Iraqis Tortured with Live Lions and Mock Executions
Starmail - 16. Nov, 13:49
Vote USA 2004
16
Nov
2005
Bush's Vision Fails to Win Over Middle East
Starmail - 16. Nov, 13:48
Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force in 2001, despite denials to Congress
TRANSCRIPT
Joint Senate Hearing on Energy Pricing and Profits
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110901070.html
From FindLaw
White House Energy Task Force Litigation
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/energytaskforce/index.html
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force
By Dana Milbank and Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html
[foto] Testifying at a Senate hearing last week were, from left, Lee R. Raymond of Exxon Mobil, David J. O'Reilly of Chevron, James J. Mulva of ConocoPhillips, Ross Pillari of BP America and John Hofmeister of Shell Oil. (By Chip Somodevilla -- Getty Images)
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.
The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.
In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.
Chevron was not named in the White House document, but the Government Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of several companies that "gave detailed energy policy recommendations" to the task force. In addition, Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force's work; that meeting is not noted in the document.
The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of participants. The task force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the task force, said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. "The White House went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task force," Lautenberg said.
Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment on the document. She said that the courts have upheld "the constitutional right of the president and vice president to obtain information in confidentiality."
The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress.
Alan Huffman, who was a Conoco manager until the 2002 merger with Phillips, confirmed meeting with the task force staff. "We met in the Executive Office Building, if I remember correctly," he said.
A spokesman for ConocoPhillips said the chief executive, James J. Mulva, had been unaware that Conoco officials met with task force staff when he testified at the hearing. The spokesman said that Mulva was chief executive of Phillips in 2001 before the merger and that nobody from Phillips met with the task force.
Exxon spokesman Russ Roberts said the company stood by chief executive Lee R. Raymond's statement in the hearing. In a brief phone interview, former Exxon vice president James Rouse, the official named in the White House document, denied the meeting took place. "That must be inaccurate and I don't have any comment beyond that," said Rouse, now retired.
Ronnie Chappell, a spokesman for BP, declined to comment on the task force meetings. Darci Sinclair, a spokeswoman for Shell, said she did not know whether Shell officials met with the task force, but they often meet members of the administration. Chevron said its executives did not meet with the task force but confirmed that it sent President Bush recommendations in a letter.
The person familiar with the task force's work, who requested anonymity out of concern about retribution, said the document was based on records kept by the Secret Service of people admitted to the White House complex. This person said most meetings were with Andrew Lundquist, the task force's executive director, and Cheney aide Karen Y. Knutson.
According to the White House document, Rouse met with task force staff members on Feb. 14, 2001. On March 21, they met with Archie Dunham, who was chairman of Conoco. On April 12, according to the document, task force staff members met with Conoco official Huffman and two officials from the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, Wayne Gibbens and Alby Modiano.
On April 17, task force staff members met with Royal Dutch/Shell Group's chairman, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Shell Oil chairman Steven Miller and two others. On March 22, staff members met with BP regional president Bob Malone, chief economist Peter Davies and company employees Graham Barr and Deb Beaubien.
Toward the end of the hearing, Lautenberg asked the five executives: "Did your company or any representatives of your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001?" When there was no response, Lautenberg added: "The meeting . . . "
"No," said Raymond.
"No," said Chevron Chairman David J. O'Reilly.
"We did not, no," Mulva said.
"To be honest, I don't know," said BP America chief executive Ross Pillari, who came to the job in August 2001. "I wasn't here then."
"But your company was here," Lautenberg replied.
"Yes," Pillari said.
Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, who has held his job since earlier this year, answered last. "Not to my knowledge," he said.
/Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report./
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Informant: Teresa Binstock
Joint Senate Hearing on Energy Pricing and Profits
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110901070.html
From FindLaw
White House Energy Task Force Litigation
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/energytaskforce/index.html
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force
By Dana Milbank and Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html
[foto] Testifying at a Senate hearing last week were, from left, Lee R. Raymond of Exxon Mobil, David J. O'Reilly of Chevron, James J. Mulva of ConocoPhillips, Ross Pillari of BP America and John Hofmeister of Shell Oil. (By Chip Somodevilla -- Getty Images)
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.
The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.
In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.
Chevron was not named in the White House document, but the Government Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of several companies that "gave detailed energy policy recommendations" to the task force. In addition, Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force's work; that meeting is not noted in the document.
The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of participants. The task force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the task force, said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. "The White House went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task force," Lautenberg said.
Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment on the document. She said that the courts have upheld "the constitutional right of the president and vice president to obtain information in confidentiality."
The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress.
Alan Huffman, who was a Conoco manager until the 2002 merger with Phillips, confirmed meeting with the task force staff. "We met in the Executive Office Building, if I remember correctly," he said.
A spokesman for ConocoPhillips said the chief executive, James J. Mulva, had been unaware that Conoco officials met with task force staff when he testified at the hearing. The spokesman said that Mulva was chief executive of Phillips in 2001 before the merger and that nobody from Phillips met with the task force.
Exxon spokesman Russ Roberts said the company stood by chief executive Lee R. Raymond's statement in the hearing. In a brief phone interview, former Exxon vice president James Rouse, the official named in the White House document, denied the meeting took place. "That must be inaccurate and I don't have any comment beyond that," said Rouse, now retired.
Ronnie Chappell, a spokesman for BP, declined to comment on the task force meetings. Darci Sinclair, a spokeswoman for Shell, said she did not know whether Shell officials met with the task force, but they often meet members of the administration. Chevron said its executives did not meet with the task force but confirmed that it sent President Bush recommendations in a letter.
The person familiar with the task force's work, who requested anonymity out of concern about retribution, said the document was based on records kept by the Secret Service of people admitted to the White House complex. This person said most meetings were with Andrew Lundquist, the task force's executive director, and Cheney aide Karen Y. Knutson.
According to the White House document, Rouse met with task force staff members on Feb. 14, 2001. On March 21, they met with Archie Dunham, who was chairman of Conoco. On April 12, according to the document, task force staff members met with Conoco official Huffman and two officials from the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, Wayne Gibbens and Alby Modiano.
On April 17, task force staff members met with Royal Dutch/Shell Group's chairman, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Shell Oil chairman Steven Miller and two others. On March 22, staff members met with BP regional president Bob Malone, chief economist Peter Davies and company employees Graham Barr and Deb Beaubien.
Toward the end of the hearing, Lautenberg asked the five executives: "Did your company or any representatives of your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001?" When there was no response, Lautenberg added: "The meeting . . . "
"No," said Raymond.
"No," said Chevron Chairman David J. O'Reilly.
"We did not, no," Mulva said.
"To be honest, I don't know," said BP America chief executive Ross Pillari, who came to the job in August 2001. "I wasn't here then."
"But your company was here," Lautenberg replied.
"Yes," Pillari said.
Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, who has held his job since earlier this year, answered last. "Not to my knowledge," he said.
/Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report./
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Informant: Teresa Binstock
Starmail - 16. Nov, 13:41
Democrats as well as Republicans ALL vote for dictatorship
By Eric Lerner,
Workers Democracy Network
The US Senate today, by an 84-14 vote passed the Graham-Levin amendment which abrogates the writ of habeas corpus in the US, destroying the basis for democracy in this country. The Senate then UNANIMOUSLY passed the defense appropriations act that contains this amendment.
I have appended the text of the amendment at the end of this note. I will be attending a meeting at CCR tomorrow to discuss the Commission of Inquiry and I’m sure we will also be discussing possible joint actions by many groups in response to this vote. I’ve also added CCR statement on the matter.
I have just a few thoughts on this right now. First, in my opinion, anyone who looks to the Democrats as an alternative should stop looking as of now. Every Democrat in the Senate voted for this re-institution of slavery.
Second, I think our most urgent task is to explain to every one that if this becomes law (which is very likely) it will mean the end of democratic rights for everyone, not just for aliens. While on the surface the law appears to apply only to those now at Guantanamo, in fact it means that ANYONE can be taken without charge to Guantanamo and will thereby be deprived of the right of habeas corpus. That includes citizens because there is no mechanism, without the habeas corpus writ, that you can even appeal to the courts on the basis that you are wrongly accused of being an alien.
The amendment has some window dressing about rights of appeal to the US Appeals Court for DC. But there is a huge, very deliberate, loop-hole. There is NO right to any appeal to any court before the “review broad” decides. In other words, ANYONE can be kept FOREVER at Guantanamo without any appeal to any court, just so long as they don’t get around to your review. And nothing can force them to do that.
Of course all this does not mean that they can enforce the dictatorship they are legislating into existence. It is up to the American people to decide if they will allow themselves to be enslaved. But we should be clear that that is what this laws means. And it was passed UNANIMOUSLY by the Senate.
Eric
CCR Statement on the Graham-Levin Habeas Jurisdiction Stripping Amendment
Synopsis
November 15, 2005 – The Center for Constitutional Rights condemns the Graham-Levin Amendment to the Military Authorization Bill, passed today by the United States Senate. This bill is directed at those persons held at the Guantanamo prison camp. For the first time in our history, it would strip people of a right which has been the shining jewel of Western jurisprudence since the 13th Century, the right to petition a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus.
It is particularly disturbing that this legislation was enacted stealthily and without any meaningful deliberation by the Senate or its Judiciary Committee. As happens so often, it is easy to carelessly give up our rights and much more difficult to get them back, once lost.
That these prisoners are so called ‘enemy combatants’ does not justify this suspension of the writ, since it has applied during earlier times of war, in particular World War II and the American Civil War. Fundamentally, the writ of habeas corpus requires any authority that holds a prisoner to present that prisoner before an independent magistrate and show good cause why that person has been seized and is being detained. It is a linchpin to the rule of law and the proposition that individuals have rights and that the power of government is limited.
Many Guantanamo prisoners were seized nowhere near a battlefield and are absolutely innocent and being held without any justification. What the government fears is not judicial interference in the war on terror. What it fears is objective judicial oversight that allows a public challenge to the abuse of innocent people.
We believe that this blow to our fundamental rights is just the beginning. ‘Enemy combatants’ are an easy target and therefore it is easy to erase their rights. However, this Administration is no friend of the Bill of Rights and this bill will serve as a model for the future as the president and Congress attempt to undermine our most basic rights by stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases raising issues of free speech, freedom of religion, racial discrimination and countless other rights for which the American people have struggled so long and so hard.
We attach a statement by pro bono habeas counsel of all political and philosophical stripes, which have tirelessly represented prisoners at Guantanamo.
Statement of Habeas Counsel Denouncing Midnight Raid on Constitution November 15, 2005
The Senate's treatment of the habeas issue is a scandal. The Great Writ of Habeas Corpus is as old as the Magna Carta. It is too fundamental, too important, too precious, to be rewritten on the back of an envelope, then passed as a floor amendment to an authorization bill on four days' notice, and then hastily further revised.
There have been no hearings on this issue. There are no committee reports reflecting thoughtful consideration of the merits of these amendments or their implications. No one even saw the Graham amendment until the day it was put to a vote. Since then, there has been a tornado of proposed changes and "compromise" positions.
In the meantime, these rushed efforts to rip up the Constitution have been uniformly and rightly condemned nationwide by judges, former military officers, and the great newspapers of the land.
Many are alarmed by these measures on the merits. Many others are alarmed by the precedent they could set for other modifications of habeas. Still others are alarmed by the impetus these modifications could give to other jurisdiction-stripping measures.
The Senate has had no opportunity to consider these views. Graham-Levin violates the Constitution's guarantee against suspension of the Great Writ. It also violates equal protection, due process, and other fundamental rights, and is a forbidden Bill of Attainder.
To legislate this way is disgraceful. It is also completely unnecessary. This is not an emergency situation. The Graham-Levin amendment should be stripped out in conference. The genuine deliberation required by the gravity of the issue can then begin.
Text of Graham_Levin Amendment
SEC. __. REVIEW OF STATUS OF DETAINEES.
(a) Submittal of Procedures for Status Review of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees, and to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives, a report setting forth the procedures of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and the noticed Administrative Review Boards in operation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for determining the status of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
(b) Procedures.--The procedures submitted to Congress pursuant to subsection (a) shall, with respect to proceedings beginning after the date of the submittal of such procedures under that subsection, ensure that--
(1) in making a determination of status of any detainee under such procedures, a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or Administrative Review Board may not consider statements derived from persons that, as determined by such Tribunal or Board, by the preponderance of the evidence, were obtained with undue coercion; and
(2) the Designated Civilian Official shall be an officer of the United States Government whose appointment to office was made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(c) Report on Modification of Procedures.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the committees of Congress referred to in subsection (a) a report on any modification of the procedures submitted under subsection (a) not later than 60 days before the date on which such modification goes into effect.
(d) Judicial Review of Detention of Enemy Combatants.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien outside the United States (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(38) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(38)) who is detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.''.
(2) REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNALS OF PROPRIETY OF DETENTION.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--Subject to subparagraphs
(B),
(C), and
(D), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any decision of a Designated Civilian Official described in subsection (b)(2) that an alien is properly detained as an enemy combatant.
(B) LIMITATION ON CLAIMS.--The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under this paragraph shall be limited to claims brought by or on behalf of an alien--
(i) who is, at the time a request for review by such court is filed, detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and
(ii) for whom a Combatant Status Review Tribunal has been conducted, pursuant to applicable procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense.
(C) SCOPE OF REVIEW.--The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on any claims with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of--
(i) whether the status determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal with regard to such alien applied the correct standards and was consistent with the procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals
(including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor the Government's evidence); and
(ii) whether subjecting an alien enemy combatant to such standards and procedures is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(D) TERMINATION ON RELEASE FROM CUSTODY.--The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit with respect to the claims of an alien under this paragraph shall cease upon the release of such alien from the custody of the Department of Defense.
(3) REVIEW OF FINAL DECISIONS OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--Subject to subparagraphs (C) and
(D), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision rendered pursuant to Military Commission Order No. 1, dated August 31, 2005 (or any successor military order).
