writing a paper. can you guess what it’s about?

Protest the Jailing of Lynne Stewart.   One of the first victims of the Patriot Act, she was convicted of aiding and abetting terrorism in the course of her legal work. Based on her years of defending the most exploited, and government infringement of attorney-client confidentiality in the case, she was sentenced to only 28 months of detention, and was freed on appeal.  Now, at age 70 and battling breast cancer, she has been ordered to jail, and her sentence is being reviewed to be increased. Read more.

SF Gray Panther Newsletter, December, 2009
Lynne Stewart’s Appeal Denied

Lynne at the SF Gray Panthers

After a long career representing the poor, oppressed and unpopular, radical attorney Lynne Stewart has been sent to jail. On November 17, a federal appeals court upheld her 2005 conviction of conspiracy and providing material support to terrorists and ordered her bond revoked. It also faulted District Judge John G. Koeltl for failing to issue a finding on whether she had committed perjury, and ordered him to review the mitigating circumstances that led him to sentence her to 28 months rather than the 30 years requested by the government. .

In the many years since charges were brought against her, the Gray Panthers have participated in nation-wide support and fundraising efforts for Lynne. In a typical political analysis of the events, she said the decision’s timing, “coming as it does on the eve of the arrival of the tortured men from the offshore prison in Guantánamo,” carried a message. “If you’re going to lawyer for these people, you’d better toe very close to the line that the government has set out.”

To send Lynne a letter, write:

Lynne Stewart, #53504-054
MCC-NY
150 Park Row
New York, NY 10007

Read SF Gray Panthers page on Lynne Stewart

Jeff Mackler wrote:

Dear Friends of Lynne Stewart,

I just got off the phone with Lynne Stewart a few minutes ago, that is, late Wednesday (early Thursday, November 19, New York time).  She bravely told me that she has been ordered to report to U.S. Federal Marshals to be imprisoned at 5 pm, Thursday, November 19.  There will be a 4 pm NY rally of her supporters, who will escort her to the courthouse for imprisonment.

In San Francisco, we will rally on Monday, Nov. 23 to protest Lynne’s frame-up trial and imprisonment.  Be there!  (See above.)

Background:

Following the November 16 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit that rejected Lynne Stewart’s appeal of her 1995 frame-up conviction on five counts of aiding and abetting terrorism, Lynne’s legal team as well as the federal district court were in a quandary as to how to proceed.  (Lynne has been a leading civil and human rights attorney for 30-years.  She is a member of the National Lawyers Guild and a member of the Continuations Committee of the National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations.)

The Second Circuit made what amounted to an unprecedented decision to not only affirm her conviction and reject her appeal but to order that her bail be revoked and that she be remanded to prison.  But lacking clear orders as to who would carry out this decision and when it would happen, the last two days have seen Lynne appear, along with her supporters at two rallies in her defense and numerous press conferences and interviews while judges and lawyers tried to ascertain what to do.  That decision has been made and Lynne will begin serving a 28-month prison term.

However, the Second Circuit’s 2-1 decision also remanded the issue of the length of Lynne’s sentence back to Judge John Koeltl’s Federal District Court ordering Koeltl to reconsider the 28-month jail sentence that he originally imposed.  Obviously furious at the relatively short duration of the sentence, the Second Circuit accepted the prosecution’s assertion that Koeltl had not properly considered the question of whether or not Lynne has perjured herself during her trial.  If that were to be determined, according to the Second Circuit, the length of Lynne’s sentence could be extended.  The single dissenting judge went further — expressing his outrage at Lynne’s relatively short sentence and suggesting that a qualitatively longer sentence be imposed than the majority contemplated.  The government originally demanded a 30-year sentence!

Still fighting, Lynne’s attorneys will ask the Second Circuit for a delay in her incarceration based on Lynne’s scheduled December surgery.  Here too, Lynne guesses that this will be denied, with the court holding that prison facilities are adequate for any medical needs that Lynne, a diabetic with hypertension and recovering from breast cancer surgery, may have.

Meanwhile, a new sentencing hearing before Judge Koeltl is scheduled for December 2 at the Foley Square Courthouse.  Federal prosecutors are expected to ask for the maximum sentence possible.  Also appearing in court will be Mohamed Yousry, Lynne’s innocent co-defendant and translator.  Koeltl was also ordered to reconsider Yousry’s 20-month sentence.  The prison term of a third defendant in Lynne’s case, Ahmed Sattar, who was sentenced to 20-plus years, was not challenged.

At this point we can only speculate as to whether Judge Koeltl will stand by his original sentence or be pressured by the Second Circuit to extend Lynne and Mohammed’s sentences.  The judge is known to carefully consider his sentences.  Close observers believe that he is unlikely to bend and impose a longer sentence.

Should Koeltl refuse to add additional years to Lynne’s prison term, the government is expected to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Government prosecutors and obviously the Second Circuit are outraged that a “convicted terrorist” has been walking around the streets for the past five years, free to champion her own cause and those of all others who suffer political repression.  It was clear from Judge Koeltl’s short sentence and high praise of Lynne’s record as an attorney and human being, a “credit to her profession,” said Koeltl during the sentencing hearing, that he felt compelled to take his distance from the government’s desire to put Lynne, 70, in prison for what would amount to the rest of her life.

Lynne will appeal the Second Circuit’s ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.  She has repeatedly stated that her prosecution and persecution are consciously orchestrated by the government to chill the defense bar, that is, to instill the fear of government prosecutions into any attorney who seeks to afford alleged terrorists or others who are victims of unjust government persecution a vigorous and dedicated defense.  Lynne points to the upcoming U.S. prosecution efforts of Guantanamo prisoners as a prime example.

For further information contact: Jeff Mackler, Coordinator, West Coast Lynne Stewart Defense Committee 510-268-9429, <jmackler@lmi.net>.  Mail tax-free contributions payable to National Lawyers Guild Foundation.  Write in memo box: “Lynne Stewart Defense.”  Mail to: Lynne Stewart Defense, P.O. Box 10328, Oakland, CA 94610.

Lynne Stewart is charged for her actions acting as attorney for blind Egyptian cleric named Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, who is accused for the basement bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.  Further investigation of this bombing shows that operatives for Federal agencies were involved in setting up this action.  Read more here.

