Calif. Measure Targets Unions' Influence
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press
[My Commentary:
I find this interesting because as a Democrat dedicated to fairness to workers, I don't disagree with proposition 75. I believe that if an employee pays into a union that at least his share of those funds going to political parties should be the parties of his choice so he should have the right to designate that choice. Granted, the union worker would be out of his mind to elect to give to the Republican party, but it should still be his choice.
I've never belonged to a union, but I recall at my workplace that every year I'd get a form from the company asking which party should get "my" share of company PAC money. In management, of course, most of the money went to the Republicans, but actually, not that much more than the Democrats received.
Of course, since democracy is a people thing, I very strongly believe that no company, corporation nor other organization should have the right to donate any amount of money to political parties. I believe that it has to come from ‘named' individuals and only to the $2000 annual limit. I do not believe that the 1st Amendment argument has any validity for any entities other than living citizens.
The limit should apply donations to any political activity whether it is at party level or an individual running for office.
Even that is a lot of money, potentially! If you consider there are one hundred million eligible voters who could each give $2,000 - that comes to $200 billion dollars!
Even that is not completely fair because there are many more wealthy Republicans who can afford the two grand limit than Democrats ...AG]
---------------/---------------
The News article:
Of all the measures Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is promoting on his special election ballot, none has energized conservatives and threatened Democrats as much as a measure to weaken the political clout of public employee unions.
The initiative would require the unions to get written permission from members each year before using their dues for political purposes. If voters approve it Nov. 8, the initiative could reduce a rich source of campaign cash for Democrats and significantly weaken labor's influence in state politics.
It's a prospect savored by Republicans, who complain that unions, particularly the powerful California Teachers Association, enjoy outsized influence over the Democrat-controlled Legislature.
Supporters of the measure point to last summer's decision by the teachers union to impose a $60 annual dues hike on its members. The money went into a $100 million campaign to fund union and Democrat attacks on Schwarzenegger's "year of reform" agenda.
Campaigning for Proposition 75, Schwarzenegger has focused his attacks on union leadership while trying not to alienate rank-and-file union members — many of whom, polls indicate, are potentially receptive to the measure.
"I belong to the Screen Actors Guild and so I'm very proud to be a union member — I believe very strongly in unions," Schwarzenegger said at a recent voter forum. However, "to have union bosses take money out of a worker's paycheck and use it for political campaigns without permission is wrong. Because that worker maybe doesn't believe in what they put the money into."
About 18 percent of California's work force is unionized, compared to 13 percent nationally, according to estimates by the California Labor Federation. Although Proposition 75 would affect only unions representing public employees, it has galvanized opposition across the state's labor movement, with workers accusing the governor and his supporters of trying to muzzle dissent.
"It's a political power grab by the big corporations. If they silence our voice, they'll have the right to do whatever they want," said Bobby Lux, a 57-year old iron worker who attended a Schwarzenegger protest rally Monday. "If we lose our voice, this country will be a two party system — the very, very rich and the very, very poor."
The most recent special election poll shows likely California voters evenly divided on the measure — 46 percent in favor and 46 percent opposed, with 8 percent undecided.
Despite the furor in California, major national unions and conservative groups have not played a visible role in this year's election. That's a contrast to 1998, when a similar California measure, Proposition 226, became a high-profile national rallying cry for both sides.
That initiative, which would have covered all unions, was rejected overwhelmingly after labor groups spent millions to defeat it.
For Proposition 75, both sides have drafted prominent national politicians to draw visibility to the campaign.
Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) campaigned with Schwarzenegger and endorsed Proposition 75, but said the same principles should be applied to corporations.
Labor leaders brought in Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential nominee. He said Proposition 75 "represents part of an ongoing effort by the Republican Party to create an unfair playing field, to change the balance of democracy in America."
Six states — Michigan, Ohio, Idaho, Washington, Wyoming and Utah — have passed similar union dues measures.
Supporters of Proposition 75 have labeled their initiative the "paycheck protection" measure, an effort to convey that its intentions are to protect the interests of unionized workers.
Its critics say supporters and their corporate sponsors care nothing about workers and instead seek merely to choke off unions' participation in politics. They point to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which showed that business interests outspent unions 24 to 1 in the 2004 election cycle.
Unions already offer members a variety of ways to express their political views and to opt out of using their dues for politics if they choose, critics of the measure argue.
"As opposed to what the purveyors of Prop. 75 say, we already have a very democratic process — unlike an Arnold, who can go to a fundraiser and raise $400,000 in a night," Pulaski said.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Iraq - a new policy...
Those who say the Democrats don't have a plan should read this speech...
Senator Kerry's Speech at Georgetown University
"A few weeks ago I departed Iraq from Mosul. Three Senators and staff were gathered in the forward part of a C-130. In the middle of the cavernous cargo hold was a simple, aluminum coffin with a small American flag draped over it. We were bringing another American soldier, just killed, home to his family and final resting place.
The starkness of his coffin in the center of the hold, the silence except for the din of the engines, was a real time cold reminder of the consequences of decisions for which we Senators share responsibility.
As we arrived in Kuwait, a larger flag was transferred to fully cover his coffin and we joined graves registration personnel in giving him an honor guard as he was ceremoniously carried from plane to a waiting truck. When the doors clunked shut, I wondered why all of America would not be allowed to see him arrive at Dover Air Force Base instead of hiding him from a nation that deserves to mourn together in truth and in the light of day. His lonely journey compels all of us to come to grips with our choices in Iraq.
The Challenge in Iraq:
Now more than 2,000 brave Americans have given their lives, and several hundred thousand more have done everything in their power to wade through the ongoing internal civil strife in Iraq. An Iraq which increasingly is what it was not before the war -- a breeding ground for homegrown terrorists and a magnet for foreign terrorists. We are entering a make or break six month period, and I want to talk about the steps we must take if we hope to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that's not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict.
Kerry Defends The Right to Dissent:
It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it to those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.
In fact, while some say we can't ask tough questions because we are at war, I say no – in a time of war we must ask the hardest questions of all. It's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. No matter what the President says, asking tough questions isn't pessimism, it's patriotism.
The Truth About How We Got Here:
The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration's duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no "slam dunk case" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there's no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise.
I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can't rewind the tape of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, ‘enough blame to go around,' and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of American lives with no end in sight. We each have a responsibility, to our country and our conscience, to be honest about where we should go from here. It is time for those of us who believe in a better course to say so plainly and unequivocally.
Administration's Mistakes Have Narrowed Our Options:
We must begin by acknowledging that our options in Iraq today are not what they should be, or could have been.
The reason is simple. This Administration hitched their wagon to ideologues, excluding those who dared to tell the truth, even leaders of their own party and the uniformed military.
When after September 11th, flags flew from porches across America and foreign newspaper headlines proclaimed "We're all Americans now," the Administration could have kept the world united, but they chose not to. And they were wrong. Instead, they pushed allies away, isolated America, and lost leverage we desperately need today.
When they could have demanded and relied on accurate instead of manipulated intelligence, they chose not to. They were wrong – and instead they sacrificed our credibility at home and abroad.
When they could have given the inspectors time to discover whether Saddam Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction, when they could have paid attention to Ambassador Wilson's report, they chose not to. And they were wrong. Instead they attacked him, and they attacked his wife to justify attacking Iraq. We don't know yet whether this will prove to be an indictable offense in a court of law, but for it, and for misleading a nation into war, they will be indicted in the high court of history. History will judge the invasion of Iraq one of the greatest foreign policy misadventures of all time.
