White House Authorizes Torture?

In the news today is an article that claims just that. Read on for an excerpt...

The meetings were held in the White House Situation Room in the years immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks. Attending the sessions were Cheney, then-Bush aides Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

....snip.....

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., lambasted what he described as "yet another astonishing disclosure about the Bush administration and its use of torture."

"Who would have thought that in the United States of America in the 21st century, the top officials of the executive branch would routinely gather in the White House to approve torture?" Kennedy said in a statement. "Long after President Bush has left office, our country will continue to pay the price for his administration's renegade repudiation of the rule of law and fundamental human rights."

...snip...

Full Article Here

UK OKs human-animal embryo research

British authorities have given the go ahead for scientists to use animal embryos in their efforts to make Human Stem Cells. For moi, it isn't a question of whether this will work or whether this will be helpful to people. It is a question of where does it lead? Man, over an over again, proves that he is not capable of acting responsibly with the technology he already possesses, let alone any new technology. As if we are not destroying our ability to endure upon the planet already, what happens when the building blocks of life are f*ck'd with?

We already have genetically modified fruits and vegetables. Many that are overtaking natural species, and many that are designed to die off and not self propagate. We read that cloned meat, from cloned animals who have higher rates of disease and mutations, is in the US food system. Mmm, serve up that steak.

Where is it all leading to?

British authorities on Thursday approved scientists' use of animal eggs to create human stem cells, a ruling that will boost the supply of stem cells for research.

The decision means that researchers will be able to refine their techniques for producing human stem cells by practicing first on animal eggs, of which there is a steady supply. Similar work involving human-animal stem cells is also under way in China and the United States.

"This is good news for research, but most importantly, it is good news for patients," said Sophie Petit-Zeman of the Association of Medical Research Charities.

Scientists have been exploring the use of stem cells to cure many degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's, since the cells have the ability to develop into any cell in the human body.

The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority said it had granted conditional one-year licenses to two institutions to conduct research using mixed human-animal embryos. In Britain, all research involving human eggs and embryos must be approved by the authority.

Scientists from King's College and Newcastle University submitted applications last year to create human stem cells using animal eggs.

Link to Full Article

Impeachment?

Where is the buzz on Impeachment these days? look no further and check out this link.

The Buzz

It is illegal to have a different opinion...

...than your own President.

Evidently this is the case, or that is what is being determined right now in court. But this is what is being argued in a case brought by two people who were ejected from a public appearance of the Prez because of an anti-war sticker on their bumper. No, they didn't heckle, according to the story, but since it was clear that they had a different opinion from the Commander-in-Chief they were booted.

It should be an inalienable right to disagree with anyone, particularly elected officials that represent us. George Orwell says 'i told you so'...

Link to Full Article

Enemy of the State...?

Granted, this is one person's account of an event...and how a person got onto a 'List'...but this is still a messed up example of how all these new security measures are being used.

What does it take to be labeled a potential 'Terrorist Threat'... evidently all it takes is to either speak your mind, or be vocal for PEACE. Peace being a good antithesis of Terror this makes perfect sense.

From the political blog Balkinization:

Another Enemy of the People?

Mark Graber

I am posting the below with the permission of Professor Walter F. Murphy, emeritus of Princeton University. For those who do not know, Professor Murphy is easily the most distinguished scholar of public law in political science. His works on both constitutional theory and judicial behavior are classics in the field. Bluntly, legal scholarship that does not engage many themes in his book, briefly noted below, Constitutional Democracy, may be legal, but cannot be said to be scholarship. As interesting, for present purposes, readers of the book will discover that Murphy is hardly a conventional political or legal liberal. While he holds some opinions, most notably on welfare, similar to opinions held on the political left, he is a sharp critic of ROE V. WADE, and supported the Alito nomination. Apparently these credentials and others noted below are no longer sufficient to prevent one from becoming an enemy of the people.

"On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving."

"When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years."

"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said. "

"After carefully examining my credentials, the clerk asked if he could take them to TSA officials. I agreed. He returned about ten minutes later and said I could have a boarding pass, but added: "I must warn you, they=re going to ransack your luggage." On my return flight, I had no problem with obtaining a boarding pass, but my luggage was "lost." Airlines do lose a lot of luggage and this "loss" could have been a mere coincidence. In light of previous events, however, I'm a tad skeptical."

"I confess to having been furious that any American citizen would be singled out for governmental harassment because he or she criticized any elected official, Democrat or Republican. That harassment is, in and of itself, a flagrant violation not only of the First Amendment but also of our entire scheme of constitutional government. This effort to punish a critic states my lecture's argument far more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could. Further, that an administration headed by two men who had "had other priorities" than to risk their own lives when their turn to fight for their country came up, should brand as a threat to the United States a person who did not run away but stood up and fought for his country and was wounded in battle, goes beyond the outrageous. Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush's false claims by "outing" his wife, Valerie Plaime, thereby putting at risk her life as well as the lives of many people with whom she had had contact as an agent of the CIA. ..."