]]> http://bankingwhistleblower.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/comerica-bank-locks-out-workers/ Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:26:53 +0000 bankingwhistleblower http://bankingwhistleblower.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/comerica-bank-locks-out-workers/

By: Various authors and journalists

The bank that coined the phrase, “we listen, we understand, we make it work” seemed to forget that public relations slogan during the large CAW labor protest at 500 Woodward Avenue, in Detroit, MI.  As you recall, Canadian workers of Adraco and Aramco a division of Catalina Precision, have been denied their severance, termination, and vacation pay by the Catalina’s creditors Comerica Bank.  Numerous coalitions were there to demand justice for workers who just want to be paid what they are owed and Comerica controls the purse strings.  They feel that workers being paid is more important that Comerica executive bonuses.  Participants signed a letter to the company’s executives asking Comerica to live up to the so called “code of ethics” that is posted on Comerica’s website.  The code of ethics seems like a great public relations spin tool but the workers with children to feed were more interested in Comerica showing action; not just empty public relations gimmicks.  As one of the participants read from Comerica’s code of ethics, looks of disgust and frustration fell over participants faces.  There appeared to be a huge disconnect between corporate marketing propaganda and the daily reality that the workers were facing.
At one point a protester challenged the CEO, Ralph Babb and the Michigan President Tom Ogden to respond to the workers concerns.   Comerica executives were challenged to answer the following questions:

• Do they think it was fair that Comerica was rewarded $2.25 billion in TARP money approximately 30 days after the Michigan attorney general Mike Cox forced Comerica Securities to pay fines and restitution of over $1.5 billion to shareholders?
• Is it fair that the banking industry has received $23.7 million in subsidies, bailouts and backdoor corporate welfare while homeowner forclosure rates are at 15% and property values have collapsed?
• Is it fair that the citizens labor under disasterous debt burdens while the banking industry has been given subsidies that could have paid off personal mortgage debt three times over?
• Workers have alleged fraud by the company owners.  Should law enforcement launch an investigation into what Comerica knew and when they knew it?  Are there possible fraudulent conveyance issues regarding the collateral?
• Is if fair that US banks are speculating with the TARP money, including foreign exchange trading that is driving the US dollar lower?
• Is if fair that Comerica CEO Ralph Babb got a raise in 2008?
• Is it fair that Comerica stock holders have lost money over the past 5 years while Comerica executives have gotten extremely wealthy?
• Is it fair that Comerica Bank has so much taxpayer TARP money and at the same time ranks in the top ten banks for loans to company insiders?
• Is it fair that these loans to corporate insiders are not fully transparent?
• Is it fair that Comerica has refused to give an account of exactly where the $2.25 billiion in TARP money went and why?
• Is if fair that Comerica executives seem to hide in their plush offices and refuse to answer the public’s questions?  Perhaps the next protest should be at the home of a Comerica executive like Michigan President, Tom Ogden in Grosse Pointe?   Perhaps neighbors should have a chance to see exactly what serous issues Comerica executives are dodging?

No Comerica executives were willing to address these questions.  To the contrary, a goon from Comerica’s security staff came outside to harrass the protesters and interfere with the protest.  A Comerica security goon constantly interfered with the groups right to free speech and free assembly.  At the same time various Comerica employees watched the protesters from the lobby of the building.  Many protesters commented on the arrogant smirks from the “Comericasuits” that watched the workers appeal for fairness.  After letter to Comerica management had been signed by all the attendees the CAW made an attempt to deliver it to someone in the lobby.  To our surprise, Comerica had locked the doors and therefore could not receive the signed letter.  Even Comerica customers and employees were unable to get into the front door after Comerica locked them out at approximately 12:45 pm.  Participants thought this as an act of wholesale cowardice and arrogance.   The signed letter had to be left at Comerica’s front door while the various journalists continued to take notes.  This is what $2.25 billion of your tax dollars now sit.  What will Comerica plan as an encore at future protests?

Disclaimer:

Views and opinions of varous authors and journalists are not necessarily those of www.bankingwhistleblower.wordpress.com or Circle Point LLC. No warranties expressed or implied. Feel free to express your comments, suggested revisions, corrections and/or dissagreements to the editors.  All reader input will be viewed objectively.

Only in Massachusetts:

That’s right!  Islamic terrorism is not our enemy!  People like Dick Cheney are!  Thank God for brave, brave men like Senate hopeful Mike Capuano!  Hey, if Nancy Pelosi endorses him, he must be good for the country!

-Mister Person

PS Massachusetts’s other Democratic candidates suck, too.

Aragorn’s politics are as sharp as the Andºril.

He disses Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the Patriot Act.

Source:
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2009/11/viggo-mortensen-king-road-aragorn

STRAIGHT TALK

It seems to me that we have very clear priorities to attend to if we are to survive on planet earth very much longer.

First and foremost is climate change.  We either admit the problem and deal with it, stopping all practices that work against that end, by force, if necessary, or we perish.  Society should triumph over individuals in this regard.  Personal profit is totally unimportant against survival.  What happened to the buggy whip manufacturers when the automobile replaced the horse?  They retooled or died.  Whatever.  Get a damned clue.

Second, we cannot sustain the present form of huge international corporate mega-capitalism.  It is an out of control monster: a willful environmental vampire and oppressor of human rights.  Its rulers and masters make sociopathic decisions on a daily basis.  As they control costs both quality and choice disappear from the marketplace.  They tend to baronies, monopolies, and mini-kingdoms serving the pissant egos of self-styled “giants of commerce.”  They are moribund, sucking ghouls, parasites on the planet and body politic.  They are the great corrupters of mankind and despoilers of the earth.

Third, put religion in its rightful place, not in the government.  If the marching morons of the western religious traditions stopped momentarily to exercise even the barest minimum of individual thought, they would immediately realize that in structure, purpose and results, the forces they support fulfill the mission of the Anti-Christ or its sectarian apocalyptic equivalent.  The marching morons are the people prophesied who follow the WRONG master, necessitating and aiding the Arch Fiend’s attack on all virtue and goodness in the world.  They are the armies of Satan, Shaitan, the bad guy.  The marching morons are ignorant superstitious dupes who hurt other people at the direction of their sick as hell masters.

Fourth, if we wish to progress in a positive and healthful manner, we must liberate the females of our species and educate the children to a rational, scientific and progressive frame of mind.  We do not want to crowd young impressionable minds with superstitions, myths or self-destructive and debasing philosophies.  This will do more to eliminate the physical, mental and emotional abuse that has characterized our species’ formation and created the corrupt and destructive society we inhabit today than any other measure.  We can do so much better, and it begins with free self-directing women and smart well-loved children.

There is more, but this is a fair start.  Just wanted to put these four points out for consideration and possible personal ACTION.  We really don’t have any more time to waste.  KOKO, j

Obama Quietly Backs Patriot Act Provisions by William Fisher Inter Press Service

NEW YORK – With the health care debate preoccupying the mainstream media, it has gone virtually unreported that the Barack Obama administration is quietly supporting renewal of provisions of the George W. Bush-era USA Patriot Act that civil libertarians say infringe on basic freedoms.

And it is reportedly doing so over the objections of some prominent Democrats.

When a panicky Congress passed the act 45 days after the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, three contentious parts of the law were scheduled to expire at the end of next month, and opponents of these sections have been pushing Congress to substitute new provisions with substantially strengthened civil liberties protections.

But with the apparent approval of the Obama White House and a number of Republicans – and over the objections of liberal Senate Democrats including Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Dick Durbin of Illinois – the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to extend the three provisions with only minor changes.

Those provisions would leave unaltered the power of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to seize records and to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail in the course of counterterrorism investigations.  READ MORE:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/23-6

Antarctic Ice Loss Vaster, Faster Than Thought: Study The Independent/UK

The East Antarctic icesheet, once seen as largely unaffected by global warming, has lost billions of tonnes of ice since 2006 and could boost sea levels in the future, according to a new study.

Published Sunday in Nature Geoscience, the same study shows that the smaller but less stable West Antarctic icesheet is also shedding significant mass.

Scientists worry that rising global temperatures could trigger a rapid disintegration of West Antarctica, which holds enough frozen water to push up the global ocean watermark by about five metres (16 feet).