But the mistakes were not limited to the decision to invade. They mounted, one upon another.
When they could have listened to General Shinseki and put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have learned from George Herbert Walker Bush and built a genuine global coalition, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have implemented a detailed State Department plan for reconstructing post-Saddam Iraq, they chose not to. And they were wrong again. When they could have protected American forces by guarding Saddam Hussein's ammo dumps where there were weapons of individual destruction, they exposed our young men and women to the ammo that now maims and kills them because they chose not to act. And they were wrong. When they could have imposed immediate order and structure in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam, Rumsfeld shrugged his shoulders, said Baghdad was safer than Washington, D.C. and chose not to act. He was wrong. When the Administration could have kept an Iraqi army selectively intact, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have kept an entire civil structure functioning to deliver basic services to Iraqi citizens, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have accepted the offers of the United Nations and individual countries to provide on the ground peacekeepers and reconstruction assistance, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they should have leveled with the American people that the insurgency had grown, they chose not to. Vice President Cheney even absurdly claimed that the "insurgency was in its last throes." He was wrong.
Bush Administration: The Real Cut and Run Republicans
Now after all these mistakes, the Administration accuses anyone who proposes a better course of wanting to cut and run. But we are in trouble today precisely because of a policy of cut and run. This administration made the wrong choice to cut and run from sound intelligence and good diplomacy; to cut and run from the best military advice; to cut and run from sensible war time planning; to cut and run from their responsibility to properly arm and protect our troops; to cut and run from history's lessons about the Middle East; to cut and run from common sense.
And still today they cut and run from the truth.
The Kerry Plan: The Path Forward
This difficult road traveled demands the unvarnished truth about the road ahead.
To those who suggest we should withdraw all troops immediately – I say No. A precipitous withdrawal would invite civil and regional chaos and endanger our own security. But to those who rely on the overly simplistic phrase "we will stay as long as it takes," who pretend this is primarily a war against Al Qaeda, and who offer halting, sporadic, diplomatic engagement, I also say – No, that will only lead us into a quagmire.
The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay "as long as it takes." To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays.
The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn. No more shell games, no more false reports of progress, but specific and measurable goals.
It is true that our soldiers increasingly fight side by side with Iraqis willing to put their lives on the line for a better future. But history shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency. The real struggle in Iraq – Sunni versus Shiia – will only be settled by a political solution, and no political solution can be achieved when the antagonists can rely on the indefinite large scale presence of occupying American combat troops.
In fact, because we failed to take advantage of the momentum of our military victory, because we failed to deliver services and let Iraqis choose their leaders early on, our military presence in vast and visible numbers has become part of the problem, not the solution.
The Military Agrees:
And our generals understand this. General George Casey, our top military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence "feeds the notion of occupation" and "extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant." And Richard Nixon's Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, writes, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency." No wonder the Sovereignty Committee of the Iraqi Parliament is already asking for a timetable for withdrawal of our troops; without this, Iraqis believe Iraq will never be its own country.
We must move aggressively to reduce popular support for the insurgency fed by the perception of American occupation. An open-ended declaration to stay ‘as long as it takes' lets Iraqi factions maneuver for their own political advantage by making us stay as long as they want, and it becomes an excuse for billions of American tax dollars to be sent to Iraq and siphoned off into the coffers of cronyism and corruption.
It will be hard for this Administration, but it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down, starting immediately after successful elections in December. The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of next year. If the Administration does its work correctly, that is achievable.
We Need A Political Solution:
Our strategy must achieve a political solution that deprives the Sunni-dominated insurgency of support by giving the Sunnis a stake in the future of their country. The Constitution, opposed by more than two thirds of Sunnis, has postponed and even exacerbated the fundamental crisis of Iraq. The Sunnis want a strong secular national government that fairly distributes oil revenues. Shiites want to control their own region and resources in a loosely united Islamic state. And Kurds simply want to be left alone. Until sufficient compromise is hammered out, a Sunni base can not be created that isolates the hard core Baathists and jihaadists and defuses the insurgency.
We Need a Regional Security Agreement:
The Administration must bring to the table the full weight of all of Iraq's Sunni neighbors. They also have a large stake in a stable Iraq. Instead of just telling us that Iraq is falling apart, as the Saudi foreign minister did recently, they must do their part to put it back together. We've proven ourselves to be a strong ally to many nations in the region. Now it's their turn to do their part.
The administration must immediately call a conference of Iraq's neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia. All of these countries have influence and ties to various parties in Iraq. Together, we must implement a collective strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise. This must include obtaining mutual security guarantees among Iraqis themselves. Shiite and Kurdish leaders need to make a commitment not to perpetrate a bloodbath against Sunnis in the post-election period. In turn, Sunni leaders must end support for the insurgents, including those who are targeting Shiites. And the Kurds must explicitly commit themselves not to declare independence.
To enlist the support of Iraq's Sunni neighbors, we should commit to a new regional security structure that strengthens the security of the countries in the region and the wider community of nations. This requires a phased process including improved security assistance programs, joint exercises, and participation by countries both outside and within the Middle East.
Improve Training:
Simultaneously, the President needs to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them. The Administration must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.
Win the Real War on Terror:
We will never be as safe as we should be if Iraq continues to distract us from the most important war we must win – the war on Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda, and the terrorists that are resurfacing even in Afghanistan. These are the make or break months for Iraq. The President must take a new course, and hold Iraqis accountable. If the President still refuses, Congress must insist on a change in policy. If we do take these steps, there is no reason this difficult process can not be completed in 12-15 months. There is no reason Iraq cannot be sufficiently stable, no reason the majority of our combat troops can't soon be on their way home, and no reason we can't take on a new role in Iraq, as an ally not an occupier, training Iraqis to defend themselves. Only then will we have provided leadership equal to our soldiers' sacrifice – and that is what they deserve."
Senator Kerry's Speech at Georgetown University
"A few weeks ago I departed Iraq from Mosul. Three Senators and staff were gathered in the forward part of a C-130. In the middle of the cavernous cargo hold was a simple, aluminum coffin with a small American flag draped over it. We were bringing another American soldier, just killed, home to his family and final resting place.
The starkness of his coffin in the center of the hold, the silence except for the din of the engines, was a real time cold reminder of the consequences of decisions for which we Senators share responsibility.
As we arrived in Kuwait, a larger flag was transferred to fully cover his coffin and we joined graves registration personnel in giving him an honor guard as he was ceremoniously carried from plane to a waiting truck. When the doors clunked shut, I wondered why all of America would not be allowed to see him arrive at Dover Air Force Base instead of hiding him from a nation that deserves to mourn together in truth and in the light of day. His lonely journey compels all of us to come to grips with our choices in Iraq.
The Challenge in Iraq:
Now more than 2,000 brave Americans have given their lives, and several hundred thousand more have done everything in their power to wade through the ongoing internal civil strife in Iraq. An Iraq which increasingly is what it was not before the war -- a breeding ground for homegrown terrorists and a magnet for foreign terrorists. We are entering a make or break six month period, and I want to talk about the steps we must take if we hope to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that's not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict.
Kerry Defends The Right to Dissent:
It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it to those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.
In fact, while some say we can't ask tough questions because we are at war, I say no – in a time of war we must ask the hardest questions of all. It's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. No matter what the President says, asking tough questions isn't pessimism, it's patriotism.
