Washington is looking more and more like the bloated, rotted corpse that was ancient Rome. You may think that is going a bit too far, but frankly, I don’t think it is. After all, Rome, which as we all know, was not built in a day, didn’t die in one either. It took decades and indeed centuries for the final nail to be pounded into a barely breathing empire.

No doubt some will say, that there are always naysayers and doomsday predictors throughout every era. Much like the perennial apocalyptic “the sky is falling” proponents, who surface at almost every moment in history, the claim is that “this too shall pass.” Things do indeed look worse up close and personal.

Perhaps, but I don’t think so. I think we are sliding down that ever slippery slope into the era of the reliving of past glories. Just ask the British, they probably never saw it coming either, nor I dare say, did the Romans. We’ve been through rough times before, and we survive. Yes, indeed we have, but it seems that what is going so very wrong in America these days has a cause–its an utterly dysfunctional government subject to archaic rules and laws that no longer make sense in the strange new global world in which we find ourselves.

My DD had a fine article on this today, and one that I urge you to read.  Most all of us have in recent years commented on the almost ground to a halt condition of our congress. Many things are undoubtedly to blame but I seem to see a couple big causes.

One is when we declared (for perfectly good reasons at the time) that corporations had some near human status in our legal world. This of course made it subject to being sued in tort actions and indeed occasionally in criminal matters. But it set the tone and allowed them to claim for themselves other “citizen” rights. Mostly, it gave them the right to “freedom of speech” and with that the right to support candidates both verbally and financially.  Little did we realize that soon, all our politicians would be owned by these increasingly large behemoths.

We did not foresee the growth of mega corporations, and certainly didn’t envision their global reach. Now their interests are often at odds with purely American interests, and they expect that their bought and paid for politicians will legislate in a manner than protects their interests even when the public is ill served by their actions.

We all know we need serious overhauling of the health care system, yet we are going to get a bizarre mishmash of directives that actually don’t do much of that, and don’t serve the public, but do protect the industries involved for the most part with a few “crumbs” to the masses.

We seem powerless to stop this, or change it. We have this odd, and I would suggest, irrational belief that our Constitution, so perfect for so many decades, is capable of  coping with the new world it finds itself in. Between the mega corporation and it’s puppeteering, we have the “special interest” lobby groups who have infiltrated the Beltway, their pockets stuffed with money and their demands backed up by a loyal mass of “followers” who claim they will vote their interest in large blocks against anyone who attempts to stand in the way of their legislative favorite. It is no accident that Joe Lieberman is now referred to as “Mr. Aetna” for his irrational and contradictory opposition to the public option and opening up of medicare. He is simply owned by insurance interests.

I cannot see a solution to this dilemma through elections. We would have to utterly replace every senator and house member for the most part, and all would have to be dedicated to an total overhaul of the rules of both houses that now seemingly bog down everything in endless debate, vote, cloture moves, threats of filibuster, and on and on. All of this is aimed at one thing only, and that is–effectively blocking anything meaningful coming from any quarter.

Better  to consider a constitutional convention to look at how our legislative process needs be changed in this modern world. And, without doubt, no senator or house member should be allowed to participate. No one on the payroll of any corporation or special interest should be allowed to be a delegate either. Yes, yes, I realize that there will be cries of “unfair” from nearly every corner of America.

But clearly, no sane person can argue that the Founding Fathers, whom we tend to lionize as gods of some sort, ever envisioned the world we inhabit today. Not even close. They could not, as we cannot possibly imagine the world of even a hundred years from now. Until we let go of our maudlin nostalgic clinging to words written on parchment long ago, we will continue to flounder in this growing cesspool  of greed, power, money, and sex that has become our national “shrine.”

I’ve had enough, but then I said that twenty years ago, and nobody was listening then. The chorus who join me in decrying this abysmal situation no doubt has been doing the same for twenty years. The big question is: Will we ever get beyond the rhetoric to truly address this or not.