(B) GRANT OF REVIEW.--Review under this paragraph--
(i) with respect to a capital case or a case in which the alien was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more, shall be as of right; or
(ii) with respect to any other case, shall be at the discretion of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
(C) LIMITATION ON APPEALS.--The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under this paragraph shall be limited to an appeal brought by or on behalf of an alien--
(i) who was, at the time of the proceedings pursuant to the military order referred to in subparagraph (A), detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and
(ii) for whom a final decision has been rendered pursuant to such military order.
(D) SCOPE OF REVIEW.--The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on an appeal of a final decision with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of--
(i) whether the final decision applied the correct standards and was consistent with the procedures specified in the military order referred to in subparagraph (A); and
(ii) whether subjecting an alien enemy combatant to such order is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(e) Effective Date.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in paragraph
(2), this section shall take effect on the day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) REVIEW OF COMBATANT STATUS TRIBUNAL AND MILITARY COMMISSION DECISIONS.--Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (d) shall apply with respect to any claim whose review is governed by one of such paragraphs and that is pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Les Evenchick
New Orleans
piratefish@yahoo.com
UNITED FOR PEACE & JUSTICE | 212-868-5545
From ufpj-news
Workers Democracy Network
The US Senate today, by an 84-14 vote passed the Graham-Levin amendment which abrogates the writ of habeas corpus in the US, destroying the basis for democracy in this country. The Senate then UNANIMOUSLY passed the defense appropriations act that contains this amendment.
I have appended the text of the amendment at the end of this note. I will be attending a meeting at CCR tomorrow to discuss the Commission of Inquiry and I’m sure we will also be discussing possible joint actions by many groups in response to this vote. I’ve also added CCR statement on the matter.
I have just a few thoughts on this right now. First, in my opinion, anyone who looks to the Democrats as an alternative should stop looking as of now. Every Democrat in the Senate voted for this re-institution of slavery.
Second, I think our most urgent task is to explain to every one that if this becomes law (which is very likely) it will mean the end of democratic rights for everyone, not just for aliens. While on the surface the law appears to apply only to those now at Guantanamo, in fact it means that ANYONE can be taken without charge to Guantanamo and will thereby be deprived of the right of habeas corpus. That includes citizens because there is no mechanism, without the habeas corpus writ, that you can even appeal to the courts on the basis that you are wrongly accused of being an alien.
The amendment has some window dressing about rights of appeal to the US Appeals Court for DC. But there is a huge, very deliberate, loop-hole. There is NO right to any appeal to any court before the “review broad” decides. In other words, ANYONE can be kept FOREVER at Guantanamo without any appeal to any court, just so long as they don’t get around to your review. And nothing can force them to do that.
Of course all this does not mean that they can enforce the dictatorship they are legislating into existence. It is up to the American people to decide if they will allow themselves to be enslaved. But we should be clear that that is what this laws means. And it was passed UNANIMOUSLY by the Senate.
Eric
CCR Statement on the Graham-Levin Habeas Jurisdiction Stripping Amendment
Synopsis
November 15, 2005 – The Center for Constitutional Rights condemns the Graham-Levin Amendment to the Military Authorization Bill, passed today by the United States Senate. This bill is directed at those persons held at the Guantanamo prison camp. For the first time in our history, it would strip people of a right which has been the shining jewel of Western jurisprudence since the 13th Century, the right to petition a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus.
It is particularly disturbing that this legislation was enacted stealthily and without any meaningful deliberation by the Senate or its Judiciary Committee. As happens so often, it is easy to carelessly give up our rights and much more difficult to get them back, once lost.
That these prisoners are so called ‘enemy combatants’ does not justify this suspension of the writ, since it has applied during earlier times of war, in particular World War II and the American Civil War. Fundamentally, the writ of habeas corpus requires any authority that holds a prisoner to present that prisoner before an independent magistrate and show good cause why that person has been seized and is being detained. It is a linchpin to the rule of law and the proposition that individuals have rights and that the power of government is limited.
Many Guantanamo prisoners were seized nowhere near a battlefield and are absolutely innocent and being held without any justification. What the government fears is not judicial interference in the war on terror. What it fears is objective judicial oversight that allows a public challenge to the abuse of innocent people.
We believe that this blow to our fundamental rights is just the beginning. ‘Enemy combatants’ are an easy target and therefore it is easy to erase their rights. However, this Administration is no friend of the Bill of Rights and this bill will serve as a model for the future as the president and Congress attempt to undermine our most basic rights by stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases raising issues of free speech, freedom of religion, racial discrimination and countless other rights for which the American people have struggled so long and so hard.
We attach a statement by pro bono habeas counsel of all political and philosophical stripes, which have tirelessly represented prisoners at Guantanamo.
Statement of Habeas Counsel Denouncing Midnight Raid on Constitution November 15, 2005
The Senate's treatment of the habeas issue is a scandal. The Great Writ of Habeas Corpus is as old as the Magna Carta. It is too fundamental, too important, too precious, to be rewritten on the back of an envelope, then passed as a floor amendment to an authorization bill on four days' notice, and then hastily further revised.
There have been no hearings on this issue. There are no committee reports reflecting thoughtful consideration of the merits of these amendments or their implications. No one even saw the Graham amendment until the day it was put to a vote. Since then, there has been a tornado of proposed changes and "compromise" positions.
In the meantime, these rushed efforts to rip up the Constitution have been uniformly and rightly condemned nationwide by judges, former military officers, and the great newspapers of the land.
Many are alarmed by these measures on the merits. Many others are alarmed by the precedent they could set for other modifications of habeas. Still others are alarmed by the impetus these modifications could give to other jurisdiction-stripping measures.
The Senate has had no opportunity to consider these views. Graham-Levin violates the Constitution's guarantee against suspension of the Great Writ. It also violates equal protection, due process, and other fundamental rights, and is a forbidden Bill of Attainder.
To legislate this way is disgraceful. It is also completely unnecessary. This is not an emergency situation. The Graham-Levin amendment should be stripped out in conference. The genuine deliberation required by the gravity of the issue can then begin.
Text of Graham_Levin Amendment
SEC. __. REVIEW OF STATUS OF DETAINEES.
(a) Submittal of Procedures for Status Review of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees, and to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives, a report setting forth the procedures of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and the noticed Administrative Review Boards in operation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for determining the status of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
(b) Procedures.--The procedures submitted to Congress pursuant to subsection (a) shall, with respect to proceedings beginning after the date of the submittal of such procedures under that subsection, ensure that--
(1) in making a determination of status of any detainee under such procedures, a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or Administrative Review Board may not consider statements derived from persons that, as determined by such Tribunal or Board, by the preponderance of the evidence, were obtained with undue coercion; and
(2) the Designated Civilian Official shall be an officer of the United States Government whose appointment to office was made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(c) Report on Modification of Procedures.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the committees of Congress referred to in subsection (a) a report on any modification of the procedures submitted under subsection (a) not later than 60 days before the date on which such modification goes into effect.