In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) predicted sea levels would rise 18 to 59 centimetres (7.2 to 23.2 inches) by 2100, but this estimate did not factor in the potential impact of crumbling icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica.

Today many of the same scientist say that even if heat-trapping CO2 emissions are curtailed, the ocean watermark is more likely to go up by nearly a metre, enough to render several small island nations unlivable and damage fertile deltas home to hundreds of millions.  READ MORE:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/23-0

Climate Change Sceptics and Lobbyists Put World at Risk, says Top Adviser by David Adam The Guardian/UK

Chance to limit warming squandered, says scientist.  World needs to prepare to cope with at least 3-4C rise.

Climate change sceptics and fossil fuel companies that have lobbied against action on greenhouse gas emissions have squandered the world’s chance to avoid dangerous global warming, a key adviser to the government has said.

Professor Bob Watson, chief scientist at the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs, said a decade of inaction on climate change meant it was now virtually impossible to limit global temperature rise to 2C. He said the delay meant the world would now do well to stabilise warming between 3C and 4C.

His comments come ahead of key UN negotiations on a new global climate treaty in Copenhagen next month that the UK government insists should still aim for a 2C goal, despite doubts over whether a meaningful deal can be sealed.

In an interview with the Guardian, Watson said: “Those that have opposed a deal on climate, which would include elements of the fossil fuel industry, have clearly made making a 2C target much, much harder, if not impossible. They’ve clearly put the world at risk of far more adverse effects of climate change.”   READ MORE:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/23

Bernie Sanders Pushes Back On Public Option by Ryan Grim Huffington Post

While conservative members of the Democratic caucus threaten to block passage of health care reform if it includes a public health insurance option, a growing chorus of liberal lawmakers are making similar threats if the bill doesn’t have one.

Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who caucuses with Democrats, said in a statement on Sunday that the bill must have a strong public option to win his vote.

“I strongly suspect that there are a number of senators, including myself, who would not support final passage without a strong public option,” he said. Not supporting final passage, however, is different than vowing to filibuster it and prevent it from even getting to a vote on final passage, as independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut is now doing, hoping to strip the public option.

But Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said on Saturday night that if the bill bends toward the conservatives, “You’ll lose people on the left.”

One of those could be Roland Burris (D-Ill.), who said Saturday he’d oppose any bill without a public option. “I won’t vote for it,” he said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Saturday night, after the health care bill passed a major legislative hurdle by a party-line, landslide 60-39 vote, that Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) are working on crafting a public option compromise that could garner 60 votes.

On Sunday, Schumer predicted that the public option would survive and wind up in the final bill that goes to the president’s desk.  READ MORE:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/23-1

Taking Care of Business: How Big Business Has Hijacked Climate Talks by Oscar Reyes The New Internationalist

A new realism has emerged. Climate change is no longer rejected as a bogus theory the economy can ill afford. Instead, it’s a business opportunity.

A flower blooms under a floodlight. It is projected on to a huge screen, behind a panel of expensively suited executives. A CNN business correspondent struts up and down a catwalk, excitedly thanking UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the ubiquitous Al Gore. The scene of this corporate love-in? The World Business Summit on Climate Change.

‘The fact that I flew here to sit on a panel for one and a half hours, then I´m flying straight back to the US, is an example of our commitment to environmental sustainability,’ boasts Indra Nooyi, CEO of PepsiCo, blissfully unaware of the irony of her statement. Her fellow industry representatives make similar claims about just how energetically they are saving the planet.

This is the new face of the climate business.

Until recently, many of the globe’s biggest corporations were firmly in the climate change denial camp – and funding spurious research to back up their claims. Now a new realism has emerged. Climate change is no longer rejected as a bogus theory the economy can ill afford. Instead, it’s a business opportunity.

Back in the days of George W Bush, the ostrich-headed faction of US industry held sway. Companies like ExxonMobil saw no profits in ‘climate solutions’, so opposed any climate legislation.  Now, carbon markets – the buying and selling of the right to pollute – are at the heart of proposals for a new global deal at the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen this December, and the ‘progressive’ wing of big business, backed by large US-based NGOs, argues that this market-driven approach is the only way to secure an international emissions reductions deal.

The problem is, critics say, that carbon markets are delaying genuine action on climate change, and shifting attention away from the fundamental task of rapidly phasing out fossil fuels.  How did it come to this?  READ MORE:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/24-3

CHIEF SEALTH: It matters little where we pass the remnant of our days.  They will not be many.  A few more moons; a few more winters – and not one of the descendents of the mighty hosts that once moved over this broad land or lived in happy homes, protected by the Great Spirit, will remain to mourn over the graves of a people once more powerful and hopeful than yours.  But why should I mourn at the untimely fate of my people?  Tribe follows tribe, and nation follows nation, and regret is useless.  Your time of decay may be distant, but it will surely come, for even the white man whose God walked and talked with him as friend to friend, cannot be exempt from the common destiny.  We may be brothers after all.  We will see.  – Chief Sealth, addressing a treaty negotiating party, 1855.

Is it time yet?  Keep on keepin’ on.  j

Come protest against Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and their new network of electronic surveillance for Midtown Manhattan, which includes: surveillance cameras, license plate readers and weapons sensors. Please join us to protest these measures to have our every move watched and evaluated by machines and snoops sitting among closed circuit television (CCTV) screens.

We must tell our Mayor and Police Commissioner that New Yorkers do not approve of living in a 1984 technological nightmare! If New York City turns into the next London, masses of people will leave the Big Apple in droves, placing a further strain on our local economy. Lack of respect for personal privacy becomes a quality of life issue for New Yorkers. New Yorkers want and deserve a peaceful existence of normalcy and respect. Anything less is unacceptable!

Please tell others and promote this event on your favorite local political web sites and blogs. 

We will be meeting at the steps of City Hall, located at: 260 Broadway, New York, NY 10007.

« Yes we can » – Barack Obama, slogan de sa campagne électorale, automne 2008

« Au cours de périodes où règne le mensonge et la manipulation, dire la vérité devient un acte révolutionnaire » – George Orwell

« Vous pouvez avoir du pouvoir sur autrui tout aussi longtemps que vous ne leur enlevez pas tout ce qu’il possède. Mais lorsque vous avez tout volé à un homme, il n’est désormais plus sous votre pouvoir – il est libre de nouveau » – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Voilà déjà une année d’écoulée depuis l’élection de Barack Obama. Comme je le prédisais à l’automne dernier, ce nouveau gouvernement élu sur un vent de changement, se révèlera n’être qu’une vaste illusion, une campagne de promesses vides et de faux espoirs. L’administration Obama n’est rien de plus que la continuité de celle de Bush. L’illusion du paradigme de la gauche et la droite, des Républicains et des Démocrates s’effondre. Il n’y a qu’UN parti politique aux États-Unis: Le parti de la guerre et de Wall Street, le tout orchestré par les banquiers privés de la banque centrale, la Federal Reserve Bank (Fed). Que les Américains votent pour un parti ou l’autre, l’agenda est le même. Il y a longtemps que les États-Unis sont tombés sous un coup d’État silencieux, probablement depuis la mort de JFK.