If we choose to continue lamenting with no real effort to initiate reform, then the future looks bleak indeed. We have befouled our planet, and turned our government operation into a rusty, smelly, barely to be tolerated joke. And given our lackluster and ineffectual promotion of “good” education, it’s doubtful most of our kids will be able to speak the Chinese that will soon be required to live in America.

The ball, as they say, is in our court. Table tennis anyone?

IPS News reports that the Dominican Republic passed the 38th version of its constitution Thursday evening, amending more than 40 articles that drew public protests and opposition from civil society groups and many average Dominicans. Drafted by sitting President Leonel Fernandez and his main political rival, Miguel Vargas, it met with little political opposition in Congress.
The last constitutional revision, in 2002, allowed a second consecutive presidential term. The new constitution allows for unlimited re-election of a president as long as another president serves after eight years. Two other articles were also highly controversial – first, a ban on abortion in all cases, including rape, incest and even to save the life of the mother, and second, the insertion of the words “respecting the rights of private property” in the section which states that all beaches, rivers and water sources are part of the national heritage and belong to the people. Legislators said this was to protect the important tourist industry. Protestors said it was to take away their patrimony.
Numerous protests over both were held in the major cities. One prominent daily newspaper ran a poll which indicated that 80 percent of the population did not support the new document, and stenciled signs declaring “This is not my constitution” have been appearing around the capital, Santo Domingo. Nevertheless, on Nov. 6, the new Constitution will be law of the land. Lorena Espinoza, one of the organisers of the protests, said recently, “There are many sectors engaged in this protest. I am a member of the Collective Mujer y Salud, but we have academicians, students, women’s groups, workers, citizens’ groups, all joined together here. This is not just about the privatisation of the beaches, this is about all the rights that they are taking from us, the rights of women, the collective rights of the citizens, against all the rights which are being cut by this constitution.”
Other aspects of the new charter have also caused consternation. While there is a supreme court to rule on the constitutionality of laws, ordinary citizens are barred from bringing challenges unless they have proper legal standing. While the free access of citizens to information held by the state is affirmed, it is also stated that the state itself will only release information which it deems to be true. Citizenship rights, particularly for Haitian migrants – the subject of ongoing international controversy – are addressed at length. The new constitution maintains the current wording barring automatic citizenship for those born here of parents of foreign diplomats or “in transit” and adds the words “or those who are in this country illegally.” However, it does extend citizenship to those who are born here who do not have the rights of citizenship in any other nation, clearing up a matter of statelessness for many grandchildren of Haitians. Under the Haitian constitution, one may only claim citizenship if one’s parents are born in Haiti.

Although there was little public protest, marriage is now defined as solely between a man and woman. This makes the Dominican Republic the only nation in the world to ban homosexual marriage at the constitutional level.
At the same time, many regulations and rights are now made explicit in this constitution which were previously absent. Administrative corruption of public officials is now a constitutional offence. Officials are barred from holding more than one paid government position. Rights to labor organizing, strikes, public education, and swift justice with the presumption of innocence are all now constitutional rights.
In a roundtable discussion held by FINJUS (Fundacion Institucionalidad y Justicia), a civic group that has studied and provided detailed input into the reform process, Flavio Dario Espinal, a former ambassador to the United States, reviewed the most important aspects of the new charter. “We cannot say now whether this constitution will be progressive or not,” he cautioned. “Often the points that we think are important now will in fact not be important in the future. And yet something that we have not even considered now may turn out to be exceedingly important in the future.”
Espinal pointed out that this constitution was, for the first time, the result of a consensus among the two major political parties, with the aid of the third party. Earlier constitutions were imposed on the nation by one leader or one party. However, he recommended that the entire constitution be subjected to a referendum. That suggestion was rejected by Frank Martinez, a member of the Assembly, who claimed that average citizens were not adequately informed or educated to vote on the constitution and that their votes would be subject to bribery and corruption.
Because of the collusion of the political parties, many members of the public are sceptical that it will serve the greater good. Julio Cesar Vargas, an instructor of political science at Intec, voiced the suspicions shared by many. “This constitution was made by agreement with the political parties, with the thoughts of those who are in power, not to expand the rights or the protection of the citizens,” he said. “The constitution was not a result of the opinion of those from below but those who already have and wish to consolidate their power.”
“They have cut back on the rights of the citizens. For example, they have placed religion in the place of science in the regulations on abortion. It was not discussed with all the depth needed to reflect what the people really think,” he added.