(d) Judicial Review of Detention of Enemy Combatants.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien outside the United States (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(38) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(38)) who is detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.''.
(2) REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNALS OF PROPRIETY OF DETENTION.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--Subject to subparagraphs
(B),
(C), and
(D), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any decision of a Designated Civilian Official described in subsection (b)(2) that an alien is properly detained as an enemy combatant.
(B) LIMITATION ON CLAIMS.--The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under this paragraph shall be limited to claims brought by or on behalf of an alien--
(i) who is, at the time a request for review by such court is filed, detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and
(ii) for whom a Combatant Status Review Tribunal has been conducted, pursuant to applicable procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense.
(C) SCOPE OF REVIEW.--The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on any claims with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of--
(i) whether the status determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal with regard to such alien applied the correct standards and was consistent with the procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals
(including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor the Government's evidence); and
(ii) whether subjecting an alien enemy combatant to such standards and procedures is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(D) TERMINATION ON RELEASE FROM CUSTODY.--The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit with respect to the claims of an alien under this paragraph shall cease upon the release of such alien from the custody of the Department of Defense.
(3) REVIEW OF FINAL DECISIONS OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--Subject to subparagraphs (C) and
(D), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision rendered pursuant to Military Commission Order No. 1, dated August 31, 2005 (or any successor military order).
(B) GRANT OF REVIEW.--Review under this paragraph--
(i) with respect to a capital case or a case in which the alien was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more, shall be as of right; or
(ii) with respect to any other case, shall be at the discretion of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
(C) LIMITATION ON APPEALS.--The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under this paragraph shall be limited to an appeal brought by or on behalf of an alien--
(i) who was, at the time of the proceedings pursuant to the military order referred to in subparagraph (A), detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and
(ii) for whom a final decision has been rendered pursuant to such military order.
(D) SCOPE OF REVIEW.--The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on an appeal of a final decision with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of--
(i) whether the final decision applied the correct standards and was consistent with the procedures specified in the military order referred to in subparagraph (A); and
(ii) whether subjecting an alien enemy combatant to such order is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(e) Effective Date.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in paragraph
(2), this section shall take effect on the day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) REVIEW OF COMBATANT STATUS TRIBUNAL AND MILITARY COMMISSION DECISIONS.--Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (d) shall apply with respect to any claim whose review is governed by one of such paragraphs and that is pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Les Evenchick
New Orleans
piratefish@yahoo.com
UNITED FOR PEACE & JUSTICE | 212-868-5545
From ufpj-news
Starmail - 16. Nov, 13:37
I love my Country with all my heart
Starmail - 16. Nov, 12:06
Wake Up America
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=96030;show_parent=1
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=96311;show_parent=1
--------
WAKE UP AMERICA ! -THIS SAYS IT ALL ABOUT FORCED VACCINE DANGERS
Vaccines: Ingredients may be kept secret and more.
11-5-2005
The below immediately below was posted on http://www.fourwinds10.com/ with a date of 5 Nov 2005.
Give Me Liberty OR They May Give Me Death.
From: lilyann12
[ This is serious stuff...please take action and forward to everyone you know. If we don't protect our freedoms, we deserve to lose them. Jim Walters, N.D. ]
GIVE ME LIBERTY OR THEY MAY GIVE ME DEATH
We are, I am sorry to tell you, facing a uniquely dangerous moment in our history. An industry with more money than sense and a government with more greed than patriotism are conspiring to take away your right to control your body, keep it safe and, if harmed, seek recompense from the corporation which harmed you. I often write to you to alert you to important health and health freedom issues. This letter is an urgent notice about an immediate threat to your well-being and your liberty. If you do nothing else to safeguard your health freedom, I urge you to take action on this issue, pass this email to everyone you know and become a source of information and strength to everyone you know. If there ever was a time for activism, this is it.
The Threat's Name? S 1873
Senator Richard Burr,http://burr.senate.gov/, of North Carolina has introduced a bill which, if passed, means the end of health freedom, possibly the end of your health and most certainly the end of your right to a trial by a jury of your peers in the all-too-likely event that you or your child have been harmed by a vaccine. The "Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development A ct of 2005" also takes away your right to know what you have been injected with (no disclosure, no Freedom of Information Act suits, none!) and your right to be compensated if that vaccination harms you or a loved one.
I am writing to you to ask you to take all three types of action listed below:
1. Write to your Congressmen/women to let them know that both the Senate (S1873) and House (HR3970) versions of the bill must be defeated,
2. Call Congress. The Congressional Switchboard is 1-202-225-3121. The operators will connect you with your congressional delegation when you tell them your zip code.
3. Call the White House. Their number is 1-202-456-1414.
Tell the people you speak to that you are adamantly opposed to S1873 and HR3970 since vaccines are dangerous and compulsory vaccination violates your personal rights to self determination. Further, you flatly reject the creation of a secret agency which would operate without public oversight to created and compel the use of vaccines whose composition, side effects and hazards are not only unknown, but would be kept permanently hidden from the public.
Let them know that you will not tolerate the loss of compensation for harm and the loss of a trial by a jury of your peers to determine the nature and extent of any such harm to you or your loved ones and that a vote for these bills -- or others like them -- is completely unacceptable if the member of Congress wants to stand for re-election.
Make no mistake about it: Bird flu vaccines do not exist and cannot exist for some 6-18 months. Whatever you are vaccinated with will be experimental and therefore dangerous. With no liability to deter them, the vaccine makers can try anything they want or use any shoddy techniques they like and you cannot claim any harm has been done to you for the purposes of compensation. Not only that, the contents of these forced vaccinations for who-knows-what are secret! So whether the vaccines contain
Stealth viruses (which many now do) Squalene (a major threat to life and health as many a Gulf War Veteran knows to his/her endless distress) Mercury Formaldehyde Aluminum or other known toxins Live viruses which should have been killed or Other contaminants, not only will you never know, you can be forced to submit to vaccination and accept whatever comes next. The issue here is two fold: your health and your health freedom.
Would it shock you to know that serious scientists question the very premise of public health through vaccination? That the sacred cow of “herd immunity” (diseases go away because all of us have been vaccinated) is not very good science and, because of the dangers of vaccines, terrible medicine?
Vaccination is neither effective nor safe although we have been told that both are true for so long that their effectiveness and safety seems self-evident. The truth, however, is far more disquieting. And for untested vaccines, the story is worse. Much worse. Here are some sites to which you can go to get in-depth information about this troubling question:
Vaccination Information and Choice Network Vaccine Dangers Vaccination Dangers Deep Down Wellness NCOW Rense.com Educate-Yourself The Vaccine Page National Vaccine Information Center Even if you believe in vaccines for you and yours, the idea of a compulsory vaccine program administered by a secret agency with zero accountability to you and the same legal liability for the companies who make potentially lethal injections (zero once again) is a major threat to your liberty and mine. I urge you to take action and ask your circle of influence to do the same. Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
PS: I testified before the FDA today on the overuse of psychoactive medications in children and adolescents. It was fascinating. I'll tell you about it in my next email to you. In the meantime, please support our work defending health and health freedom for all of us!
