republican Party's ongoing nationwide campaign to suppress the low-income minority vote by propagating the myth of voter fraud. Using various tactics -- including media smears, bogus lawsuits, restrictive new voting laws and policies, and flimsy prosecutions -- Republican operatives, election officials, and the GOP-controlled Justice Department have limited voting access and gone after voter-registration groups such as ACORN...”

“Unfortunately, progressives have tended to pay more attention to Election Day dirty tricks and to electronic voting machines than to a more systemic threat: the Republican campaign to suppress the votes of low-income, young, and minority voters through restrictive legislation and rulings, all based on the mythic specter of voter fraud...”

“Unfortunately, the public hasn't heard just how nonexistent the voter fraud epidemic actually is. While progressives have successfully challenged some of the most restrictive laws in court, they're still playing catch-up when it comes to combating the glib sound bites of voter-fraud alarmists. Republicans and the Bush Justice Department have cloaked their schemes under such noble-sounding concepts as ”ballot integrity.“ The GOP's vote-suppression playbook features everything from phony lawsuits to questionable investigations to authoritative-seeming reports, all with the aim of promoting restrictive laws. ”

In related news, John Tanner, the man in charge of the Justice Department's efforts to disenfranchise millions of voters until he was forced to resign after I captured him making hella offensive comments on video (see below), has a new job. Tanner is now a fellow with the Alabama Law Institute - which provides the Legislature with legal expertise in drafting and revising laws.



One wonders if it just wouldn't just be easier to repeal the Fifteenth Amendment.

Technorati Tags: democracy, John Tanner, voter ID, voter suppression

IMPEACHMENT TUESDAY: Rep. Wexler Proves That Bush/Cheney Will NOT Be Impeached

Rep. Wexler is a great Congressman who speaks truth to power. But in this video he evidences exactly why he will fail in his mission to impeach Bush and Cheney. How is it that the White House has a tv arm (Fox “News”), a radio arm (conservative talk radio), a push for the Iraq war arm (NY Times) and has editorial boards across the country in its pocket (see The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times and The Washington Post for starters), but Rep. Wexler can't find himself a tripod, a microphone or a news outlet for his important message.

What a joke.

Still, I encourage everyone to join Congressman Wexler's call for impeachment hearings.

(h/t Impeach for Peace)

Technorati Tags: Constitution

Mukasey's Paradox

This Op-Ed by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley in the L.A. Times is not to be missed:

The recent decisions of Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey to block any prosecution of Bush administration officials for contempt and to block any criminal investigation of torture led to a chorus of criticism. Many view the decisions as raw examples of political manipulation of the legal process and overt cronyism. I must confess that I was one of those crying foul until I suddenly realized that there was something profound, even beautiful, in Mukasey's action.

In his twisting of legal principles, the attorney general has succeeded in creating a perfect paradox. Under Mukasey's Paradox, lawyers cannot commit crimes when they act under the orders of a president -- and a president cannot commit a crime when he acts under advice of lawyers.

Such a perfect paradox is no easy task. Most attempts fall apart because of some element of logical consistency. The closest example to Mukasey's Paradox is the Grandfather Paradox: If you go back in time and kill your grandfather before he meets your grandmother, you would not be conceived and therefore you could not go back to kill your grandfather. That one can play real tricks with your head.

Mukasey's Paradox appears designed to play tricks with Congress. Its origins date back to Mukasey's confirmation hearings, when he first denied knowing what waterboarding was and then (when it was defined for him) refused to recognize it as torture. In fact, it is not only a crime under U.S. law, it is a well-defined war crime under international law.

Read the entire piece at the L.A. Times

“Charlie Rose with Jonathan Turley; Nina Totenberg; Amre Moussa; George Mitchell (July 16, 1998)” (Charlie Rose)

(h/t mom)

Technorati Tags: Jonathan Turley, Michael Mukasey

It Does Happen In America Part II: Two More Acquitted Of Terrorist Related Charges Remain In Prison

It's officially time to replace the American mantra of “innocent until proven guilty” with “guilty once proven innocent”. According to Democracy Now, two more men remain in prison despite being found innocent of terrorist related crimes by a jury of their peers. Esteemed GWU law professor Jonathan Turley makes clear what is going on with one of the prisoners mentioned in the video clip:

“The mistreatment of Dr. Al-Arian remains an international symbol of how the Bush Administration has discarded fundamental principles of fairness in a blind pursuit of retribution against this political activist.”

I have previously posted repeatedly about former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman who also remains behind bars as a political prisoner in America:

It does happen in America: The political trial of Don Siegelman

MSNBC'S Abrams re-iterates call for Siegelman Release; Details chief concerns about case

Bush League Justice Videos: Dan Abrams calls for Gov. Don Siegelman's release from prison

VIDEO EXCLUSIVE: Karl Rove - “Free Don Siegelman”

Bush League Justice Series - Karl Rove's Involvement In Don Siegelman Case

60 Minutes expose on the malicious prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman

60 Minutes to air Don Siegelman report this Sunday!

Bush League Justice - Day 4 - The controversial prosecution of former Democratic Alabama Governor Don Siegelman

“Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil” (James Bovard)

Holy Fascism Batman!

Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does—and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to “shoot to kill” in the event of martial law.

Read the rest of this really scary article at The Progressive.

UPDATE: Video Below

“You Have No Rights: Stories of America in an Age of Repression” (Matthew Rothschild)

Egregious Police Action

To: Timothy A. Swanson, Stark County Sheriff strkshrf@raex.com
Postal address
4500 Atlantic Blvd., N.E., Canton, Ohio 44705

(330) 430-3800

Mr. Swanson,

I just watched a video of your officers conducting a brutal strip search of an innocent woman who had sought help from your department. Instead, she was subjected to a brutal and completely unjustified strip search and physical abuse bordering on rape if not including it. There is evidence of numerous violations of the US Constitution as well as blatant and documented violations of numerous other statutory prohibitions and limitations.

I am sickened and outraged by what I saw. I consider this reprehensible and immoral behavior to be no better than that of thugs in the worst police states and banana republics. I am determined to share this video with as many people as I can get to view it via email and highly trafficked blogs ---many of which reach millions of people. I am quite sure that they will be as outraged by the conduct of “your” officers as am I.

As I understand the facts in evidence, the woman who was brutally and criminally assaulted by your officers was entirely innocent of any wrong doing. At no time were your officers threatened or compromised. This outrage need not have occurred. There is absolutely no justification for this behavior under law. Even suspects are protected against arrest in the absence of “Probable Cause” (read the Constitution); therefore, the criminal, felonious assault by your officers upon someone who was not even suspected of having committed a crime is simply unconscionable and, prima facie, without any moral or legal justification whatsoever. For this --there is no defense, no rationalization.

If I lived in your county, I would demand your resignation and that of the offending “officers” who should, in any case, resign. Anyone perpetrating this kind of atrocity brings shame upon the uniform and upon the profession of law enforcement.

Might I remind --your job is to serve and protect, upholding the law --not breaking it or, otherwise, making a mockery of it.

Lenn Hart