Originally posted at http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48977

Photos by Lorena Espinoza Peña

I can think of no better way to this introduce blog than in responding to Larry P. Arnn’s, President, Hillsdale College, December issue of “Imprimis”

Well, Larry, I am glad that I live in America where we are free to interpret the constitution as we please.  I do that and you do that.  The difference between you and me is that you seem to hold out your interpretation as though it is some sort of gospel truth.  What is alarming to me is that you have turned a proud and independent place of learning into some sort of American version of a madrasah.  So this blog is for you Larry and your extremist absolutist views that you are indoctrinating the youth in your charge with right wing bullshit.

The right-wing idealism you express in the comments published in the December issue of “Imprimis” is the type of idealism that gets us into trouble.  Right wing or left wing we need practical solutions to our problems not more ideology.  Especially your brand of ideology.  To continue to spout on about limited government and deregulation ignores many of the practical realities of the day.

And what I am talking about is how the corporate/money power displaces political power whenever the government fails to govern.  These corporations are so big and so closed that they are governments unto themselves.  Have you ever tried this?  Go into your local cell phone store and try to negotiate a contract that is different from what they offer.  Tell them you are an agent of the free market and negotiating is part of the free market idealism.  I am sure the clerk will understand.

What I mean to point out is that whatever virtues you see in limited government, when it comes to the power of money and class, what is our counterweight?  Where is our seat at the table?  Of course the ruling class wants limited government!

So Larry, this blog’s for you and Hilldale madrasah.  I cannot wait for my next issue of “Imprimis.”

This guy from Patna dared to talk with Raj Thackrey in the sole language which is understood by the MNS or Shiv Sena…. The language of Gun-shots.

Mumbai police shot him dead. I don’t criticize the police for this. They are here to maintain law and order. But I want to ask one question — Why a different way to handle a similar violent streak?? Why this double-stand?? The police should have arrested and interrogated him first rather than simply shooting him.

Yes, I agree that it was not the best way to express one’s resentment. But put yourself in the place of those young men from Bihar, UP who are afraid to sit for competitive exams in Maharashtra. Earlier, they feared the violent Shiv Sena and now, the Raj Thackrey led MNS. Is this the way to live in a so-called free nation? Surrounded by fear in every step you take?

This young man, Rahul, must be fully aware of what will be the aftermath of such an act. However, he showed everyone what shape a common man’s resentment can take.

I remember one movie, ‘A Wednesday’, which showed how roughly a common man’s anger could shape-up. If you criticize the character played by Naseer-ud-din Shah in this movie, then it is fine to criticize Rahul’s act.

I don’t mean to say that all of us should come up in arms. Also, a Rang De Basanti sort of attitude is impracticable. I am also not against the Gandhian non-violence. I only want to say that one can talk of such ideals only when the other person understands this language. Do you think it is of any use to speak with Raj Thackrey about Constitutional ways to meet one’s demand?? At least I don’t think so.

Contributed by

Abhishek Choudhary

Member – Chakraview

mi piace pensare che qualcuno si stia copiando pezzo per pezzo tutte le cose che scrivo e che stia facendo la tesi uguale alla mia. sarebbe ancora più divertente se la mia compagna di corso, di cui ovviamente non mi ricordo il nome, e che sta facendo la tesi uguale alla mia ma con un altra professoressa, me la stesse copiando da internet ma credo che le possibilità siano davvero poche.

anyway sono ovviamente bene accetti i commenti di chi mi segue in questa avventura.