PPS: Oh, yes, please give to the Natural Solutions Foundation and help us keep on keeping our freedoms alive!
PASSED ALONG BY THE GOOD FOLKS AT THE UNIFIED VETERANS COALITION, THE BACKWOODS VETS, THE VETERANS PARTY OF AMERICA, THE BLUE GOOSE CLUB, & THE VETERANS FOR VETERANS CONNECTION
UNIFIED VETERANS COALITION
http://xsorbit27.com/users5/unifiedveteranscoalition/
THE VETERANS PARTY OF AMERICA http://www.veteransparty.us/
The WW2 Veterans Advocacy group - The Blue Goose Club bluegooseclubusa@aol.com
Veterans For Veterans Connection http://www.vfvc.net/
Informant: Scott Munson
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=96311;show_parent=1
--------
WAKE UP AMERICA ! -THIS SAYS IT ALL ABOUT FORCED VACCINE DANGERS
Vaccines: Ingredients may be kept secret and more.
11-5-2005
The below immediately below was posted on http://www.fourwinds10.com/ with a date of 5 Nov 2005.
Give Me Liberty OR They May Give Me Death.
From: lilyann12
[ This is serious stuff...please take action and forward to everyone you know. If we don't protect our freedoms, we deserve to lose them. Jim Walters, N.D. ]
GIVE ME LIBERTY OR THEY MAY GIVE ME DEATH
We are, I am sorry to tell you, facing a uniquely dangerous moment in our history. An industry with more money than sense and a government with more greed than patriotism are conspiring to take away your right to control your body, keep it safe and, if harmed, seek recompense from the corporation which harmed you. I often write to you to alert you to important health and health freedom issues. This letter is an urgent notice about an immediate threat to your well-being and your liberty. If you do nothing else to safeguard your health freedom, I urge you to take action on this issue, pass this email to everyone you know and become a source of information and strength to everyone you know. If there ever was a time for activism, this is it.
The Threat's Name? S 1873
Senator Richard Burr,http://burr.senate.gov/, of North Carolina has introduced a bill which, if passed, means the end of health freedom, possibly the end of your health and most certainly the end of your right to a trial by a jury of your peers in the all-too-likely event that you or your child have been harmed by a vaccine. The "Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development A ct of 2005" also takes away your right to know what you have been injected with (no disclosure, no Freedom of Information Act suits, none!) and your right to be compensated if that vaccination harms you or a loved one.
I am writing to you to ask you to take all three types of action listed below:
1. Write to your Congressmen/women to let them know that both the Senate (S1873) and House (HR3970) versions of the bill must be defeated,
2. Call Congress. The Congressional Switchboard is 1-202-225-3121. The operators will connect you with your congressional delegation when you tell them your zip code.
3. Call the White House. Their number is 1-202-456-1414.
Tell the people you speak to that you are adamantly opposed to S1873 and HR3970 since vaccines are dangerous and compulsory vaccination violates your personal rights to self determination. Further, you flatly reject the creation of a secret agency which would operate without public oversight to created and compel the use of vaccines whose composition, side effects and hazards are not only unknown, but would be kept permanently hidden from the public.
Let them know that you will not tolerate the loss of compensation for harm and the loss of a trial by a jury of your peers to determine the nature and extent of any such harm to you or your loved ones and that a vote for these bills -- or others like them -- is completely unacceptable if the member of Congress wants to stand for re-election.
Make no mistake about it: Bird flu vaccines do not exist and cannot exist for some 6-18 months. Whatever you are vaccinated with will be experimental and therefore dangerous. With no liability to deter them, the vaccine makers can try anything they want or use any shoddy techniques they like and you cannot claim any harm has been done to you for the purposes of compensation. Not only that, the contents of these forced vaccinations for who-knows-what are secret! So whether the vaccines contain
Stealth viruses (which many now do) Squalene (a major threat to life and health as many a Gulf War Veteran knows to his/her endless distress) Mercury Formaldehyde Aluminum or other known toxins Live viruses which should have been killed or Other contaminants, not only will you never know, you can be forced to submit to vaccination and accept whatever comes next. The issue here is two fold: your health and your health freedom.
Would it shock you to know that serious scientists question the very premise of public health through vaccination? That the sacred cow of “herd immunity” (diseases go away because all of us have been vaccinated) is not very good science and, because of the dangers of vaccines, terrible medicine?
Vaccination is neither effective nor safe although we have been told that both are true for so long that their effectiveness and safety seems self-evident. The truth, however, is far more disquieting. And for untested vaccines, the story is worse. Much worse. Here are some sites to which you can go to get in-depth information about this troubling question:
Vaccination Information and Choice Network Vaccine Dangers Vaccination Dangers Deep Down Wellness NCOW Rense.com Educate-Yourself The Vaccine Page National Vaccine Information Center Even if you believe in vaccines for you and yours, the idea of a compulsory vaccine program administered by a secret agency with zero accountability to you and the same legal liability for the companies who make potentially lethal injections (zero once again) is a major threat to your liberty and mine. I urge you to take action and ask your circle of influence to do the same. Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
PS: I testified before the FDA today on the overuse of psychoactive medications in children and adolescents. It was fascinating. I'll tell you about it in my next email to you. In the meantime, please support our work defending health and health freedom for all of us!
PPS: Oh, yes, please give to the Natural Solutions Foundation and help us keep on keeping our freedoms alive!
PASSED ALONG BY THE GOOD FOLKS AT THE UNIFIED VETERANS COALITION, THE BACKWOODS VETS, THE VETERANS PARTY OF AMERICA, THE BLUE GOOSE CLUB, & THE VETERANS FOR VETERANS CONNECTION
UNIFIED VETERANS COALITION
http://xsorbit27.com/users5/unifiedveteranscoalition/
THE VETERANS PARTY OF AMERICA http://www.veteransparty.us/
The WW2 Veterans Advocacy group - The Blue Goose Club bluegooseclubusa@aol.com
Veterans For Veterans Connection http://www.vfvc.net/
Informant: Scott Munson
Starmail - 16. Nov, 12:03
The FDA Suppresses Speech on Dietary Supplements
Ron Paul wants health freedom.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul288.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul288.html
Starmail - 16. Nov, 10:15
What Are They Cooking Up in the White House?
Starmail - 16. Nov, 10:12
15
Nov
2005
WHAT ALITO WOULD DO IF HE WERE UNLEASHED AND WHY HE MUST BE STOPPED
We begin with the action page links. Please submit them both, or if you like read on first
http://www.nocrony.com (No right wing conservative to replace Sandra Day O'Connor)
VOTE LIKELY ON THIS NEXT ONE TOMORROW!
http://www.millionphonemarch.com/habeas.htm (Restore Habeas Corpus)
If the election results of this last week are any indicators, the American people are beginning to speak out in a way that has gotten the attention of Congress. For the last year we at the The People's Email Network have been preaching the power of the people speaking out. For those perpetual defeatists who have said that "they" (the Republicans because they were too controlled, and the Democrats because they were too spineless) would never listen to us, it is a wonder what a couple of election losses can do. This week we saw the breathtaking collapse of the majority cruelty budget with its agenda of budget cuts for the poor to finance additional tax cuts for the wealthy, and the conversion of the ANWR giveaway to the windfall profit pocketing oil companies into a virtual third rail. Our own participants generated 12,000 submissions opposing the latter. If only the people will speak out, they will be heard, and only if we are vigilant and CONTINUE to do so.