The Truth About How We Got Here:
The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration's duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no "slam dunk case" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there's no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise.
I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can't rewind the tape of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, ‘enough blame to go around,' and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of American lives with no end in sight. We each have a responsibility, to our country and our conscience, to be honest about where we should go from here. It is time for those of us who believe in a better course to say so plainly and unequivocally.
Administration's Mistakes Have Narrowed Our Options:
We must begin by acknowledging that our options in Iraq today are not what they should be, or could have been.
The reason is simple. This Administration hitched their wagon to ideologues, excluding those who dared to tell the truth, even leaders of their own party and the uniformed military.
When after September 11th, flags flew from porches across America and foreign newspaper headlines proclaimed "We're all Americans now," the Administration could have kept the world united, but they chose not to. And they were wrong. Instead, they pushed allies away, isolated America, and lost leverage we desperately need today.
When they could have demanded and relied on accurate instead of manipulated intelligence, they chose not to. They were wrong – and instead they sacrificed our credibility at home and abroad.
When they could have given the inspectors time to discover whether Saddam Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction, when they could have paid attention to Ambassador Wilson's report, they chose not to. And they were wrong. Instead they attacked him, and they attacked his wife to justify attacking Iraq. We don't know yet whether this will prove to be an indictable offense in a court of law, but for it, and for misleading a nation into war, they will be indicted in the high court of history. History will judge the invasion of Iraq one of the greatest foreign policy misadventures of all time.
But the mistakes were not limited to the decision to invade. They mounted, one upon another.
When they could have listened to General Shinseki and put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have learned from George Herbert Walker Bush and built a genuine global coalition, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have implemented a detailed State Department plan for reconstructing post-Saddam Iraq, they chose not to. And they were wrong again. When they could have protected American forces by guarding Saddam Hussein's ammo dumps where there were weapons of individual destruction, they exposed our young men and women to the ammo that now maims and kills them because they chose not to act. And they were wrong. When they could have imposed immediate order and structure in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam, Rumsfeld shrugged his shoulders, said Baghdad was safer than Washington, D.C. and chose not to act. He was wrong. When the Administration could have kept an Iraqi army selectively intact, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have kept an entire civil structure functioning to deliver basic services to Iraqi citizens, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have accepted the offers of the United Nations and individual countries to provide on the ground peacekeepers and reconstruction assistance, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they should have leveled with the American people that the insurgency had grown, they chose not to. Vice President Cheney even absurdly claimed that the "insurgency was in its last throes." He was wrong.
Bush Administration: The Real Cut and Run Republicans
Now after all these mistakes, the Administration accuses anyone who proposes a better course of wanting to cut and run. But we are in trouble today precisely because of a policy of cut and run. This administration made the wrong choice to cut and run from sound intelligence and good diplomacy; to cut and run from the best military advice; to cut and run from sensible war time planning; to cut and run from their responsibility to properly arm and protect our troops; to cut and run from history's lessons about the Middle East; to cut and run from common sense.
And still today they cut and run from the truth.
The Kerry Plan: The Path Forward
This difficult road traveled demands the unvarnished truth about the road ahead.
To those who suggest we should withdraw all troops immediately – I say No. A precipitous withdrawal would invite civil and regional chaos and endanger our own security. But to those who rely on the overly simplistic phrase "we will stay as long as it takes," who pretend this is primarily a war against Al Qaeda, and who offer halting, sporadic, diplomatic engagement, I also say – No, that will only lead us into a quagmire.
The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay "as long as it takes." To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays.
The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn. No more shell games, no more false reports of progress, but specific and measurable goals.
It is true that our soldiers increasingly fight side by side with Iraqis willing to put their lives on the line for a better future. But history shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency. The real struggle in Iraq – Sunni versus Shiia – will only be settled by a political solution, and no political solution can be achieved when the antagonists can rely on the indefinite large scale presence of occupying American combat troops.
In fact, because we failed to take advantage of the momentum of our military victory, because we failed to deliver services and let Iraqis choose their leaders early on, our military presence in vast and visible numbers has become part of the problem, not the solution.
The Military Agrees:
And our generals understand this. General George Casey, our top military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence "feeds the notion of occupation" and "extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant." And Richard Nixon's Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, writes, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency." No wonder the Sovereignty Committee of the Iraqi Parliament is already asking for a timetable for withdrawal of our troops; without this, Iraqis believe Iraq will never be its own country.
We must move aggressively to reduce popular support for the insurgency fed by the perception of American occupation. An open-ended declaration to stay ‘as long as it takes' lets Iraqi factions maneuver for their own political advantage by making us stay as long as they want, and it becomes an excuse for billions of American tax dollars to be sent to Iraq and siphoned off into the coffers of cronyism and corruption.
It will be hard for this Administration, but it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down, starting immediately after successful elections in December. The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of next year. If the Administration does its work correctly, that is achievable.
We Need A Political Solution:
Our strategy must achieve a political solution that deprives the Sunni-dominated insurgency of support by giving the Sunnis a stake in the future of their country. The Constitution, opposed by more than two thirds of Sunnis, has postponed and even exacerbated the fundamental crisis of Iraq. The Sunnis want a strong secular national government that fairly distributes oil revenues. Shiites want to control their own region and resources in a loosely united Islamic state. And Kurds simply want to be left alone. Until sufficient compromise is hammered out, a Sunni base can not be created that isolates the hard core Baathists and jihaadists and defuses the insurgency.
We Need a Regional Security Agreement:
The Administration must bring to the table the full weight of all of Iraq's Sunni neighbors. They also have a large stake in a stable Iraq. Instead of just telling us that Iraq is falling apart, as the Saudi foreign minister did recently, they must do their part to put it back together. We've proven ourselves to be a strong ally to many nations in the region. Now it's their turn to do their part.
The administration must immediately call a conference of Iraq's neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia. All of these countries have influence and ties to various parties in Iraq. Together, we must implement a collective strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise. This must include obtaining mutual security guarantees among Iraqis themselves. Shiite and Kurdish leaders need to make a commitment not to perpetrate a bloodbath against Sunnis in the post-election period. In turn, Sunni leaders must end support for the insurgents, including those who are targeting Shiites. And the Kurds must explicitly commit themselves not to declare independence.
To enlist the support of Iraq's Sunni neighbors, we should commit to a new regional security structure that strengthens the security of the countries in the region and the wider community of nations. This requires a phased process including improved security assistance programs, joint exercises, and participation by countries both outside and within the Middle East.
Improve Training:
Simultaneously, the President needs to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them. The Administration must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.
Win the Real War on Terror:
We will never be as safe as we should be if Iraq continues to distract us from the most important war we must win – the war on Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda, and the terrorists that are resurfacing even in Afghanistan. These are the make or break months for Iraq. The President must take a new course, and hold Iraqis accountable. If the President still refuses, Congress must insist on a change in policy. If we do take these steps, there is no reason this difficult process can not be completed in 12-15 months. There is no reason Iraq cannot be sufficiently stable, no reason the majority of our combat troops can't soon be on their way home, and no reason we can't take on a new role in Iraq, as an ally not an occupier, training Iraqis to defend themselves. Only then will we have provided leadership equal to our soldiers' sacrifice – and that is what they deserve."
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Iraqis believe attacks on U.S. & British are justified
Why haven't we been told of this? Why do we have to learn this from the foreign press?