Voici de nombreux exemples de ce bilan négatif de l’administration Obama:

- L’administration Obama tente d’étouffer le dossier des courriels manquants de la Maison Blanche

Obama avait promis à l’Amérique plus de transparence. Cela ne s’est jamais vraiment concrétisé. Nombreux sont les exemples. L’administration Obama a décidé de suivre les pas de l’ancien président George W. Bush en tentant d’étouffer une poursuite judiciaire visant récupérer des millions de courriels manquants liés à la Maison Blanche pouvant contenir des informations importantes quant à la gestion de l’administration Bush, effaçant ainsi potentiellement des évidences de crimes.

- L’argument identique du « secret d’État » utilisé par Bush est mis de l’avant par l’administration Obama pour empêcher la divulgation d’informations troublantes et incriminant.

- Le département de la Justice imite l’administration Bush en invoquant le privilège du « secret d’État » face à des poursuites judiciaires dans le dossier du programme de capture extraordinaire de la CIA (rendition program), mis en place par Bush, Cheney et Rumsfeld. La raison évoquée pour éviter que les poursuites judiciaires se poursuivent contre ce programme d’enlèvement de suspects à travers le monde, transportés secrètement vers des prisons non identifiées publiquement pour se faire torturer, est que ces poursuites pourraient révéler des informations secrètes relatives à la sécurité nationale.

- Barack Obama avait promis que les États-Unis ne torturerait pas sous sa garde.

Mais tout comme Bush, Obama se bat pour empêcher des milliers de photos documentant la torture made by America, alors que Guantanamo n’a toujours pas fermé ses portes et que la torture se poursuit inlassablement sous son administration, tel que rapporté par une enquête espagnole. Cette dernière explique différentes techniques pratiquées comme l’écrasement de testicules, la détention dans des cellules souterraines dans un les ténèbres totales avec privation de sommeil et de nourriture pour une durée de trois semaines, inoculation à l’aide d’injections de maladies canines, torture à l’eau (waterboarding), etc. Tout cela sous l’autorité de personnel militaire américain, parfois conduit en présence de professionnels médicaux.

Le président Obama refuse de rendre public les photos de torture parce qu’il « croit que leur publication pourrait mettre en danger les troupes ».

En réalité, non seulement Obama ne poursuivra pas les responsables de la torture en justice, mais en fait, il planifie donner de l’expansion à cette torture et continuer sa pratique. Des centres de détention secrets pour des suspects terroristes seront ouverts en Mauritanie, en Éthiopie, dans quelques pays de l’Afrique du nord, du Moyen-Orient et en Asie.

- Obama a passé outre le Congrès américain pour permettre la détention de suspects terroristes pour une durée de temps illimitée, sans qu’aucune accusation formelle ne soit déposée. Dans d’autres pays du monde, on appelle cela des pouvoirs dictatoriaux.  Cela permet au président de détenir unilatéralement des « ennemis combattants » sans habeas corpus, un terme légal qui signifie que les plaignants sont forcés de vous accuser formellement d’un crime pour justifier la détention d’un suspect. Le terme « ennemi combattant » qui faisait en sorte que les Accords de Genève sur les prisonniers de guerre ne s’appliquaient plus, a été abandonné par Obama dans le cas des détenus de Guantanamo, mais il a gardé le terme pour les autres prisons à l’étranger, s’assurant ainsi encore une fois de conserver des pouvoirs exécutifs impérialistes.

- Obama est du même avis que Bush: les prisonniers de Bagram, Afghanistan n’ont pas de droits constitutionnels. Pourtant, les droits ne sont pas donnés par la Constitution, ils sont reconnus. Lorsque les droits peuvent être retirés, ce ne sont pas des droits, mais bien seulement des indulgences octroyées par un maître inspirant la crainte à des esclaves qui se comportent particulièrement bien.
Obama Sides With Bush: No Rights for Bagram Prisoners

- Obama est allé jusqu’à menacer l’Angleterre de cesser leur coopération d’échange du renseignement pour éviter que des évidences de torture soient révélées.

- Trois provisions controversées du Patriot Act instauré Bush reçoivent l’appui d’Obama.

Le département de la Justice a indiqué que l’administration Obama donne son soutien pour le renouvellement de trois sections controversées du USA Patriot Act qui expire en décembre. La première est la Section 206 qui permet au FBI de faire de l’écoute électronique des lignes téléphoniques ou des ordinateurs des Américains. La suivante est la Section 215 qui permet aux enquêteurs d’obtenir les archives médicales, d’affaires, de librairie, bancaires et autres de quiconque, avec l’approbation de la Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. La dernière, surnommée le « loup solitaire », permet d’accumuler des renseignements à propos de personnes qui ne sont pas suspectées d’être part d’un gouvernement étranger ou d’une organisation terroriste.

- Toutes les pièces de législation adoptées sous l’administration Bush qui étaient profondément liberticides et allant à l’encontre de la transparence, de la Constitution et de la démocratie, sont maintenant embrassées par le régime de continuité d’Obama, qui a brisé une fois de plus une importante promesse électorale. Il en est de même pour le Commissions militaires (Military Commissions Act), qui permet de juger des détenus dans des tribunaux militaires établis à Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

- La NSA a filtré toutes les communications des Américains et a ciblé des journalistes depuis l’instauration de ces mesures draconiennes par Bush, dans le cadre de sa guerre bidon au terrorisme. Tout le trafic de ces communications transigeant par de grandes firmes privées de communication comme AT&T étaient directement reliées à la NSA, agence d’espionnage américaine. Depuis que les Démocrates sont au pouvoir, rien n’a changé. Obama ne veut pas tenir Bush et ses acolytes responsables de leurs crimes et violations de la Constitution parce qu’il veut conserver ces pouvoirs. Idem pour l’enlèvement d’individus étrangers, leur transport vers des nations étrangères pour ensuite être torturés.

Ainsi, l’administration Obama bloque les poursuites judiciaires contre les écoutes électroniques illégales, donne de l’expansion à la défense légale de Bush en ce domaine et invoque constamment le « secret d’État » pour défendre le programme envahisseur et criminel de surveillance de Bush.

- Le parti de guerre est toujours l’oeuvre. L’industrie de la mort poursuit ses bonnes affaires sous Obama

Les États-Unis planifient déployer 25 000 troupes militaires en Géorgie d’ici 2015, à la frontière de la Russie. Les Américains ont l’intention de construire deux bases militaires sur le territoire de la Géorgie et une base navale. Ce déploiement fait suite à la provocation de la Russie en août 2008 par les États-Unis et Israël, via l’Ossétie du sud. Une guerre contre l’Iran signifierait une confrontation contre la Russie qui a déclaré qu’elle considèrerait une attaque contre l’Iran comme une attaque personnelle.

Quoi de mieux que d’avoir le prix Nobel de la Paix pour plaider en faveur du recrutement de mineurs pour l’armée? Obama veut son armée, il entend lever une armée de jeunes qui ne serviraient pas la Constitution, mais le président directement. Le plan d’Obama se nomme le « Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act», ou plus simplement, le « GIVE Act ». Ce projet de loi a été voté, à 321 contre 105, le 18 mars 2009. Ce projet de loi H.R. 1388 est donc présentement « à l’étude » au Sénat américain.