We are now at a critical crossroads in American judicial history. The Alito nomination represents a tipping point of disaster that the right wing has been spent 20 years working for. The only reason we are even approaching this looming crisis now has been the abject cowardice of those who are supposed to be protecting our rights (abetted by the failure of enough of us to speak out before), in waving through so many objectionable right-wing philosophical cronies without much more than a whimper of protest. All they need is one more John Roberts' style con job and we stand to lose our entire court system as a check and balance on the power of a president to impose corporate rule on every aspect of our lives. We have barely two months to build the people's consensus that will be needed to stop them and every day is increasingly precious.
It really is a very simple formula. If we all speak out to our members of Congress, one of two things MUST happen. Either 1) they will heed our voices and bend to the will of the people, and we win, or else 2) they further increase the motivation of those of us who are speaking out by ignoring us, in which case we have mobilized the base to vote them out of office next time, so again we win. The ONLY way we can lose is if not enough of us speak out. We created our one click resource so that you can send your personal message to all your members of Congress at once, and you can also make it a Letter to the Editor of your nearest daily newspaper, all at the same time. But most of all on this we need to have a unified message. We have proposed the following:
"NO RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE TO REPLACE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR"
Please note that it is NOT enough to just oppose Alito on some particular statement or ruling. When Karl Rove climbed out from under his rock the other night to get a standing ovation (for getting away so far with outing a CIA agent?) from the Federalist society convention, he gloated about how they had already packed the courts with 200 of their ideological cronies. As they say in baseball, their bench is very deep, and it is not sufficient to bat away one, only to lay down for the next. They have their mantra and they have a corrupt corporate media to push it relentlessly. Their talking points are "Strict constructionist" and "It's a done deal" and "He deserves and up-or-down vote" and "Conservatives are the mainstream," despicable lies each and every one. And any one of us who dares let those words pass our lips in approval or resignation needs to have their mind washed out with soap.
Instead we must propagate our own concept and use every media resource in our power (especially the internet and progressive radio) to purge the propaganda of the other side. If you have a better idea as to what that theme should be, we would like to hear from you IMMEDIATELY so that everyone can be on the same page. But whatever it is we need to settle on it quick, fast and in a hurry, before the situation is allowed to drift any further to the right. So again, the key idea is that the most objectionable thing about Alito is that he is conservative at all, and in so being entirely out of step with what the American people are demanding from their elected representatives now. Some think he would be worse that Roberts. But regardless which one would win the reactionary potato sack race, we can ill afford yet one more.
http://www.nocrony.com (No right wing conservative to replace Sandra Day O'Connor)
The first and biggest lie of all is that there is any such thing as a "strict constructionist," meaning the only role of the courts is to apply the laws that Congress passes in terms of some frozen idea of the intent of the framers of our Constitution. Historically, there have been some very bad laws passed (including a fast one from just the other day we will address in a moment), and it has been the duty of our courts to step in and apply the ultimate doctrine of all law, what is known as "equity." The word appears prominently in the Constitution specifically in defining "The judicial Power of the United States . . . in Equity." From the earliest times in our legal traditions there were separate Courts of Equity set up to dispense justice and to arrive at a fair result even without a controlling law. It has ALWAYS been the place of the courts to correct what is clearly wrong and twisted and contorted, whether given explicit guidelines on how to do it by law and precedent or not. That is exactly what the framers meant in the Ninth amendment to the Constitution when they said:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
For example, suppose there were no laws against pollution and someone is dumping arsenic into a stream feeding your medieval pond in ages past and all your fish die. You go to the king's Court of Equity and you ask them to intercede, and hopefully they look at the case (assuming they are not ignorant of the poisonous effects of arsenic) and order the polluter to stop what he is doing. But the "strict contortionist" would say that there is no such law and that the arsenic dumper is just exercising his own "liberty" in doing so. We would all agree that is the wrong result. And yet corporate ideologues on the benches of our courts are making such decisions in favor of industrial polluters right now in defiance of the laws that we DO have, and none of their reactionary supporters are accusing them of any kind of so-called judicial activism in that regard. Remember, NOT acting is itself also a form of activism, and activism itself is only in the eye of the one being ruled against.
But even the Constitution itself may be no protection where, as just the other day with little advance notice, the Republican majority in the Senate approved an amendment to the Defense Appropriation bill forever denying the detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere the right to challenge the legality of their detention by habeas corpus. Leaving aside the thorny problem of whether the courts could correct a law removing their own jurisdiction, the "strict contortionist" would say that Congress can pass any damn law they please (assuming it's one they agree with) even if it's contrary to the Constitution, and the courts should just fall in line (unless they should not).
The 14th Amendment, AFTER speaking of the rights of citizenship, goes on to say that no "person" shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due and equal process of the law. Article III makes it perfect plain that the judicial power of the courts extends to foreign nationals where the U.S. is a party. The motto emblazoned on the Supreme Court does not say "Equal Justice Under The Law for Americans Only." The "strict contortionist" is always babbling about judges who "legislate from the bench." And yet here the Congress is attempting to do an uninvited end run around an express ruling of the Supreme Court and in violation of the heart of the Constitution. Are you hearing anybody accuse them of "adjudicating from the legislature?" Maybe you just did.
McCain, who at least got the torture amendment right, in defense of his own vote to scuttle habeas corpus for those in Guantanamo said that we can't have them petitioning to complain about the food allowed. Well, gee, maybe they don't like being in lemon chicken hell with two kinds of fruit (just for staged photo ops) to be imprisoned indefinitely without charges. A spokesperson for the so-called moderate Senator Snowe asked "Do we need all those lawyers going down there to hear their complaints?" One can only wonder how much McCain would have appreciated it if a lawyer had turned up in his defense when he was being tortured himself in North Vietnam. But the "strict contortionist" would say that we can make up a subclass of humans called "enemy combatants," with the president king the sole arbiter of who should be so degraded.