I'm sorry, but with only 55% support of the Iraqi people I think we should get the hell out of there as soon as possible! Obviously half of them didn't want to be "saved" from a tyrant and we have no business being there!
After the "weapons of mass destruction" garbage we were fed, the only argument was that we were helping the people of Iraq rid themselves of a despotic tyrant!
I personally questioned whether we should sacrifice American lives to depose a dictator who was not a threat to us in any way - that a people should, if possible, clean up their own houses.
However, what other justifiable reason could we possibly have to be there?
Well, with this poll, assuming that it is true, concerning Iraqi attitudes towards us and the so called coalition -- if I were in charge, I'd say, "Fine, we're outa here!"
This is no longer a ‘liberal vs conservative' nor ‘peacenik vs hawk' nor ‘Democrat vs Conservative' nor ‘Christian vs Fundamentalist' question. This is a question of being where we are generally not wanted and having done things to the Iraqi people we had no right to do in the first place! -- AND having lost virtually 2,000 Americans and raised hell with our economy -- !?
Poll shows Iraqis back attacks on UK, US forces -- Sat Oct 22
LONDON (Reuters) - Forty-five percent of Iraqis believe attacks on U.S. and British troops are justified, according to a secret poll said to have been commissioned by British defense leaders and cited by The Sunday Telegraph.
Less than 1 percent of those polled believed that the forces were responsible for any improvement in security, according to poll figures.
Eighty-two percent of those polled said they were "strongly opposed" to the presence of the troops.
The paper said the poll, conducted in August by an Iraqi university research team, was commissioned by the Ministry of Defense.
Britain has more than 8,000 troops stationed in the south of Iraq, and has had 97 soldiers killed, the most recent the victim of a roadside bomb on Tuesday night.
-------------------------------
Still not completely satisfied by the unsubstantiated Reuters report, I finally dug out the original report from the ‘Sunday Telegraph' in London - as follows:
Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 23/10/2005)
Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.
The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.
It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation.
The nationwide survey also suggests that the coalition has lost the battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which Tony Blair and George W Bush believed was fundamental to creating a safe and secure country.
The results come as it was disclosed yesterday that Lt Col Nick Henderson, the commanding officer of the Coldstream Guards in Basra, in charge of security for the region, has resigned from the Army. He recently voiced concerns over a lack of armoured vehicles for his men, another of whom was killed in a bomb attack in Basra last week.
The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq".
Andrew Robathan, a former member of the SAS and the Tory shadow defence minister, said last night that the poll clearly showed a complete failure of Government policy.
He said: "This clearly states that the Government's hearts-and-minds policy has been disastrous. The coalition is now part of the problem and not the solution.
"I am not advocating a pull-out but if British soldiers are putting their lives on the line for a cause which is not supported by the Iraqi people then we have to ask the question, 'what are we doing there?' "
The Sunday Telegraph disclosed last month that a plan for an early withdrawal of British troops had been shelved because of the failing security situation, sparking claims that Iraq was rapidly becoming "Britain's own Vietnam".
The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:
• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.
The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it.
Under the heading "Justification for Violent Attacks", the new poll shows that 65 per cent of people in Maysan province - one of the four provinces under British control - believe that attacks against coalition forces are justified.
The report states that for Iraq as a whole, 45 per cent of people feel attacks are justified. In Basra, the proportion is reduced to 25 per cent.
The report profiles those likely to carry out attacks against British and American troops as being "less than 26 years of age, more likely to want a job, more likely to have been looking for work in the last four weeks and less likely to have enough money even for their basic needs".
Immediately after the war the coalition embarked on a campaign of reconstruction in which it hoped to improve the electricity supply and the quality of drinking water.
That appears to have failed, with the poll showing that 71 per cent of people rarely get safe clean water, 47 per cent never have enough electricity, 70 per cent say their sewerage system rarely works and 40 per cent of southern Iraqis are unemployed.
But Iraq's President Jalal Talabani pleaded last night for British troops to stay. "There would be chaos and perhaps civil war," he said. "We are now fighting a world war launched by terrorists against civilisation, against democracy, against progress, against all the values of humanity.
"If British troops withdrew, the terrorists would say, 'Look, we have imposed our will on the most accomplished armed forces in the world and terror is the way to oblige the Europeans to surrender to us'."
I'm sorry, but with only 55% support of the Iraqi people I think we should get the hell out of there as soon as possible! Obviously half of them didn't want to be "saved" from a tyrant and we have no business being there!
After the "weapons of mass destruction" garbage we were fed, the only argument was that we were helping the people of Iraq rid themselves of a despotic tyrant!
I personally questioned whether we should sacrifice American lives to depose a dictator who was not a threat to us in any way - that a people should, if possible, clean up their own houses.
However, what other justifiable reason could we possibly have to be there?
Well, with this poll, assuming that it is true, concerning Iraqi attitudes towards us and the so called coalition -- if I were in charge, I'd say, "Fine, we're outa here!"
This is no longer a ‘liberal vs conservative' nor ‘peacenik vs hawk' nor ‘Democrat vs Conservative' nor ‘Christian vs Fundamentalist' question. This is a question of being where we are generally not wanted and having done things to the Iraqi people we had no right to do in the first place! -- AND having lost virtually 2,000 Americans and raised hell with our economy -- !?
Poll shows Iraqis back attacks on UK, US forces -- Sat Oct 22
LONDON (Reuters) - Forty-five percent of Iraqis believe attacks on U.S. and British troops are justified, according to a secret poll said to have been commissioned by British defense leaders and cited by The Sunday Telegraph.
Less than 1 percent of those polled believed that the forces were responsible for any improvement in security, according to poll figures.
Eighty-two percent of those polled said they were "strongly opposed" to the presence of the troops.
The paper said the poll, conducted in August by an Iraqi university research team, was commissioned by the Ministry of Defense.
Britain has more than 8,000 troops stationed in the south of Iraq, and has had 97 soldiers killed, the most recent the victim of a roadside bomb on Tuesday night.
-------------------------------
Still not completely satisfied by the unsubstantiated Reuters report, I finally dug out the original report from the ‘Sunday Telegraph' in London - as follows:
Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 23/10/2005)
Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.
The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.
It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation.
The nationwide survey also suggests that the coalition has lost the battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which Tony Blair and George W Bush believed was fundamental to creating a safe and secure country.
The results come as it was disclosed yesterday that Lt Col Nick Henderson, the commanding officer of the Coldstream Guards in Basra, in charge of security for the region, has resigned from the Army. He recently voiced concerns over a lack of armoured vehicles for his men, another of whom was killed in a bomb attack in Basra last week.
The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq".
Andrew Robathan, a former member of the SAS and the Tory shadow defence minister, said last night that the poll clearly showed a complete failure of Government policy.
He said: "This clearly states that the Government's hearts-and-minds policy has been disastrous. The coalition is now part of the problem and not the solution.
"I am not advocating a pull-out but if British soldiers are putting their lives on the line for a cause which is not supported by the Iraqi people then we have to ask the question, 'what are we doing there?' "
The Sunday Telegraph disclosed last month that a plan for an early withdrawal of British troops had been shelved because of the failing security situation, sparking claims that Iraq was rapidly becoming "Britain's own Vietnam".
The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:
• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.
The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it.
Under the heading "Justification for Violent Attacks", the new poll shows that 65 per cent of people in Maysan province - one of the four provinces under British control - believe that attacks against coalition forces are justified.