According to ABC news, 16 percent of U.S. science teachers believe human beings were created by a god in the last 10,000 years and one in eight teach creationism or intelligent design as a valid alternative to Darwin’s Origin of Species.

This correlates directly with my recent post of the rise of anti-intellectualism in the U.S.

What a ridiculous set of circumstances in which we have allowed fundamentalist religion to place our country. The lack of appreciation for math and science is largely due to the attack on science by christian leaders and churches across the U.S. It is shameful and is leading to the deterioration of the U.S. stronghold on technology and innovation. This, in turn, will lead to the further slowing of our economy and continued reduction in our influence globally. Can the rest of the world really take us seriously when so many Americans, including the president, take the bible so literally and as the irrefutable word of god and source on all relevant matters??

I reference Atheist Universe in which author David Mills asserts that creationism is in direct opposition to the scientific Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy. While there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support creationism or intelligent design, there is in fact much evidence to dispute it.

There is also a mountain of historical and scientific evidence to refute the accuracy and truth of the bible. And yet, the ridiculous notion that it is a true text worthy of belief continues to permeate our society. Perhaps this can be attributed to the lack of reading, increase in video game play and television-watching by our children, or rise in the influence of religious leaders. We even had a serious presidential candidate this year who said we must bring the Constitution in line with the bible!

Make no mistake, unless we recognize that the privilege we have given christianity and other religions has led to the educational, and thus economic, downfall of this country, we will continue to see our global position deteriorate. Researches are scrambling to find out why our math and science scores are crumbling; until they look into the effect of religious fundamentalism on our educational system, I doubt they’ll find the true source of the corrosion.

Related articles:

U.S. Teens Trail Peers Around the World on Math-Science Test (Washpo, 12.5.07)

Study Compares States’ Math and Science Scores With Other Countries (NYT, 11.14.07)

Math/Science Education in a Global Age (InternationalED.org)

I’m going to start a new series of blogs entitled Are We Free?

I’ll be looking at some of the myths, lies, and common misconceptions that people believe regarding the freedom we have or don’t have in America.

The first installment of will deal with taxation.

After each entry I want you to ask yourself…

کہنے کو انتخابی سرکس میں حصہ نہ لینے کی بیسیوں وجوہات ہیں۔ جیسے اعلیٰ ججوں کی تین نومبر کی پوزیشن پر بحالی، غیر جانبدار الیکشن کمیشن اور نگران حکومت کا قیام، آرمی ایکٹ میں کی گئی ترامیم کی تنسیخ ، میڈیا کی آزادی، ایمرجنسی کے تحت قائم مقدمات کا خاتمہ وغیرہ وغیرہ۔۔۔۔

لیکن اگر کوئی اس سرکس کا حصہ بننا چاہے تو اسکے پاس بھی بیسیوں جواز ہیں۔ جیسے انتخابی میدان حریف کے لیے کبھی کھلا نہیں چھوڑنا چاہیے۔ جمہوریت کی مکمل بحالی اور عدلیہ کی آزادی کی جنگ پارلیمنٹ میں لڑنا زیادہ موثر ہوگا۔شدت پسندی کو لگام دینے کے لیے ضروری ہے کہ جمہوری عمل جیسا تیسا بھی ہو اسے آگے بڑھنا چاہئیے وغیرہ وغیرہ۔۔۔۔۔

یہ عجیب انتخابی عمل ہے جس میں کچھ جماعتیں اپنا احتجاج رجسٹر کرانے کے لیے بائیکاٹ کا ہتھیار استعمال کرنا چاہتی ہیں۔ جبکہ کچھ جماعتیں احتجاجاً اس عمل میں حصہ لینا چاہ رہی ہیں تاکہ ممکنہ دھاندلیوں کا پول کھولا جاسکے۔ لیکن جو بھی قابلِ ذکر جماعتیں بائیکاٹ کے حق میں ہیں یا خلاف ان میں سے کسی کو بھی منہ زور عدلیہ نہیں چاہئیے۔