Patrick Fitzgerald was perfectly able to convict terrorists in the cases he handled. Moussaoui, a real terrorist, chose to plead guilty when confronted with the evidence against him. Do we need lawyers going down there? You bet we do, and the more the better, to show the world that everyone in the United States of America gets a fair trial, even if you are an accused terrorist. The problem is the real reason they may be so afraid of letting these people into our courts is they are still trying the cover up the torture which has already taken place in our names. If the detainees are guilty of something let them be tried in open court in the glorious splendor of our freedom. For Congress to presume to pass anything to abort that is a stench in the nostrils of our own democracy.
http://www.millionphonemarch.com/habeas.htm (Restore Habeas Corpus)
We are a nation of laws, not of men. But it is still up to our Supreme Court to correct the law when it strays too far from the mean of true justice (equity), to be then applied equally to all. It is THAT which has made the United States the greatest country in the world, a legal system the envy of the world's citizenry. And that is what is threatened most by these patently biased nominees. The amount of damage they can do in the lower courts is thankfully limited by the overriding balance of hopefully the prudent reason in the Supreme Court, which is precisely what they have schemed these many years to tilt. Some say the Muslim extremists want to go back to the 13th century. The "strict contortionist" wants to go back to the 10th, a time when the judiciary turned a deaf ear and a cold heart to anyone who was not rich, or could not stand to hold a burning hot poker in their hand without screaming.
These nominees are being hand picked not for their fairness, but for their willingness to tow the corporate crony line, to defer to the president dictator, and in some specious way attempt to make it sound perfectly reasonable. Sure, Alito has some very offensive opinions on the record as an appellate judge, but were he unwisely be allowed to ascend to the Supreme Court he would no longer be bound by the controlling letter of higher precedent, and only by his own "respect" for that precedent. And we are very sure he would say he still respects Roe v. Wade very much in the morning after he casts the deciding vote to overturn this case he so clearly believes was wrongly decided.
In short, just like Roberts, Alito will don the sheep's clothing of not being one of those mean old nasty "activist" judges only long enough to try to sneak past his confirmation hearing . . . again. In fact, they can recycle the outfit Roberts used since he himself no longer has any need of it. To get on the appellate bench, Alito promised that he would recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard, where he had extensive holdings. Yet he broke that promise the first chance he got, until someone called him on it, and did it again in another parallel case. The "strict contortionist" would say (and Alito in fact did say) that he was being "unduly restrictive" in his initial sworn representation to the Senate. And we can expect he will say he was also being unduly restrictive in promising restraint when the stampede of precedent reversals begins for which the mouths of the right wing have watered for so long.
At its best and brightest moments our Supreme Court has been a bulwark against injustice not otherwise struck down. The real danger is in allowing a clearly ideological extremist to be unleashed in yet another seat on our highest court, to be then only restrained by a sense of fairness they have demonstrated they do not possess. The most unpopular second term president in American history would not have freely nominated anyone who would not give his most reactionary supporters every decision they could have predetermined themselves. The only objections you hear coming from the right wing are concerns that Alito might not be sufficiently and manifestly in their pockets, their basis for demanding the withdrawal of the crony Miers, who you should know was also introduced for enthusiastic applause by Rove at the Federalist soiree.
Alito must be rejected, and each and every other subsequent candidate of this federalist gang, by filibuster if that is what it takes, until the people get what they deserve and will demand, no worse than a true moderate centrist as a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor. To win we must do much more than nitpick this or that case or whatever. This goes far beyond opinions to effectively immunize employers from race discrimination cases or to strip search 10 year old girls or whether Alito dishonored his promise to recuse himself. We must put our foot down as the true majority of the American people to say that NO conservative whatsoever is acceptable for this seat. We need every voice out there on our side to repeat that essential position every day for the next two months.
And for that to happen we the people need to speak out with our own voices now and send a personal message on what YOU have to say to your Senate.
Informant: Scott Munson
http://www.nocrony.com (No right wing conservative to replace Sandra Day O'Connor)
VOTE LIKELY ON THIS NEXT ONE TOMORROW!
http://www.millionphonemarch.com/habeas.htm (Restore Habeas Corpus)
If the election results of this last week are any indicators, the American people are beginning to speak out in a way that has gotten the attention of Congress. For the last year we at the The People's Email Network have been preaching the power of the people speaking out. For those perpetual defeatists who have said that "they" (the Republicans because they were too controlled, and the Democrats because they were too spineless) would never listen to us, it is a wonder what a couple of election losses can do. This week we saw the breathtaking collapse of the majority cruelty budget with its agenda of budget cuts for the poor to finance additional tax cuts for the wealthy, and the conversion of the ANWR giveaway to the windfall profit pocketing oil companies into a virtual third rail. Our own participants generated 12,000 submissions opposing the latter. If only the people will speak out, they will be heard, and only if we are vigilant and CONTINUE to do so.
We are now at a critical crossroads in American judicial history. The Alito nomination represents a tipping point of disaster that the right wing has been spent 20 years working for. The only reason we are even approaching this looming crisis now has been the abject cowardice of those who are supposed to be protecting our rights (abetted by the failure of enough of us to speak out before), in waving through so many objectionable right-wing philosophical cronies without much more than a whimper of protest. All they need is one more John Roberts' style con job and we stand to lose our entire court system as a check and balance on the power of a president to impose corporate rule on every aspect of our lives. We have barely two months to build the people's consensus that will be needed to stop them and every day is increasingly precious.
It really is a very simple formula. If we all speak out to our members of Congress, one of two things MUST happen. Either 1) they will heed our voices and bend to the will of the people, and we win, or else 2) they further increase the motivation of those of us who are speaking out by ignoring us, in which case we have mobilized the base to vote them out of office next time, so again we win. The ONLY way we can lose is if not enough of us speak out. We created our one click resource so that you can send your personal message to all your members of Congress at once, and you can also make it a Letter to the Editor of your nearest daily newspaper, all at the same time. But most of all on this we need to have a unified message. We have proposed the following:
"NO RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE TO REPLACE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR"
Please note that it is NOT enough to just oppose Alito on some particular statement or ruling. When Karl Rove climbed out from under his rock the other night to get a standing ovation (for getting away so far with outing a CIA agent?) from the Federalist society convention, he gloated about how they had already packed the courts with 200 of their ideological cronies. As they say in baseball, their bench is very deep, and it is not sufficient to bat away one, only to lay down for the next. They have their mantra and they have a corrupt corporate media to push it relentlessly. Their talking points are "Strict constructionist" and "It's a done deal" and "He deserves and up-or-down vote" and "Conservatives are the mainstream," despicable lies each and every one. And any one of us who dares let those words pass our lips in approval or resignation needs to have their mind washed out with soap.