"I have a personal stake here, but so do all Americans who take their political system seriously. Thus I hope you and your colleagues will take some positive action to bring the Administration's conduct to the attention of a far larger, and more influential, audience than I could hope to reach. "

Posted 11:17 AM by Mark Graber [link]

Conservatives for Civil Liberties

Full Article

Four prominent conservative thinkers are set to launch a campaign "to restore checks and balances and civil liberties protections under assault by the Executive Branch," arguing that, "since 9/11, the President has acquired too much power."

Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, who led the effort to impeach President Clinton, is one of the organizers of the effort, called the American Freedom Agenda. Others are David Keene of the American Conservative Union, writer and conservative direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie, and constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who served in the Reagan administration as associate deputy attorney general.

At a 1 p.m. news conference today at the National Press Club, they will pitch a legislative package "to restore congressional oversight and habeas corpus, end torture and extraordinary rendition, narrow the President's authority to designate 'enemy combatants,' prevent unconstitutional wiretaps, email and mail openings, protect journalists from prosecution under the Espionage Act, and more."

In a statement, the four said the president "has encroached on the power of Congress to make laws, and on the power of the courts to interpret the law - a scenario that the Founding Fathers foresaw and warned against." As a result, they said, "We are issuing this call to Americans of all political and philosophical persuasions to join us in urging Congress to enact The American Freedom Agenda." ...

Martial Law: Now Easier Than Ever...

From and Editorial in the New York Times on February 19, 2007...

Original Article Here

A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.

The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president’s use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”

Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation’s governors.

There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation’s governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate.

New Executive Powers?

In the news today, our fearless leader has proclaimed the power to do what he wants with American's mail despite the law that says otherwise. His rationale is the same one used to defend warrant-less wiretapping. Now it is warrant-less postal snooping.

Full Article at the New York Daily News

President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.

The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.

That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.

Bush's move came during the winter congressional recess and a year after his secret domestic electronic eavesdropping program was first revealed. It caught Capitol Hill by surprise.

Houston Police Trample Janitors with Horses

It looks like organized labor might want to organize a bridge club instead of standing up for their rights...

Houston Police seemingly used horses to subdue janitors who were peacefully protesting. Here is an excerpt from one of the protest organizers.

It reminds me of the first hand accounts of people rounded up during WTO in Seattle, regardless of whether they were marching legally, protesting, or just spectators.

We sat down in the intersection and the horses came immediately. It was really violent. They arrested us, and when we got to jail, we were pretty beat up. Not all of us got the medical attention we needed. The worst was a protester named Julia, who is severely diabetic. We kept telling the guards about her condition but they only gave her a piece of candy. During roll call, she started to complain about light-headedness. Finally she just collapsed unconscious on the floor. It was like she just dropped dead. The guard saw it but just kept going through the roll. Susan ran over there and took her pulse while the other inmates were yelling for help, saying we need to call somebody. The medical team strolled over, taking their own sweet time. She was unconscious for like 4 or 5 minutes.

They really tried to break us down. The first night they put the temperature so high that a woman--one of the other inmates--had a seizure. The second night they made it freezing and took away many of our blankets. We didn't have access to the cots so we had to sleep on a concrete floor. When we would finally fall asleep the guards would come and yell `Are you Anna Denise Solís? Are you so and so?' One of the protesters had a fractured wrist from the horses. She had a cast on and when she would fall asleep the guard would kick the cast to wake her up. She was in a lot of pain.

The guards would tell us: `This is what you get for protesting.' One of them said, `Who gives a shit about janitors making 5 dollars an hour? Lots of people make that much.' The other inmates--there were a lot of prostitutes in there--said that they had never seen the jail this bad. The guards told them: `We're trying to teach the protesters a lesson.' Nobody was getting out of jail because the processing was so slow. They would tell the prostitutes that everything is the protesters' fault. They were trying to turn everybody against each other.

I felt like I was in some Third World jail, not in America. One of the guards called us `whores' and if we talked back, we didn't get any lunch. We didn't even have the basic necessities. It felt like a police state, like marshal law, nobody had rights. Some of us had been arrested in other cities, and it was never this bad before.

They tried to break us down, to dehumanize us. But we were stronger. We made friends with the other inmates and we organized them. The prostitutes felt a lot of solidarity with us. All of us together told stories, and played games like telephone and charades. We even did stand-up comedy monologues about what was happening to us and we all laughed. One woman--a woman of deep faith--gave a sermon that was both funny and deadly serious. We showed them that we weren't afraid. We did it all together. Now we're ready to fight on for basic American rights like the freedom of speech and the right to protest. --Anna Denise Solís, Lead Organizer, SEIU Local 1877, San José, CA.