وہ سیاسی جماعتیں جنہیں اقتدار کے کیک میں ذرا سا حصہ بھی ملنے کی امید ہے ان میں سے کون ہے جو ایک بے لگام عدلیہ برداشت کرلے گا۔

Iran: The Next Neocon Target by Ron Paul (April 5, 2006)
“Even with the horrible results of the past three years, Congress is abuzz with plans to change the Iranian government. There is little resistance to the rising clamor for “democratizing” Iran, even though their current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is an elected leader. Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies about which we never complain. Already the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had. It’s amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the charges levied against Saddam Hussein the Neo-cons are willing to use the same arguments against Iran. It’s frightening to see how easily Congress, the media, and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq.

Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion, and occupied two Muslim nations – Afghanistan and Iraq. We’re poorer but certainly not safer for it. We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, the ring leader behind 9/11. This effort has been virtually abandoned. Even though the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan, most of the country is now occupied and controlled by warlords who manage a drug trade bigger than ever before. Removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan actually served the interests of Iran, the Taliban’s archenemy, more than our own…..

…There are some who may not agree strongly with any of my arguments, and instead believe the propaganda: Iran and her President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are thoroughly irresponsible and have threatened to destroy Israel. So all measures must be taken to prevent Iran from getting nukes – thus the campaign to intimidate and confront Iran.

First, Iran doesn’t have a nuke and is nowhere close to getting one, according to the CIA. If they did have one, using it would guarantee almost instantaneous annihilation by Israel and the United States. Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion to reality. With a policy of containment, we stood down and won the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles. If you’re looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would be high on the list. Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan was never inspected by the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we not only talk to her, we provide economic assistance – though someday Musharraf may well be overthrown and a pro-al Qaeda government put in place. We have been nearly obsessed with talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea. It makes no sense and it’s a very costly and dangerous policy.”
—————————————————————————————-
Before We Bomb Iraq by Ron Paul (March 1, 2002)
“Too often when we dictate who will lead another country, we only replace one group of thugs with another – as we just did in Afghanistan – with the only difference being that the thugs we support are expected to be puppet-like and remain loyal to the US, or else.

Although bits and pieces of the administration’s plans to wage war against Iraq and possibly Iran and North Korea are discussed, we never hear any mention of the authority to do so…

“…Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing to do with US security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression against us.

We must understand that the American people become less secure when we risk a major conflict driven by commercial interests and not constitutionally authorized by Congress. Victory under these circumstances is always elusive, and unintended consequences are inevitable.”
—————————————————————————————-

Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq Ron Paul (October 8, 2002)

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. The wisdom of the war is one issue, but the process and the philosophy behind our foreign policy are important issues as well. But I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war.

But I am very interested also in the process that we are pursuing. This is not a resolution to declare war. We know that. This is a resolution that does something much different. This resolution transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants to. He has not even indicated that he wants to go to war or has to go to war; but he will make the full decision, not the Congress, not the people through the Congress of this country in that manner.

It does something else, though. One-half of the resolution delivers this power to the President, but it also instructs him to enforce U.N. resolutions. I happen to think I would rather listen to the President when he talks about unilateralism and national security interests, than accept this responsibility to follow all of the rules and the dictates of the United Nations. That is what this resolution does. It instructs him to follow all of the resolutions…..”

“…Claim: Iraq is an international sponsor of terrorism.

Reality: According to the latest edition of the State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq sponsors several minor Palestinian groups, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). None of these carries out attacks against the United States. As a matter of fact, the MEK (an Iranian organization located in Iraq) has enjoyed broad Congressional support over the years. According to last year’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq has not been involved in terrorist activity against the West since 1993 – the alleged attempt against former President Bush…..”

“…Claim: Iraq has anthrax and other chemical and biological agents.