The report states that for Iraq as a whole, 45 per cent of people feel attacks are justified. In Basra, the proportion is reduced to 25 per cent.
The report profiles those likely to carry out attacks against British and American troops as being "less than 26 years of age, more likely to want a job, more likely to have been looking for work in the last four weeks and less likely to have enough money even for their basic needs".
Immediately after the war the coalition embarked on a campaign of reconstruction in which it hoped to improve the electricity supply and the quality of drinking water.
That appears to have failed, with the poll showing that 71 per cent of people rarely get safe clean water, 47 per cent never have enough electricity, 70 per cent say their sewerage system rarely works and 40 per cent of southern Iraqis are unemployed.
But Iraq's President Jalal Talabani pleaded last night for British troops to stay. "There would be chaos and perhaps civil war," he said. "We are now fighting a world war launched by terrorists against civilisation, against democracy, against progress, against all the values of humanity.
"If British troops withdrew, the terrorists would say, 'Look, we have imposed our will on the most accomplished armed forces in the world and terror is the way to oblige the Europeans to surrender to us'."
Saturday, October 22, 2005
UN Asks for Reports of U.S. Rights Violations
You know, it really bothers me that my country, a nation which, I was taught many years ago was based on the freedom and rights of people, has apparently become the pariah of the world! I'm sorry, but we should be above that, intellectually, morally and actively. We should be able to freely condemn the Hitler's, Saddam's and Osama's with a clear conscience that we are a good people - and I think that we are - or perhaps could be.
Yet it seems that we are not and that we can not in good conscience condemn any of those people because we behave much as they do. We have our own Stalag in Guantanamo and in other countries. Our own government, which we elected and which represents us, the people, seems to have little respect for the civil rights of even our own people to say nothing of those of other countries.
Actually, we have a government which has for quite some time put the interests of business and capitalism in the name of "the economy" above the people who the government is intended to serve! For many at the bottom of our economic society our own government is the primary terrorist they fear the most from the police on up to the highest levels of government.
The argument we hear incessantly is that we are fighting a war against terrorism.
Well, all mankind has always been fighting wars against terrorism since even before we ventured out of the caves millennia ago. Terrorism has always been a fact of life and 9/11 has been no different than Pearl Harbor nor the massacre in Lawrence, Kansas or the burnings and murders by the Klu Klux Klan after the Civil War and the last century. Even the civil rights movement we all remember was filled with terror perpetrated by those who wanted to keep Niggers in their place in the South and elsewhere.
If you recall, the majority of Southern Democrats, the Dixiecrats, virtually in unison changed their allegiance to the Republican party in defiance of the civil rights laws legislated by the Democratic party when they were in power. In this case, the Republicans were presented with a very mixed blessing. The received the numbers they needed to win elections, but were stuck with ideologies they were not really interested nor even compatible with.
So we do indeed, have evil people in our midst - many in positions of power, who are opposed to any American citizen's civil rights. They seem also to have no regard for the rights of anyone else in the world other than their own tight nit communities of "Christians" and/or money.
They hide themselves behind the banner of Jesus - as though the good Savior Jesus would agree to their egregious tenets and would receive them in exaltation to the Kingdom of Heaven. Indeed, they differ very little in spirit from the Islamic volunteers who have been assured that they will achieve their hyper-sexual fantasies in the next world if they blow themselves up in downtown Baghdad or perhaps in an Israeli restaurant.
So, with this preamble, consider the following post from OneWorld:
Stiffed by U.S., UN Asks Groups to Report on U.S. Rights Violations
Niko Kyriakou, OneWorld US Oct 18
SAN FRANCISCO, October 18 (OneWorld) - In an unprecedented move, a UN committee has asked human and civil rights groups to submit reports and testify on U.S. breaches of international law, filling a gap left by the U.S. government's failure to submit its own report.
The 18-member United Nations Human Rights Committee, which reviews nations' compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, began reviewing country reports Monday and will complete its session on October 24.
But for the third time since ratifying the treaty in 1992, the United States has failed to submit its five-year report to the committee on U.S. violations of the treaty.
The treaty, which entered into force in 1976 and has been signed by 155 countries, outlaws torture or degrading treatment, protects self-determination, and ensures that all people everywhere are treated within the law.
Without a U.S. report, the committee usually skips over discussions of U.S. compliance.
But anticipating an absent U.S. report, the Human Rights Committee took precautions this year.
Last August, the committee sent a letter to a number of U.S.-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the World Organization for Human Rights USA, requesting reports on U.S. transgressions of the treaty, to be used in case the U.S. itself failed to report.
Specifically, the committee's letter requested documentation relating to, "the fight against terrorism following the events of 11 September 2001 and notably the implications of the Patriot Act on nationals as well as non-nationals; and problems relating to the legal status and treatment of persons detained in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Iraq, and other places of detention outside the USA."
The move represents a new level of intensity by the United Nations to hold the United States accountable for what is widely seen by rights groups as an increasing disregard of human rights by the U.S. government at the highest level, and at the same time an elevation of the status of NGOs within the UN system.
"It was a very unusual request. As far as I know it's never happened before," the Executive Director of the World Organization for Human Rights USA, Morton Sklar, told OneWorld.
"It's highly unusual for them to call a special session without a report having been filed," he said.
Sklar testified at the opening of the committee's 85th session on Monday condemning what he called a "wide-ranging set of policies" set forth by the U.S. government that "authorize the use of torture as a means for obtaining intelligence regarding terrorism, and that ignore and seek to restrict the application of a number of key international standards."
"They have claimed these are the acts of a few devious individuals, when the reality is, they are part of a pattern of policies that the U.S. government has sought to condone and excuse in the war against terror," Sklar told OneWorld.
Sklar's report to the Committee focuses on cases of "extraordinary rendition" in which the U.S. has sent suspected terrorists to nations where they can be interrogated using techniques not permitted in the United States, and on the detainment of "unlawful enemy combatants" for indefinite reasons.
The World Organization report also highlights U.S. failures to notify international authorities of the capture and detention of suspected terrorists, and the use of special tribunals to prosecute detainees and other "enemy combatants."
Sklar asked the international community not only to condemn such acts but urged the committee to hold the U.S. government itself, and its officials at the highest levels, accountable.
The ACLU also submitted a 37-page report to the committee describing specific U.S. breaches of the political and civil rights covenant.
The report included sections on "Excessive Government Secrecy"; "Racial Profiling of the U.S. Arab, South Asian, and Muslim Communities"; "Criminalization of Political Protest"; "Increased Surveillance Powers"; and "Random Searches."
Another group, the Meikeljohn Civil Liberties Institute based in Berkeley, California, submitted a report to the committee on 71 U.S. violations, all documented in a book put out this year by the group called, "Challenging U.S. Human Rights Violations since 9/11."
A former circuit county judge representing the group testified before the committee yesterday.
"In our zeal to counter terrorism in the U.S. and abroad, we as a democratic society concerned about our fellow human beings must ensure that our government is not violating the most basic rights of all human beings," the former judge, Claudia Morcom, said in a statement released last week.
The Human Rights Committee's novel request for NGO reports at this October's session was sparked by more than just tardy U.S. reports, says Meiklejohn's executive director, Ann Fagan Ginger.
In fact, the committee's "anger" is part of a wider series of disappointments with the United States throughout the UN system, Ginger told OneWorld.