If you said yes at any point, it's not a rape

...finally, a ruling we can all agree upon...

or NOT

Can you believe this ???

ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- An appellate court said Maryland's rape law is clear -- no doesn't mean no when it follows a yes and intercourse has begun. A three-judge panel of the Court of Special Appeals Monday threw out a rape conviction saying that a trial judge in Montgomery County erred when he refused to answer the jury's question on that very point. The appeals court said that when the jury asked the trial judge if a woman could withdraw her consent after the start of sex, the jury should have been told she could not. The ruling said the law is not ambiguous and is a tenet of common-law.

Jessica at feministing.org says:

So ladies, once it's in, it's in. Ain't nothing you can do about it. Changed your mind? Suck it up. He's hurting you? Oh, sorry--should have thought of that before. After all, it's not like your body is yours or anything. Jeez.

Rebuttal - Military Commissions Act and US Citizens

I appreciate Steve pointing out that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 specifically states that it is in reference to aliens, or non-citizens, wherein they do not retain Habeas Corpus rights. That is a valid point.

However, as we have already witnessed, US Citizens can be picked up as enemy combatants and held indefinitely without recourse, and be subjected to what is arguably torture (see Jose Padilla for further reference. The U.S. administration has in the past described him as an illegal enemy combatant, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to the normal protection of US law, nor protection under the Geneva Convention.)

The real question is will this provision be upheld? isn't the MCA itself a signing into law a series of practices that were previously used and currently used that were against the standing law of the land and the Geneva Conventions? is this a hind-sighted justification of flouting the law?

Certainly, if the provisions in this act were carried out with a foreign national who belonged to one of the other signatory nations to the Geneva Conventions...some of the MCA sanctioned activities and suspension of rights would still be considered illegal.

here is some quoted text from Steve's source on the wiki encyclopedia that is listed under Criticism:

A number of legal scholars and Congressional members - including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) - have said that the habeas provision of the Act violates a clause of the Constitution that says the right to challenge detention "shall not be suspended" except in cases of "rebellion or invasion."[17]

The Act has also been denounced by critics who assert that its wording makes possible the permanent detention and torture (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) of anyone - including American citizens - based solely on the decision of the President.[18] Indeed, the wording of section 948b[19] of the act appears to explicitly contradict the Third Geneva Convention of which the United States is currently a signatory, however as long as the Act is not used when dealing with a country or countries that have also signed the conventions, the Geneva Conventions do not hold any weight.

In the House debate, Representative David Wu of Oregon offered this scenario:

Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, I am a U.S. citizen. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.[20]

One has described the Act as "the legalization of the José Padilla treatment" - referring to the American citizen who was declared an unlawful enemy combatant and then imprisoned for three years before finally being charged with a lesser crime than was originally alleged.[21] A legal brief filed on Padilla's behalf alleges that during this time he was subjected to sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and enforced stress positions.[22]

Amnesty International said that the Act "contravenes human rights principles."[23] An editorial in The New York Times described the Act as "a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts."[24]

American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said, "The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions." [25]

The law has also been criticized for allegedly giving a retroactive, nine-year immunity to U.S. officials who authorized, ordered, or committed potential acts of abuse on detainees.

R.I.P. Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus

He Swore An Oath to Defend The Constitution...

Instead...

Today (oct 17th), 135 years to the day after the last American President (Ulysses S. Grant) suspended habeas corpus, President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. At its worst, the legislation allows President Bush or Donald Rumsfeld to declare anyone — US citizen or not — an enemy combatant, lock them up and throw away the key without a chance to prove their innocence in a court of law. In other words, every thing the Founding Fathers fought the British empire to free themselves of was reversed and nullified with the stroke of a pen, all under the guise of the War on Terror.

New Bill Signed Today That Will Save Us...

...from having fair trials, legal representation, habeas corpus, and from not being able to be put to death on hearsay...

Whew! finally, those witch trials can begin again in earnest...

beatings, torture, why not see if suspected terrorists float or not?

Read Full Article Here

and here is a snippet from the article where the director of the ACLU comments,

The American Civil Liberties Union said the new law is "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history."

"The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.

"Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act," he said.

Where's yer Habeas Corpus?

You might want to think about the what this means for a country that was established in order to have rights like Habeas Corpus...because not having them was to be the subject of injustice.

Oh, and btw, for those who profess faith in Christianity and promote it as a reason to be followed as a leader...

perhaps the basic tenets of the faith should be reviewed and matched against their actions...

LIVE A LIFE DEDICATED TO:

*Compassion
*Forgiveness
*Humility
*Justice
*Service to Others (particularly those in need, the sick, the poor, the sad)
*Loving your neighbors and your enemies as you love yourself

certainly JUSTICE stands out as one to look at considering the following...