Obama a d’ailleurs annoncé, de pair avec Rahm Emanuel, qu’il comptait avoir un corps de volontaires de type milice paramilitaire aux États-Unis aussi bien financé et équipé que l’armée US elle-même.
Heil Obama! Des enfants-soldats sur tout le territoire américain…

- La guerre est toujours une option sur la table, comme on a pu le voir toute l’année dans le cas de l’Iran., quitte à nommer un anti-iranien pour gérer cette situation.

- L’administration Obama continue la doctrine américaine de dominance militaire globale.

Obama n’a pas diminué le budget militaire, au contraire. Il n’y aura pas de renversement de l’agenda militaire ni de la politique étrangère des États-Unis. Surtout pas avec Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates et Rahm Emanuel et son frère. Les États-Unis viennent de briser son record de la guerre du Vietnam en étant en Afghanistan depuis plus de 8 ans. Cela n’est pas près de se terminer, au contraire de ce Obama avait promis durant sa campagne électorale.

- Obama, son administration et différentes agences gouvernementales comme la NSA reçoivent d’ailleurs leurs instructions et conseils par la même élite dirigeante, dont fait partie Henry Kissinger, la Ford Fondation, et la quatrième branche du gouvernement, Goldman Sachs et les banquiers et financiers de Wall Sreet qui pullulent au sein du gouvernement Obama, comme Geithner.

- Obama refuse toujours de toucher à la Fed. Tant qu’il ne forcera pas une reforme entière de la Fed pour récupérer le pouvoir de la création de la monnaie, au lieu de le laisser entre les mains de banquiers la créant de nulle part et la prêtant à crédit au gouvernement (lire le peuple) avec intérêts, l’économie entière sera sous l’étroit contrôle des banquiers privés qui ont ruiné les États-Unis depuis 1913, date de la création de la Fed.

- Obama avait promis que les lobbyistes ne se retrouveraient pas dans son organisation. Une autre fausse promesse lamentablement vendue au public américain. Une douzaine de lobbyistes ont trouvé un poste au sommet de l’administration Obama. On y trouve des gens nommés au département de la Défense ayant travaillé pour Raytheon, un manufacturier d’armement, un ancien VP de Monsanto à la FDA, des anciens généraux et du Pentagone partout dans le gouvernement, et ainsi de suite.

- Obama agit de manière similaire à Bush dans le domaine des pétrolières, des énergies et est même allé jusqu’à approuver la décapitation des montagnes pour y retirer du charbon, une politique qui fut sévèrement condamnée lorsque Bush s’y adonnait. L’étroite collaboration entre les exécutifs du pétrole et Washington se poursuit de plus belle.

Il y a fort à parier qu’avec un tel bilan, les Américains ne seront pas dupes très longtemps et qu’Obama sera un président d’un terme seulement. En attendant le prochain poulain de l’establishment, du parti de la guerre et de Wall Street, nous pouvons aussi parier que l’Amérique aura le temps de s’appauvrir énormément, au point où la classe moyenne aura pratiquement disparue et où le pays sera complètement ruiné et en banqueroute, affligé d’hyperinflation et de la plus grande dépression depuis les années 30. On annoncera alors l’arrivée d’un autre président… sauveur de tous, charismatique au sourire charmeur.

« Yes we can »

« Change we can believe in »

François Marginean

Obama Administration Defending Law that Makes Speech Advocating Human Rights a Terrorist Crime

November 17, 2009, New York – Yesterday, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed the first brief in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the first case to challenge a portion of the Patriot Act before the Supreme Court. The case, originally brought in 1998 on behalf of a human rights group, a retired federal administrative judge, a doctor, and several nonprofit groups, challenges the constitutionality of the law that makes it a crime to provide “material support” to groups the administration has designated as “terrorist.”  In particular, the plaintiffs charge that the law goes too far in making speech advocating lawful, nonviolent activity a crime.  The lower courts have unanimously declared several provisions of the law – including one added by the Patriot Act – unconstitutionally vague because they encompass speech and force citizens to guess as to their meaning.

The case challenges those aspects of the “material support” statute that criminalize pure speech – specifically the prohibitions on providing “training,” “personnel,” “expert advice or assistance,” and “service.”  Under the law, any speech that falls within these terms – no matter how peaceable and nonviolent – is a crime if communicated to, for, or with the collaboration of any organization placed on a list of “foreign terrorist organizations” maintained by the Department of State. Convictions can result in sentences of fifteen years to life.  According to the government, the statute requires no showing that the donor intended to further any act of terrorism or violence.

Said CCR Cooperating Attorney David D. Cole, “This statute is so sweeping that it treats human rights advocates as criminal terrorists, and threatens them with 15 years in prison for advocating nonviolent means to resolve disputes. In our view, the First Amendment does not permit the government to make advocating human rights or other lawful, peaceable activity a crime simply because it is done for the benefit of, or in conjunction with, a group the Secretary of State has blacklisted.”

The lower courts held unconstitutionally vague the law’s prohibition on the provision of “services,” “expert advice or assistance,” and “training,” reasoning that these terms could easily encompass a wide range of lawful speech, such as providing training in international law.  The Obama administration sought Supreme Court review of that decision.

Plaintiffs in the case include the Humanitarian Law Project (HLP), a human rights organization in Los Angeles that seeks to provide human rights advocacy training to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the main Kurdish political party in Turkey, and a former federal administrative law judge, Ralph D. Fertig, who is the president of the HLP. Once the State Department designated the PKK a terrorist organization, it became a crime for HLP to continue to train the group in human rights advocacy, even though that assistance is designed to reduce violence by encouraging peaceful ways of resolving conflict.

“To deny me the right to speak of peace to a group because it  is branded ‘terrorist’ is to defer the possibility that it could ever be anything else,” said plaintiff Ralph D. Fertig, JD, ACSW, retired U.S. Administrative Judge and Clinical Associate Professor, University of Southern California School of Social Work. “And to punish those who seek peaceful resolutions of conflict is to yield to violence. Surely the First Amendment must protect against such government action.”

The Patriot Act added a prohibition on the provision of “expert advice or assistance” to the statute.  After earlier court decisions declared that and other parts of the statute unconstitutional, Congress amended it in 2004 to try to correct the infirmities.  However, the district court and court of appeals concluded that the prohibitions on “services,” “expert advice and assistance,” and “training” remained unconstitutionally vague. The court of appeals decision the administration is seeking review of is the sixth ruling from the lower courts since 1998 finding significant parts of the material support statute to be unconstitutionally vague.

For more information on the case, including briefs and a detailed explanation of material support, visit http://ccrjustice.org/holder-v-humanitarian-law-project.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was first enacted in 1978 (Public Law 95-511) and later amended by the Patriot Act. It is at the center of the controversy concerning domestic spying by the NSA. It was passed after revelations of massive domestic spying abuses by the FBI, CIA and NSA were documented in reports issued by the Church Committee in the 1970s. In 1972, the United States Supreme Court had reviewed some of those abuses and declared that warrantless wiretaps of domestic groups for national security reasons were a violation of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. United States District Court (Keith), 407 U.S. 297 (1972)

The FISA provided special procedures for conducting electronic surveillance of telephones, etc for foreign intelligence purposes including setting up aForeign Intelligence Surveillance Court to authorize such surveillance.…

http://www.cnss.org/fisa.htm

There was an existing legal framework already set up for electronic surveillance of American citizens. What was the nature of the neocons surveillance requirements that made the legal approach unsuitable for their use?