At the 51-country meeting of the Human Rights Commission last spring, the U.S. behaved "arrogantly," Ginger said, resulting in the Commission's decision to establish a special rapporteur, or advisor to the UN secretary-general, to study human rights violations in the war on terror, specifically in regards to the U.S.
In addition, the UN was dissatisfied with the U.S.'s second report to the United Nations committee reviewing the Convention Against Torture, submitted earlier this year.
While the U.S. report was years overdue, the main complaint was that the document failed to acknowledge any federal violations of the treaty, which prohibits cruel, unusual, or degrading treatment or punishment.
"In the appendix they say we will not discuss Abu Grahib or Guantanamo with you; it's not your business. They said it was not within the purview of that treaty," Ginger said.
Perhaps most infuriating to the international community, Ginger said, was a proposition put forth by John Bolton, the recently appointed U.S. Ambassador to the UN, at the UN World Summit in September.
Bolton proposed removing Article II, Clause IV of the UN Charter, which prohibits UN member nations from using force, or the threat of force, in the settlement of disputes. The measure was defeated, she said.
Some observers, however, point to other events as evidence that the U.S. is beginning to back away from its purported violations of international laws.
For example, in cases determining the legal status of Guantanamo Bay detainees Yaser Hamdi and Shafiq Rasul, the Supreme Court recently ruled that U.S. courts could retain jurisdiction to review the status and treatment of such detainees, even though they are held outside the territorial limits of the U.S.
And a Federal Court in Washington D.C. recently found that the U.S. government could be held responsible for the unlawful detention of a suspected terrorist in a foreign nation if it participated in the process.
President Bush has also withdrawn the legal memoranda that many said authorized the use of torture after the Abu Ghraib scandal raised public awareness of how detainees were being treated.
Yet it seems that we are not and that we can not in good conscience condemn any of those people because we behave much as they do. We have our own Stalag in Guantanamo and in other countries. Our own government, which we elected and which represents us, the people, seems to have little respect for the civil rights of even our own people to say nothing of those of other countries.
Actually, we have a government which has for quite some time put the interests of business and capitalism in the name of "the economy" above the people who the government is intended to serve! For many at the bottom of our economic society our own government is the primary terrorist they fear the most from the police on up to the highest levels of government.
The argument we hear incessantly is that we are fighting a war against terrorism.
Well, all mankind has always been fighting wars against terrorism since even before we ventured out of the caves millennia ago. Terrorism has always been a fact of life and 9/11 has been no different than Pearl Harbor nor the massacre in Lawrence, Kansas or the burnings and murders by the Klu Klux Klan after the Civil War and the last century. Even the civil rights movement we all remember was filled with terror perpetrated by those who wanted to keep Niggers in their place in the South and elsewhere.
If you recall, the majority of Southern Democrats, the Dixiecrats, virtually in unison changed their allegiance to the Republican party in defiance of the civil rights laws legislated by the Democratic party when they were in power. In this case, the Republicans were presented with a very mixed blessing. The received the numbers they needed to win elections, but were stuck with ideologies they were not really interested nor even compatible with.
So we do indeed, have evil people in our midst - many in positions of power, who are opposed to any American citizen's civil rights. They seem also to have no regard for the rights of anyone else in the world other than their own tight nit communities of "Christians" and/or money.
They hide themselves behind the banner of Jesus - as though the good Savior Jesus would agree to their egregious tenets and would receive them in exaltation to the Kingdom of Heaven. Indeed, they differ very little in spirit from the Islamic volunteers who have been assured that they will achieve their hyper-sexual fantasies in the next world if they blow themselves up in downtown Baghdad or perhaps in an Israeli restaurant.
So, with this preamble, consider the following post from OneWorld:
Stiffed by U.S., UN Asks Groups to Report on U.S. Rights Violations
Niko Kyriakou, OneWorld US Oct 18
SAN FRANCISCO, October 18 (OneWorld) - In an unprecedented move, a UN committee has asked human and civil rights groups to submit reports and testify on U.S. breaches of international law, filling a gap left by the U.S. government's failure to submit its own report.
The 18-member United Nations Human Rights Committee, which reviews nations' compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, began reviewing country reports Monday and will complete its session on October 24.
But for the third time since ratifying the treaty in 1992, the United States has failed to submit its five-year report to the committee on U.S. violations of the treaty.
The treaty, which entered into force in 1976 and has been signed by 155 countries, outlaws torture or degrading treatment, protects self-determination, and ensures that all people everywhere are treated within the law.
Without a U.S. report, the committee usually skips over discussions of U.S. compliance.
But anticipating an absent U.S. report, the Human Rights Committee took precautions this year.
Last August, the committee sent a letter to a number of U.S.-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the World Organization for Human Rights USA, requesting reports on U.S. transgressions of the treaty, to be used in case the U.S. itself failed to report.
Specifically, the committee's letter requested documentation relating to, "the fight against terrorism following the events of 11 September 2001 and notably the implications of the Patriot Act on nationals as well as non-nationals; and problems relating to the legal status and treatment of persons detained in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Iraq, and other places of detention outside the USA."
The move represents a new level of intensity by the United Nations to hold the United States accountable for what is widely seen by rights groups as an increasing disregard of human rights by the U.S. government at the highest level, and at the same time an elevation of the status of NGOs within the UN system.
"It was a very unusual request. As far as I know it's never happened before," the Executive Director of the World Organization for Human Rights USA, Morton Sklar, told OneWorld.
"It's highly unusual for them to call a special session without a report having been filed," he said.
Sklar testified at the opening of the committee's 85th session on Monday condemning what he called a "wide-ranging set of policies" set forth by the U.S. government that "authorize the use of torture as a means for obtaining intelligence regarding terrorism, and that ignore and seek to restrict the application of a number of key international standards."
"They have claimed these are the acts of a few devious individuals, when the reality is, they are part of a pattern of policies that the U.S. government has sought to condone and excuse in the war against terror," Sklar told OneWorld.
Sklar's report to the Committee focuses on cases of "extraordinary rendition" in which the U.S. has sent suspected terrorists to nations where they can be interrogated using techniques not permitted in the United States, and on the detainment of "unlawful enemy combatants" for indefinite reasons.
The World Organization report also highlights U.S. failures to notify international authorities of the capture and detention of suspected terrorists, and the use of special tribunals to prosecute detainees and other "enemy combatants."
Sklar asked the international community not only to condemn such acts but urged the committee to hold the U.S. government itself, and its officials at the highest levels, accountable.
The ACLU also submitted a 37-page report to the committee describing specific U.S. breaches of the political and civil rights covenant.
The report included sections on "Excessive Government Secrecy"; "Racial Profiling of the U.S. Arab, South Asian, and Muslim Communities"; "Criminalization of Political Protest"; "Increased Surveillance Powers"; and "Random Searches."
Another group, the Meikeljohn Civil Liberties Institute based in Berkeley, California, submitted a report to the committee on 71 U.S. violations, all documented in a book put out this year by the group called, "Challenging U.S. Human Rights Violations since 9/11."
A former circuit county judge representing the group testified before the committee yesterday.
"In our zeal to counter terrorism in the U.S. and abroad, we as a democratic society concerned about our fellow human beings must ensure that our government is not violating the most basic rights of all human beings," the former judge, Claudia Morcom, said in a statement released last week.
The Human Rights Committee's novel request for NGO reports at this October's session was sparked by more than just tardy U.S. reports, says Meiklejohn's executive director, Ann Fagan Ginger.