Instead we must propagate our own concept and use every media resource in our power (especially the internet and progressive radio) to purge the propaganda of the other side. If you have a better idea as to what that theme should be, we would like to hear from you IMMEDIATELY so that everyone can be on the same page. But whatever it is we need to settle on it quick, fast and in a hurry, before the situation is allowed to drift any further to the right. So again, the key idea is that the most objectionable thing about Alito is that he is conservative at all, and in so being entirely out of step with what the American people are demanding from their elected representatives now. Some think he would be worse that Roberts. But regardless which one would win the reactionary potato sack race, we can ill afford yet one more.
http://www.nocrony.com (No right wing conservative to replace Sandra Day O'Connor)
The first and biggest lie of all is that there is any such thing as a "strict constructionist," meaning the only role of the courts is to apply the laws that Congress passes in terms of some frozen idea of the intent of the framers of our Constitution. Historically, there have been some very bad laws passed (including a fast one from just the other day we will address in a moment), and it has been the duty of our courts to step in and apply the ultimate doctrine of all law, what is known as "equity." The word appears prominently in the Constitution specifically in defining "The judicial Power of the United States . . . in Equity." From the earliest times in our legal traditions there were separate Courts of Equity set up to dispense justice and to arrive at a fair result even without a controlling law. It has ALWAYS been the place of the courts to correct what is clearly wrong and twisted and contorted, whether given explicit guidelines on how to do it by law and precedent or not. That is exactly what the framers meant in the Ninth amendment to the Constitution when they said:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
For example, suppose there were no laws against pollution and someone is dumping arsenic into a stream feeding your medieval pond in ages past and all your fish die. You go to the king's Court of Equity and you ask them to intercede, and hopefully they look at the case (assuming they are not ignorant of the poisonous effects of arsenic) and order the polluter to stop what he is doing. But the "strict contortionist" would say that there is no such law and that the arsenic dumper is just exercising his own "liberty" in doing so. We would all agree that is the wrong result. And yet corporate ideologues on the benches of our courts are making such decisions in favor of industrial polluters right now in defiance of the laws that we DO have, and none of their reactionary supporters are accusing them of any kind of so-called judicial activism in that regard. Remember, NOT acting is itself also a form of activism, and activism itself is only in the eye of the one being ruled against.
But even the Constitution itself may be no protection where, as just the other day with little advance notice, the Republican majority in the Senate approved an amendment to the Defense Appropriation bill forever denying the detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere the right to challenge the legality of their detention by habeas corpus. Leaving aside the thorny problem of whether the courts could correct a law removing their own jurisdiction, the "strict contortionist" would say that Congress can pass any damn law they please (assuming it's one they agree with) even if it's contrary to the Constitution, and the courts should just fall in line (unless they should not).
The 14th Amendment, AFTER speaking of the rights of citizenship, goes on to say that no "person" shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due and equal process of the law. Article III makes it perfect plain that the judicial power of the courts extends to foreign nationals where the U.S. is a party. The motto emblazoned on the Supreme Court does not say "Equal Justice Under The Law for Americans Only." The "strict contortionist" is always babbling about judges who "legislate from the bench." And yet here the Congress is attempting to do an uninvited end run around an express ruling of the Supreme Court and in violation of the heart of the Constitution. Are you hearing anybody accuse them of "adjudicating from the legislature?" Maybe you just did.
McCain, who at least got the torture amendment right, in defense of his own vote to scuttle habeas corpus for those in Guantanamo said that we can't have them petitioning to complain about the food allowed. Well, gee, maybe they don't like being in lemon chicken hell with two kinds of fruit (just for staged photo ops) to be imprisoned indefinitely without charges. A spokesperson for the so-called moderate Senator Snowe asked "Do we need all those lawyers going down there to hear their complaints?" One can only wonder how much McCain would have appreciated it if a lawyer had turned up in his defense when he was being tortured himself in North Vietnam. But the "strict contortionist" would say that we can make up a subclass of humans called "enemy combatants," with the president king the sole arbiter of who should be so degraded.
Patrick Fitzgerald was perfectly able to convict terrorists in the cases he handled. Moussaoui, a real terrorist, chose to plead guilty when confronted with the evidence against him. Do we need lawyers going down there? You bet we do, and the more the better, to show the world that everyone in the United States of America gets a fair trial, even if you are an accused terrorist. The problem is the real reason they may be so afraid of letting these people into our courts is they are still trying the cover up the torture which has already taken place in our names. If the detainees are guilty of something let them be tried in open court in the glorious splendor of our freedom. For Congress to presume to pass anything to abort that is a stench in the nostrils of our own democracy.
http://www.millionphonemarch.com/habeas.htm (Restore Habeas Corpus)
We are a nation of laws, not of men. But it is still up to our Supreme Court to correct the law when it strays too far from the mean of true justice (equity), to be then applied equally to all. It is THAT which has made the United States the greatest country in the world, a legal system the envy of the world's citizenry. And that is what is threatened most by these patently biased nominees. The amount of damage they can do in the lower courts is thankfully limited by the overriding balance of hopefully the prudent reason in the Supreme Court, which is precisely what they have schemed these many years to tilt. Some say the Muslim extremists want to go back to the 13th century. The "strict contortionist" wants to go back to the 10th, a time when the judiciary turned a deaf ear and a cold heart to anyone who was not rich, or could not stand to hold a burning hot poker in their hand without screaming.
These nominees are being hand picked not for their fairness, but for their willingness to tow the corporate crony line, to defer to the president dictator, and in some specious way attempt to make it sound perfectly reasonable. Sure, Alito has some very offensive opinions on the record as an appellate judge, but were he unwisely be allowed to ascend to the Supreme Court he would no longer be bound by the controlling letter of higher precedent, and only by his own "respect" for that precedent. And we are very sure he would say he still respects Roe v. Wade very much in the morning after he casts the deciding vote to overturn this case he so clearly believes was wrongly decided.
In short, just like Roberts, Alito will don the sheep's clothing of not being one of those mean old nasty "activist" judges only long enough to try to sneak past his confirmation hearing . . . again. In fact, they can recycle the outfit Roberts used since he himself no longer has any need of it. To get on the appellate bench, Alito promised that he would recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard, where he had extensive holdings. Yet he broke that promise the first chance he got, until someone called him on it, and did it again in another parallel case. The "strict contortionist" would say (and Alito in fact did say) that he was being "unduly restrictive" in his initial sworn representation to the Senate. And we can expect he will say he was also being unduly restrictive in promising restraint when the stampede of precedent reversals begins for which the mouths of the right wing have watered for so long.
At its best and brightest moments our Supreme Court has been a bulwark against injustice not otherwise struck down. The real danger is in allowing a clearly ideological extremist to be unleashed in yet another seat on our highest court, to be then only restrained by a sense of fairness they have demonstrated they do not possess. The most unpopular second term president in American history would not have freely nominated anyone who would not give his most reactionary supporters every decision they could have predetermined themselves. The only objections you hear coming from the right wing are concerns that Alito might not be sufficiently and manifestly in their pockets, their basis for demanding the withdrawal of the crony Miers, who you should know was also introduced for enthusiastic applause by Rove at the Federalist soiree.
Alito must be rejected, and each and every other subsequent candidate of this federalist gang, by filibuster if that is what it takes, until the people get what they deserve and will demand, no worse than a true moderate centrist as a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor. To win we must do much more than nitpick this or that case or whatever. This goes far beyond opinions to effectively immunize employers from race discrimination cases or to strip search 10 year old girls or whether Alito dishonored his promise to recuse himself. We must put our foot down as the true majority of the American people to say that NO conservative whatsoever is acceptable for this seat. We need every voice out there on our side to repeat that essential position every day for the next two months.
And for that to happen we the people need to speak out with our own voices now and send a personal message on what YOU have to say to your Senate.
Informant: Scott Munson
Starmail - 15. Nov, 23:13