Perhaps it was the magnitude of the neocon’s intended search that would not be legal. The legal approach would question tapping the electronic communications of 200,000,000 Americans. That would be called a “FISHING” expedition. And casting such a wide net would surely catch something – thus making the neocon’s effort, in their opinion, worth the ILLEGAL risk. The neocon’s fishing expedition would not have passed a FISA court and the neocons knew that.

If government decides to abuse America’s rules and laws, that is not the same as regular citizens abusing America’s laws. American citizens can’t hide their illegal activity behind secrecy laws but government can.

However,  somebody told! Some BRAVE American TOLD!

Some brave American told America that the Bush team was illegally spying on American citizens. The Bush team – a political group that rarely if ever impressed with their competency, was breaking new political ground in America. This was an early challenge to that [EXPLETIVE DELETED] piece of paper that America knows as its Constitution.

The revelation of illegal electronic spying on Americans was shocking and serious. The neocons brought out their BIG GUNS in defense of their illegal activity. The soft-shoe dance of innocence began:

The neocon stated rules of engagement required that one end of the communications connection be in America while the other end had to be outside America. This would of course, rule out intra-country communications. But the same party that stated the above rule also said that Saddam Hussein was working on nukes. That was in 2003. And even today, no evidence of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear lab has been presented.

So America was fooled once – would it be fooled twice?

Not this time:

NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls

USA TODAY

By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

“It’s the largest database ever assembled in the world,” said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA’s activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency’s goal is “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said. …

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

It is “eye-crossing” to know that the same country that impeached a Democratic president(neocons were in power) for failing to tell the truth about improper touching(a personal matter) allowed a neocon President to get away with a whole list of activities that should have been viewed in a court of law.

The neocons are in a class by themselves

On Wednesday, November18th, the Executive Board of the Maryland Library Association (MLA) passed a resolution outlining shared concerns and desired reforms regarding the USA PATRIOT Act.  MLA is currently contacting members of Maryland’s Congressional delegation to express the need for amendments when reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT Act. 

Several provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act are scheduled to expire at the end of 2009.  There were several pieces of legislation introduced in Congress to reauthorize the Act with some amendments.  Most notably, the USA Patriot Act Sunset Extension Act of 2009 (S 1692) passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  It is not clear when this or any bill will be brought to the Senate floor for a vote.  For commentary on S 1692 from the American Library Association’s Washington Office, see the October 13^th District Dispatch posting.

My cousin recently wrote a blog post about how he believes the honesty of students is decreasing. He’s a teacher in the Midwest. He sees firsthand how the kids these days will not hesitate to cheat or lie to make their lives easier. And while I don’t disagree with this, I don’t really think it’s anything new. I made some pretty good money in my 2-year stint as a term paper writer in the early 2000s. But that’s neither here nor there.

Chuck Klosterman has a theory that Generation X became a generation of lazy, pessimistic slackers because the first movie we were old enough to understand was The Empire Strikes Back. I you remember that movie, you remember it ended with Han Solo being captured by Boba Fett and frozen in carbonite. It was also the episode where Luke learned that his father was Darth Vader and Leah was his sister. It was a prequel to Jerry Springer. So Klosterman’s theory is that because this was really our first memorable taste of culture, us Generation Xers grew up with a darker view of the world around us.

Let’s look at the generation going through high school right now. For some, their first cognizant memory is 9-11. They may have been alive during America’s prosperous years but they weren’t old enough to recognize it. Some of them might not even have been old enough to understand what was going on, but certainly absorbed some of the tension their parents carried around.

Enter George W. Bush.

You can say all you want about Barack Obama, but the one quality he has that George Bush lacked is the ability to think things through and not jump at the country’s whims.

So with Bush chomping at the bit to get revenge and appease the cries of the angry American mob, the leader of the free world, the most powerful person in the world, fed us a lie. Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Then add to that the Patriot Act and numerous other infractions against the Constitution and you’ve got yourself a guy who will put his integrity aside to further his own agenda. I mean, just look what came from it. Halliburton. Blackwater. All of the administration’s cronies were getting in on the action and getting rich off the lies of the President of the United States of America.

So why then would kids who were 10 years old at the time and have grown up seeing their President lie, cheat, and steal his way into infamy think it’s wrong to do any different? I mean, if he can do it, why can’t they? He didn’t talk like an educated man. In fact most of what came out of him mouth was unintelligible. Why would they value an education? George W. Bush didn’t put any effort into finding a middle ground with anyone else in the world. He didn’t respect other cultures. Why would the kids think they should respect anyone around them? Why wouldn’t they think that it’s ok to do whatever you want in the name of self-serving purpose.

If you think about it, it all makes sense.

Or am I way off base here. Please weigh in.

[Image Credit]

Angola 3 News interviewed Jeanne Theoharris who wrote an article this April at The Nation on the arrest, imprisonment and legal battles of Syed Hashmi, a U.S. citizen imprisoned in New York City prison with “Guantánamo-like conditions”.

18 Nov 09 | Angola 3 News

Jeanne Theoharis is the author of an April, 2009 article in The Nation, entitled “Guantánamo At Home,” which focuses on the arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment of U.S. citizen Syed Hashmi in a New York City prison with Guantanamo-like conditions. Theoharis holds the endowed chair in women’s studies and is an associate professor of political science at Brooklyn College, CUNY.

Syed Hashmi’s trial will begin in New York City on December 1. The website www.freefahad.com explains that: “Syed Hashmi, known to his family and friends as Fahad, was born in Karachi, Pakistan in 1980, the second child of Syed Anwar Hashmi and Arifa Hashmi. Fahad immigrated with his family to America when he was three years old. His father said ‘We knew there would be many opportunities for us here in the United States. We came here to find the American dream.’ The large Hashmi family settled in Flushing, New York and soon developed deep roots throughout the tri-state area. Fahad graduated from Robert F. Wagner High School in 1998 and attended SUNY Stony Brook University. He transferred to Brooklyn College, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in political science in 2003. A devout Muslim, through the years Fahad established a reputation as an activist and advocate. In 2003, Fahad enrolled in London Metropolitan University in England to pursue a master’s degree in international relations, which he received in 2006. On June 6, 2006, Fahad was arrested in London Heathrow airport by British police based on an American indictment charging him with material support of Al Qaida. He was subsequently held in Belmarsh Prison, Britain’s most notorious jail.” For more information on the Hashmi case, also visit: www.educatorsforcivilliberties.org.

Angola 3 News: Can you please give us background on the arrest and prosecution of Syed Hashmi? For example, what are the charges against him? What is their evidence?

Jeanne Theoharis: In June 2006, Hashmi, who is a U.S. citizen, was arrested by the British police at Heathrow Airport (he was about to travel to Pakistan, where he has family) on a warrant issued by the U.S. government. In May 2007, he was extradited to the United States, the first U.S. citizen to be extradited under terrorism laws passed after 9/11. Since then, he has since been held in solitary confinement at Metropolitan Correctional Center (M.C.C.).