In fact, the committee's "anger" is part of a wider series of disappointments with the United States throughout the UN system, Ginger told OneWorld.
At the 51-country meeting of the Human Rights Commission last spring, the U.S. behaved "arrogantly," Ginger said, resulting in the Commission's decision to establish a special rapporteur, or advisor to the UN secretary-general, to study human rights violations in the war on terror, specifically in regards to the U.S.
In addition, the UN was dissatisfied with the U.S.'s second report to the United Nations committee reviewing the Convention Against Torture, submitted earlier this year.
While the U.S. report was years overdue, the main complaint was that the document failed to acknowledge any federal violations of the treaty, which prohibits cruel, unusual, or degrading treatment or punishment.
"In the appendix they say we will not discuss Abu Grahib or Guantanamo with you; it's not your business. They said it was not within the purview of that treaty," Ginger said.
Perhaps most infuriating to the international community, Ginger said, was a proposition put forth by John Bolton, the recently appointed U.S. Ambassador to the UN, at the UN World Summit in September.
Bolton proposed removing Article II, Clause IV of the UN Charter, which prohibits UN member nations from using force, or the threat of force, in the settlement of disputes. The measure was defeated, she said.
Some observers, however, point to other events as evidence that the U.S. is beginning to back away from its purported violations of international laws.
For example, in cases determining the legal status of Guantanamo Bay detainees Yaser Hamdi and Shafiq Rasul, the Supreme Court recently ruled that U.S. courts could retain jurisdiction to review the status and treatment of such detainees, even though they are held outside the territorial limits of the U.S.
And a Federal Court in Washington D.C. recently found that the U.S. government could be held responsible for the unlawful detention of a suspected terrorist in a foreign nation if it participated in the process.
President Bush has also withdrawn the legal memoranda that many said authorized the use of torture after the Abu Ghraib scandal raised public awareness of how detainees were being treated.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Excessive Payments to Miers Law Firm
This following should prove to be interesting. Perhaps it is time for the government to hire a special prosecutor to look into Bush's activities similar to the ‘Whitewater Investigation' thrust upon the Clinton administration. Of course, there is little chance of that with the Republicans controlling the entire government. ...AG
Miers Firm Received Bush Campaign Payments
By FRANK BASS, Associated Press Writer Oct 21
Excerpts with my comments from the this AP post:
George W. Bush's rising political fortunes provided a windfall for Harriet Miers' law firm.
Campaign records show Bush's Texas gubernatorial campaigns paid Miers a total of $163,000 in legal fees, most of it for work done during the future president's 1998 re-election bid.
Senators are planning to explore Miers' legal work for Bush during her confirmation process to be the newest Supreme Court justice, but the White House says it won't release any memos.
Reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission show that two payments of $70,000 were made to Miers' Locke, Purnell, Rain and Harrell firm in Dallas within a month of each other during the 1998 campaign. Another $16,000 in payments were made between March and December 1999.
The 1998 totals dwarfed the $7,000 Bush paid Miers' firm during his first run for governor in 1994, and are extremely large for campaign legal work in Texas, an expert said.
"I'm baffled," said Randall B. Wood, a partner in the Austin firm of Ray, Wood and Bonilla, and former director of Common Cause of Texas. "I've never seen that kind of money spent on a campaign lawyer. It's unprecedented."
The amount received by Locke, Purnell for the 1998 Texas race approaches the national tab for the 2004 Bush presidential re-election campaign, when at least $191,000 was spent on lawyers, Federal Election Commission records show.
In 2000, the Bush presidential campaign spent about $365,000 on legal services, the records show.
The Associated Press reviewed Texas records between 1993 and 2000, although detailed reports weren't available for the last half of 1995. A state commission spokeswoman said the panel had planned to retain all of the records because of their historic significance when Bush became president, but some were misplaced. –
[Yeah, just like many of Bush's National Guard records... and perhaps his DUI arrest records - or perhaps worse?!]
Former Texas Land Commissioner Garry Mauro, a Democrat who was defeated handily by Bush in the 1998 campaign, said both the amount and the timing of the payments are curious. In late September, when Miers' firm received the first of two $70,000 payments, Mauro said he trailed Bush in the polls by 35 points
[- that's 35 percent! Mauro didn't have a chance of winning unless there would be some possible scandal which the lawyers could suppress by buying silence. ...AG]
"If they're spending that kind of money," said Mauro, now an Austin attorney who estimates he spent less than $20,000 on legal fees during the campaign, "they're spending it to protect themselves from something."
A spokeswoman for Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the panel plans to explore the legal work done by Miers' firm for Bush.
[I'm willing to bet they won't find anything. And they used to call Clinton, "slick Willie"!]
A questionnaire sent out last week by Leahy and Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the committee, has asked Miers to "explain how you will resolve any conflicts that may arise by virtue of your service in the Bush Administration, as George W. Bush's personal lawyer, or as the lawyer for George W. Bush's gubernatorial and presidential campaigns."
Miers provided answers to the questionnaire earlier this week, but lawmakers [from both parties] rejected her answers as too vague.
[‘Vague' is in vogue right now. She's not going to say anything.
One could wonder considering this latest revelation, whether her surprising (even to Republicans) appointment to the bench is the result of blackmail?
What a blast that would be with a blackmailer on the Supreme Court for life! This is pure speculation, of course. But it does make you wonder - especially if you read Kitty Kelley's book, "The Family," about the Bushes... and wonder why Kitty isn't being sued! ...AG]
Miers Firm Received Bush Campaign Payments
By FRANK BASS, Associated Press Writer Oct 21
Excerpts with my comments from the this AP post:
George W. Bush's rising political fortunes provided a windfall for Harriet Miers' law firm.
Campaign records show Bush's Texas gubernatorial campaigns paid Miers a total of $163,000 in legal fees, most of it for work done during the future president's 1998 re-election bid.
Senators are planning to explore Miers' legal work for Bush during her confirmation process to be the newest Supreme Court justice, but the White House says it won't release any memos.
Reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission show that two payments of $70,000 were made to Miers' Locke, Purnell, Rain and Harrell firm in Dallas within a month of each other during the 1998 campaign. Another $16,000 in payments were made between March and December 1999.
The 1998 totals dwarfed the $7,000 Bush paid Miers' firm during his first run for governor in 1994, and are extremely large for campaign legal work in Texas, an expert said.
"I'm baffled," said Randall B. Wood, a partner in the Austin firm of Ray, Wood and Bonilla, and former director of Common Cause of Texas. "I've never seen that kind of money spent on a campaign lawyer. It's unprecedented."
The amount received by Locke, Purnell for the 1998 Texas race approaches the national tab for the 2004 Bush presidential re-election campaign, when at least $191,000 was spent on lawyers, Federal Election Commission records show.
In 2000, the Bush presidential campaign spent about $365,000 on legal services, the records show.
The Associated Press reviewed Texas records between 1993 and 2000, although detailed reports weren't available for the last half of 1995. A state commission spokeswoman said the panel had planned to retain all of the records because of their historic significance when Bush became president, but some were misplaced. –
[Yeah, just like many of Bush's National Guard records... and perhaps his DUI arrest records - or perhaps worse?!]