Reality: That may be true. However, according to UNSCOM’s chief weapons inspector 90-95 percent of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons and capabilities were destroyed by 1998; those that remained have likely degraded in the intervening four years and are likely useless. A 1994 Senate Banking Committee hearing revealed some 74 shipments of deadly chemical and biological agents from the U.S. to Iraq in the 1980s. As one recent press report stated:

One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three…

The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid — used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin — directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show.

These were sent while the United States was supporting Iraq covertly in its war against Iran. U.S. assistance to Iraq in that war also included covertly-delivered intelligence on Iranian troop movements and other assistance. This is just another example of our policy of interventionism in affairs that do not concern us – and how this interventionism nearly always ends up causing harm to the United States….”

Claim: President Bush said in his speech on 7 October 2002: ” Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don’t know exactly, and that’s the problem…”

Reality: An admission of a lack of information is justification for an attack?”
———————————————————————————

The Roll-Out Goes Flat by Scott Horton
“Ken Silverstein and I have been pointing for the better part of the year to the very strange goings-on surrounding the preparation and issuance of a vital intelligence report on the state of Iran’s nuclear project. The White House, and particularly Vice President Cheney, has been feverishly attempting to stop its issuance. The Director of National Intelligence, McConnell, has been at odds to oppose its declassification. In sum, something was there and the war party was intensely upset about it.

The report is called a National Intelligence Estimate (“NIE”), it reflects the best assessment available to the U.S. Government based on all intelligence sources. It is considered a state-of-the-art product of the intelligence community. This morning a nine-page summary of the NIE was released.
“This is absolutely absurd . The NIE has been in substantially the form in which it was finally submitted for more than six months. The White House, and particularly Vice President Cheney, used every trick in the book to stop it from being finalized and issued. There was no last minute breakthrough that caused the issuance of the assessment.” So what, I asked, if not an intelligence breakthrough, what caused the last-minute change and the sudden issuance of the summary of the NIE? My source had no idea. He speculated, however, that a hardening of attitudes within the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the intelligence community, and in Israel against the plans for an air war in Iran had caused Cheney and his team to fold their cards. “But I’d leave that with a final note of caution,” the source added, “Cheney sometimes appears to give up, but he’s a tenacious son-of-a-bitch. He may very well be back at it tomorrow.”

I found a great article and interview today. The focus of the piece is First Lt. Ehren Watada, a soldier in the U.S. Army. He is facing court martial for refusing to deploy to Iraq on the grounds of the war being unconstitutional.

Lt. Watada was based at Fort Lewis, Washington, with the Army’s 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He has remained on base, thus avoiding charges of desertion.

He does, however, face one count of “missing troop movement” and four counts of “conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.” If convicted, he faces up to six years in prison.

The entire interview is excellent but my favorite parts are:

WATADA: Certainly. I think that when we take an oath we, as soldiers and officers, swear to protect the constitution — with our lives as necessary — and those constitutional values and laws that make us free and make us a democracy. And when we have one branch of government that intentionally deceives another branch of government in order to authorize war, and intentionally deceives the people in order to gain that public support, that is a grave breach of our constitutional values, our laws, our checks and balances, and separation of power.

and:

WATADA: You know, what I’m doing is for the soldiers. I’m trying to end something that is criminal, something that should not have been started in the first place and something that is making America less safe — and that is the Iraq war. By just going there and being willing to participate, and doing my job, or whatever I’m told to do — which actually exacerbates the situation and makes it worse — I would not be serving the best interest of this country, nor the soldiers that I’m serving with. What I’m trying to do is end something, as I said, that’s illegal, and immoral, so that all the soldiers can come home and this tragedy can come to an end.

It seems like people and critics make this distinction between an order to deploy and any other order, as if the order to deploy is just something that’s beyond any other order. Orders have to be determined on whether they’re legal or not. And if the order to deploy to a war that is unlawful, if that is given, then that order itself is unlawful.

and:

STES: Are you ready to deal with all those consequences with this decision?