The U.S. government alleges that early in 2004, a man by the name of Junaid Babar, also a Pakistani-born U.S. citizen, stayed with Hashmi at his London apartment for two weeks. According to the government, Babar stored luggage containing raincoats, ponchos, and waterproof socks in Hashmi’s apartment and then Babar delivered these materials to the third-ranking member of al-Qa’ida in South Waziristan, Pakistan. In addition, Hashmi allegedly allowed Babar to use his cell phone to call other conspirators in terrorist plots.

The government has claimed that Babar’s testimony is the “centerpiece” of its case. Babar, who has pleaded guilty to five counts of material support for al-Qa’ida, faces up to seventy years in prison. While awaiting sentence, he has agreed to serve as a government witness in terrorism trials in Britain and Canada as well as in Hashmi’s trial. Under a plea agreement reported in the media, Babar will receive a reduced sentence in return for his cooperation.

A3N: What can you tell us about Hashmi as a person, especially your personal experience of knowing him when he was a student of yours?

JT: Fahad was a student of mine at Brooklyn College in 2002. An outspoken Muslim student activist, Fahad wrote his senior seminar paper with me on the treatment of Muslim groups within the United States and the violations of civil rights and liberties that many groups were facing. Needless to say, this feels particularly chilling—and no longer academic—as we have now witnessed his own rights being violated.

A3N: Since his arrest, what have the conditions of his incarceration been?

JT: Under special administrative measures (SAMs) imposed in October 2007 by the former Attorney General, Hashmi must be held in solitary confinement and may not communicate with anyone inside the prison other than prison officials. Family visits are limited to one person every other week for one and a half hours and cannot involve physical contact. While his correspondence to members of Congress and other government officials is not restricted, he may write only one letter (of no more than three pieces of paper) per week to one family member. He may not communicate, either directly or through his attorneys, with the news media. He may read only designated portions of newspapers—and not until thirty days after their publication – and his access to other reading material is restricted. He may not listen to or watch news-oriented radio stations and television channels. He may not participate in group prayer. He is subject to 24-hour electronic monitoring inside and outside his cell—including when he showers or relieves himself—and 23-hour lockdown. He has no access to fresh air and must take his one hour of daily recreation—when it is given—inside a cage.

As the expert testimony supplied by Hashmi’s attorneys in a pre-trial motion of December 2008 attests, the conditions of Hashmi’s detention may have severe physical and mental consequences and impair his mental state and ability to testify on his own behalf.

While former Acting Attorney General Keisler claimed that these measures are necessary because “there is substantial risk that [Hashmi’s] communications or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury to persons,” Hashmi was held with other prisoners in a British jail for eleven months without incident. The SAMs were renewed by Attorney General Mukasey in November 2008 and upheld by Judge Loretta Preska in January 2009, citing Hashmi’s “proclivity for violence.” There has been no change to the SAMs under the Obama Administration. They were renewed again by Attorney General Holder in early November 2009. Yet, Hashmi is not being charged and has never been charged with committing an actual act of violence.

Currently, according to research by The New York Times in February 2009, there are six people in the United States being held on pre-trial terrorism SAMs; three (including Hashmi) are under the jurisdiction of the Southern District of New York, which has long served as a stepping stone to national political office.

A3N: Looking particularly at the harsh solitary confinement imposed on Hashmi, how is this officially justified? Do you think the stated reason is the actual motivation, or do you think there are other reasons for the solitary confinement and other harsh restrictions?

JT: My colleagues and I have begun to come to the conclusion that the use of prolonged solitary confinement is a tactic to ensure convictions. Such conditions weaken people mentally and the toll of sensory deprivation and isolation simultaneously makes people more eager to take a plea or not able to fully assist their counsel. Most experts agree it is torture (see Atul Gawande’s “Hellhole” in The New Yorker). While our public discussions have tended to see torture as a tactic to get information, in cases like Hashmi’s, torture is being used to help secure convictions.

A3N: How are the prion conditions for Hashmi in N.Y.C. different from those in Guantanamo?

JT: There are key similarities of prolonged isolation and sensory deprivation between Hashmi’s treatment at M.C.C. in lower Manhattan and what we have heard of the conditions at Guantanamo. However, there has been much less attention to these inhumane conditions within the United States.

The focus on prisons like Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib and Baghram stems, in part, from a larger post-civil rights paradigm that assumes the judicial process is now fair in the United States and relatively incorruptible and thus it was necessary to go outside of the U.S. courts to do the extreme bad things.

Rather, what made Guantanamo possible stemmed from domestic legal practices, many already in place and many others expanded after 9/11, which have continued almost unabated under the Obama Administration.

A3N: With Hashmi’s trial beginning on December 1, what are activists currently doing to support him?

JH: Theaters Against War began holding weekly vigils in October to draw attention to the inhumane conditions of confinement and the due process violations Hashmi and others are facing within the federal courts. Artists and actors such as Wallace Shawn, Kathleen Chalfant, Bill Irwin, Jan Maxwell, Betty Shamieh, and Christine Moore have performed at the vigils.

A3N: Any closing thoughts?

JH: Three central Constitutional issues have become clear in the treatment of Hashmi and others within the federal system: the inhumane conditions of confinement, the abridgement of due process rights , and the lack of 1st Amendment protections.

If these are not addressed, then moving the Guantánamo detainees into the federal system does little to return America to the rule of law, of which we are rightfully proud. I am reminded of that quote by former Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1967, “”It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of…those liberties…which [make] the defense of the nation worthwhile.”

Free Fahad: Part One (9:44):

Free Fahad: Part Two (3:36):

(h/t: InfoShop News)

With all the proposed amendments to the Patriot Act, one can surely lose their way through it all!  Thankfully, the Center for Democracy and Technology made a PDF chart of the current law and proposed amendments.  Check it out and clear your confusion.

Thanks to ALA online.

Full disclosure, and I may have mentioned this in the blog before but I am too lazy to look it up, I voted for Barack Obama.  I am, however, not a Democrat.  But I am also not a Republican.  I would say that I tend to lean conservative, but those that claim to be conservative these days are way too jingoistic and imperialistic for my tastes.  They also seem to oppose any increase in taxes and, though they claim to be for small government, seem to be all for government interference as long as it deals with the so-called “social” issues.  I tend to be for small government as well, but while your typical “conservative” seems to feel like that business needs to be totally left alone while our private lives need to be dictated, I tend to think that the opposite is probably more true.

Anyway, it was really with the whole jingoism, imperialism path this country had been on with the Bush administration in mind that I decided I needed to go with Obama.  I have been against the war in Iraq from the very start.  I do not buy into the neo-conservative idea that we can force countries into a democracy, and that through the creation of one democracy that others will spread as if a form of government is like a disease.  (And let’s face it, whether or not the true neo-con believes this or not, the other part of this is that we want access to the oil, both the drilling and the ability to transport.)  I also think whatever initial good may have came from our actions in Afghanistan, we have long past the point of diminishing returns and need to end that one as well.  Heck, I am so much against these wars that I voted for John Kerry (I wished I was the one who created www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com because that is exactly how I felt.  Yes, that was a real website.)  My two favorite candidates going into the last election were Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, who are probably otherwise about as opposite as you can get, but they both oppose the wars.

So here we are, Obama wins and I think a big reason is because a lot of people wanted to go in a different direction from the Bush administration.  But in the 9 months or so that Obama has been office, what has really changed in regards to our Middle Eastern/terrorism policy?  I mean, I know we have changed our rhetoric.  No more talk of ‘axis of evil’ and ‘war on terrorism’.  But what has changed as far as action?  Let’s see:

• Bush had on-going occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Obama continues to have on-going occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Apparently Obama is even going to go with the idea of increasing our troop presence in Afghanistan, which seems akin to sending good money after bad.  And while we are supposedly going to pull out of Iraq, if you check the fine print of the plan, “pulling out” apparently doesn’t mean what most people would think.  We still plan to leave thousands of troops stationed in Iraq even after we “pull out”.
• Under the Bush regime, we opened a prison camp in Guantanamo Bay to hold people suspected of being involved in terrorism, whether we actually had evidence or not.  This prison continues to be opened under the Obama regime.  Obama has promised that the prison will be closed, but is struggling to figure out what to do with the prisoners.  To me, the answer is easy.  For those we plan to prosecute, we transfer to American prisons.  For those we don’t, we let them go.  But for some reason, it apparently is more complicated than that.  At last report, the closure of this prison by January is in doubt.
• The Patriot Act passed while Bush was in office.  But has anybody noticed that Obama has done little to nothing to revoke this act?  In fact, as some of the provisions of these acts are set to expire, Obama supports their renewal.  I guess it is an abuse of power only when your guy doesn’t have the power.  Oh, and that warrantless wiretapping thing?  Yeah, that’s still going on too.

So this is change that we can believe in?  Not hardly.  But it seems that a lot of Obama supporters do not acknowledge the fact that really Obama has mostly continued the policies set forth by Bush.  It would be nice if somebody like MSNBC would hold the Obama adminstation’s feet to the fire like they did with Bush.  But they are Obama fanboys, and are more interested in fighting old battles.  You would think that somebody like Fox News might pick up the mantle, but they are way more interested in stupid things like if Obama should bow to a foreign leader or speak to children.  Then again, if Fox News is going to criticize Obama on something in this regard, it is going to be that Obama is not taking enough military action, so there’s going to be no help there.

I should know better by now.  I really should have known that not much would change.  I actually don’t think our polices are much different under Obama than they would have been under John McCain.  This is why I can understand why people choose not to participate in our political process.  Two parties have a stranglehold over the system, and there simply is not that much difference in fact between the two.  So if you don’t agree with either one of them, you are not really left with a choice.  I don’t know.  It is the only system we have so I think I have to continue to participate.  But I am not sure if I am doing much good.  I guess at least Sarah Palin is not one heartbeat away from being President.  Hmm, President Palin…(brrr….shuddering at the thought!).    Yes, the vote was not a total waste!

ABSTRACT:

15 Awful Things Republicans Would Do If They Had the Chance By Dennis Rahkonen, The Smirking Chimp.

The political instrument of moneyed elites, and a retrograde societal force, the GOP today is more negative than ever. Its agenda, if fully implemented, would prove catastrophic. Here’s what an unfettered Republican Party would do “for” America:

1)  Greatly reduce or entirely eliminate taxes on the rich, forcing working families to make up revenue shortfalls.

2)  Bust labor unions, and prevent collective bargaining for wages and benefits.

3)  Stubbornly deny the climate change while pumping more pollutants into the environment from dirty industries and practices.

4)  Remove regulations on investment banks and credit card companies eroding consumer protections.

5)  Continue to criticize and under fund public education, advocating private schooling instead, to dumb workers down.

6)  Outlaw abortion, under a moral guise, impelling thousands of functioning females to perish because of sexist denials of their basic rights.

7)  Continue to recite a Pledge of Allegiance whose last six words are “with liberty and justice for all,” while harrassing homosexual citizens.

8)  Speak often and loftily of freedom, but engage in neo-McCarthyite witch hunts, Red-baiting name calling, and a host of Patriot Act sins against the U. S. Constitution in the name of “national security.”

9)  Bully the world with US aggressions on foreign soil, kill countless thousands of innocents, waste billions of badly-needed dollars, and make us hated around the planet.

10)  Generally drive down the income levels of America’s working-class majority, as a cost-saving corporate measure, dooming society to economic ruin!

11)  Lie about affordable health care for all, creating a national security threat by fooling some Americans into thinking that public health care is a godless socialist attack on basic American freedoms.

12)  Unleash de facto ethnic cleansing against 12 million immigrant men, women, and children, blaming them for hardships experienced due to capitalist excess.

13)  Shamefully try to lend credence to their avarice and social irresponsibility by revising the Bible to obscure passages that place human need before abject greed as one conservative group is really trying to do!

14)  Support intensely bigoted hatred that has crazed extremists dreaming of literally tearing Barack Obama to pieces and gassing all liberals.

15)  Place the livelihoods and lives of over 300 million Americans in the hands of incompetent ideological “purists” such as Sarah Palin.

While there are certainly Democrats who’ve yet to show spine in furtherance of vital change, let’s be absolutely clear about the unmitigated disaster that would follow if Republicans, in their present ultra-rightist incarnation, ruled our country exactly as they wickedly wished.  READ MORE:

http://www.alternet.org/story/143917/15_awful_things_republicans_would_do_if_they_had_the_chance

The Top One Reason Religion Is Harmful By Greta Christina, AlterNet.

Religion is uniquely armored against anything that might stop it from spinning into extreme absurdity, extreme denial of reality and extreme, grotesque immorality.

So what is it about religion — exactly — that’s so harmful?

I’ve argued many times that religion is not only mistaken, but does more harm than good. But why do I think that is?

Sure, I can make a list of specific harms religion has done, from here to Texas. I’ve done exactly that. But that’s not enough to make my case. I could make long lists of harms done by plenty of human institutions: medicine, education, democracy. That doesn’t make them inherently malevolent.

Why is religion special — and specially troubling? What makes religion different from any other ideology, community, system of morality, hypothesis about how the world works? And why does that difference make it uniquely prone to cause damage?

The debates about religion usually come in two types: “is religion accurate or mistaken,” and “is religion helpful or harmful.” And ever since I put together my best “mistaken” arguments, my Top Ten Reasons I Don’t Believe in God, I’ve been trying to wrap up my “harmful” arguments in a similar nutshell.

But I’m realizing that I don’t have ten arguments for why religion is harmful. I don’t even have 57,842 arguments.

I have one.

I’m realizing that everything I’ve ever written about religion’s harm boils down to one thing.

It’s this: Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die.

It therefore has no reality check.  READ MORE:

http://www.alternet.org/belief/143912/the_top_one_reason_religion_is_harmful_

FREETHINKERS

Freedom from Religion Foundation

Steve Jordan of the Omaha World-Herald wrote a story yesterday about a veteran from Omaha getting assistance from Little Caesars to start a pizza franchise and why veterans make good enterpreneurs.  Little Caesars purpose is to provide honorably discharged veterans with a business opportunity when they transition to civilian life or seek a career change, and thank them for the sacrifices they and their families made for our country.  Veterans aspiring to be business owners should also look at the SBA’s Patriot Act loan guarantee program.  (read more)