WATADA: Sure, and I think that’s the decision that I made almost a year ago, in January, when I submitted my original letter of resignation. I knew that possibly some of the things that I stated in that letter, including my own beliefs, that there were repercussions from that. Yet I felt it was a sacrifice, and it was a necessary sacrifice, to make. And I feel the same today.

I think that there are many supporters out there who feel that I should not be made an example of, that I’m speaking out for what a lot of Americans are increasingly becoming aware of: that the war is illegal and immoral and it must be stopped. And that the military should not make an example or punish me severely for that.

All in all, he seems very well thought out and honorable in his intent. A pre-trial hearing is set for tomorrow and the court martial scheduled for February 5th. This could be interesting.

“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it.” ~ Poet and philosopher George Santayana.

One year ago today, four planes were hijacked by 19 men armed with box cutters who set into motion an evil plot that changed a nation.

The horror of more than 3,000 deaths; the dread of watching the second plane approach the World Trade Center towers; the frightening spectacle of the towers’ collapse; the wrenching last phone calls from victims who knew their doomed fates to their loved ones; the inspiring courage of emergency workers in the face of grave danger; all of these and more have left an indelible impression on Americans and the world.

The events of Sept. 11, 2001 will mold this generation in the way that Pearl Harbor formed the Americans often called “the greatest generation.”

On Dec. 7, 1941, – the date President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said would “live in infamy” – Japan launched a surprise attack on the U.S. Naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. More than 2,400 Americans died in the attack, which brought the United States into World War II. In the shock and fear that followed Pearl Harbor, some mistakes were made, notably the internment of Japanese Americans. More than 120,000 American citizens were removed from their homes and placed in “relocation centers.” According to one Web site, the only significant opposition to the internment of Japanese Americans came from Quakers and the ACLU.

I hope in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terror attacks we can avoid similar missteps. As I watch our government try to protect us against terrorism, it concerns me that we are being forced to give up freedoms in the name of safety.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.” ~ Statesman and patriot Benjamin Franklin.

Civil libertarians worry that the federal government is ignoring civil rights in the post-Sept. 11 fight against terrorism. They cite the hundreds of foreign nationals who have been detained, many without criminal charges filed against them, and the cases of two Americans suspected of being “enemy combatants” and thereby restricted from access to open courts.

The USA Patriot Act, approved by Congress with uncharacteristic speed and limited public debate, gives broad new powers to the federal government to spy on American citizens, all in the name of national security.

Rather than roll back our freedoms, we should flaunt them. We should give anyone suspected of any crime – including “enemy combatants” – a fair and open trial. Give them due process and access to representation. Let the press and public witness their trials and read the court documents. Show the world that justice in America is afforded everyone. Show the downtrodden in other countries that we pay more than lip service to freedom and liberty, we live it, even when it’s hard.

Let the legacy of Sept. 11 be that we value our freedoms more than ever. The freedoms that so inflamed the intolerance of the terrorists, the freedoms that allow us to enjoy a prosperous, diverse, tolerant, open and free society, those freedoms must flourish – not diminish – as a result of Sept. 11.

Let Americans also remember that our government is in place to serve us – the citizens – and it is our patriotic duty to be knowledgeable about our government’s actions and to question anything that limits our freedom and liberty.

“Give me liberty or give me death.” ~ Statesman and patriot Patrick Henry.

Americans – thanks to the wisdom of the founding fathers who drafted the Constitution – have the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy, the right to an open government. Life without these liberties, however “safe” it might be, is not free.

Let us take precautions to prevent future terrorist attacks; let us find and punish those responsible for Sept. 11; but let us not do it at the expense of what is the essence of America – freedom. Let us not destroy the Constitution with our efforts to protect it.

“May it serve as a constant reminder of our past so that Americans in the future will never again be denied their constitutional rights …” ~ Plaque at the Poston, Ariz. internment camp for Japanese Americans.