Former Texas Land Commissioner Garry Mauro, a Democrat who was defeated handily by Bush in the 1998 campaign, said both the amount and the timing of the payments are curious. In late September, when Miers' firm received the first of two $70,000 payments, Mauro said he trailed Bush in the polls by 35 points
[- that's 35 percent! Mauro didn't have a chance of winning unless there would be some possible scandal which the lawyers could suppress by buying silence. ...AG]
"If they're spending that kind of money," said Mauro, now an Austin attorney who estimates he spent less than $20,000 on legal fees during the campaign, "they're spending it to protect themselves from something."
A spokeswoman for Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the panel plans to explore the legal work done by Miers' firm for Bush.
[I'm willing to bet they won't find anything. And they used to call Clinton, "slick Willie"!]
A questionnaire sent out last week by Leahy and Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the committee, has asked Miers to "explain how you will resolve any conflicts that may arise by virtue of your service in the Bush Administration, as George W. Bush's personal lawyer, or as the lawyer for George W. Bush's gubernatorial and presidential campaigns."
Miers provided answers to the questionnaire earlier this week, but lawmakers [from both parties] rejected her answers as too vague.
[‘Vague' is in vogue right now. She's not going to say anything.
One could wonder considering this latest revelation, whether her surprising (even to Republicans) appointment to the bench is the result of blackmail?
What a blast that would be with a blackmailer on the Supreme Court for life! This is pure speculation, of course. But it does make you wonder - especially if you read Kitty Kelley's book, "The Family," about the Bushes... and wonder why Kitty isn't being sued! ...AG]
Thursday, October 20, 2005
"Background Noise"?!!
According to Reuters, when reporters asked President Bush how preoccupied the White House was by distractions that include an investigation into whether any of his top aides deliberately outed a CIA operative, a conservative revolt over his nomination of Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court justice and investigations into senior Republican leaders in Congress. Bush told reporters he was concentrating on his work, That he was focused on his job and not on what he called "some background noise."
"There's some background noise here, a lot of chatter, a lot of speculation and opining. But the American people expect me to do my job, and I'm going to," Bush said in the White House Rose Garden.
And folks, that certainly ain't where all the background noise is coming from.
In another Reuter's post the headline states:
"Senate Republicans agree on health cuts.
U.S. Senate Finance Republicans, aiming to find $10 billion in savings, have reached a deal on health care budget cuts and will release details on Thursday afternoon, said an aide to committee chairman Sen. Charles Grassley"
"Senate conservatives had hoped to trim Medicaid, the joint federal-state health program for the poor, by about $10 billion over five years but moderates on the panel pushed for some of the savings to come from Medicare, the federal health program for the elderly."
If my calculation that there are about 20 million recipients of Medicaid and Medicare is correct, the Senate cuts would come to about $100 per person per year. And it can't all be Viagra!
The House is divided over its budget plans, with conservatives pushing for deeper spending cuts.
House Majority Leader Roy Blunt, said he was aiming to present a list of spending reductions to the House floor next week. This could include up to $50 billion in savings over five years on mandatory programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
At ten times the amount of the Senate version - that could come to $500 per recipient per year!
Now, we all know that any program can be trimmed of fat - as I mentioned before - Viagra. But lets face it, Medicare presently doesn't cover other items which it should.
For example, after many years, Medicare finally decided to cover the cost of mammography for women to detect breast cancer. That was good and certainly has saved lives. An equally fatal cancer is the PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) screening blood test for men to detect prostate cancer is not covered by Medicare! (Those two diseases have remarkably similar mortalities!)
That is certainly being ‘penny-wise and dollar foolish' when you consider that it is vastly cheaper to test and prevent than it is to cure - assuming that cure is even possible by the time there are physical symptoms of the disease.
President Bush can enjoy the luxury of ignoring the "background noise" because in less than three years from now he'll enjoy being an exalted civilian back on his ranch in Texas - far away from the sounds of poverty and pain of the people he has failed to serve.
But I wonder whether those ultra conservative Republicans such as Senator Kyle of Arizona who is not a friend of Medicare/Medicaid, can afford to jeopardize their potentially perpetual futures in Washington by kicking their less affluent constituents where it hurts - their health.
Perhaps their lobbyists and business interests can make it worth the risk for these guys.
"There's some background noise here, a lot of chatter, a lot of speculation and opining. But the American people expect me to do my job, and I'm going to," Bush said in the White House Rose Garden.
And folks, that certainly ain't where all the background noise is coming from.
In another Reuter's post the headline states:
"Senate Republicans agree on health cuts.
U.S. Senate Finance Republicans, aiming to find $10 billion in savings, have reached a deal on health care budget cuts and will release details on Thursday afternoon, said an aide to committee chairman Sen. Charles Grassley"
"Senate conservatives had hoped to trim Medicaid, the joint federal-state health program for the poor, by about $10 billion over five years but moderates on the panel pushed for some of the savings to come from Medicare, the federal health program for the elderly."
If my calculation that there are about 20 million recipients of Medicaid and Medicare is correct, the Senate cuts would come to about $100 per person per year. And it can't all be Viagra!
The House is divided over its budget plans, with conservatives pushing for deeper spending cuts.
House Majority Leader Roy Blunt, said he was aiming to present a list of spending reductions to the House floor next week. This could include up to $50 billion in savings over five years on mandatory programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
At ten times the amount of the Senate version - that could come to $500 per recipient per year!
Now, we all know that any program can be trimmed of fat - as I mentioned before - Viagra. But lets face it, Medicare presently doesn't cover other items which it should.
For example, after many years, Medicare finally decided to cover the cost of mammography for women to detect breast cancer. That was good and certainly has saved lives. An equally fatal cancer is the PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) screening blood test for men to detect prostate cancer is not covered by Medicare! (Those two diseases have remarkably similar mortalities!)
That is certainly being ‘penny-wise and dollar foolish' when you consider that it is vastly cheaper to test and prevent than it is to cure - assuming that cure is even possible by the time there are physical symptoms of the disease.
President Bush can enjoy the luxury of ignoring the "background noise" because in less than three years from now he'll enjoy being an exalted civilian back on his ranch in Texas - far away from the sounds of poverty and pain of the people he has failed to serve.
But I wonder whether those ultra conservative Republicans such as Senator Kyle of Arizona who is not a friend of Medicare/Medicaid, can afford to jeopardize their potentially perpetual futures in Washington by kicking their less affluent constituents where it hurts - their health.
Perhaps their lobbyists and business interests can make it worth the risk for these guys.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Just an item or two...
What is going on in the Gulf of Mexico?!!! For me, I'm sure that this hurricane season is a statistical anomaly exacerbated by global warming. But I can imagine the fundamentalist Christians in that area fear that Armageddon is upon us at last! - or at least we sinners are being punished for perhaps electing Bush? (grin)
But seriously, I really feel very, very sorry for those who have suffered and lost everything this season.
Also, I believe that this is primarily a peak in a weather cycle or group of cycles and certainly has nothing to do with George Bush, sin or even Jesus. I would be interested in more definitive scientific information which would indicate whether global warming actually does have a part to play.
The last scenario I'm aware of is that there is a melting of permafrost and the polar ice cap with a resulting increase in ocean volume and coastal submergence but it is unclear to me how that has anything to do with hurricanes or tropical storms.
Although, come to think of it - one fact is that the ice pack melting on Greenland is flowing into the North Atlantic. The cold waters could and might be blocking the Gulf Stream of warm waters flowing north up the east coast in a clock-wise flow about the Atlantic.
If that is happening, the warm waters of the Gulf could be trapped there and become much warmer than usual.
I have also learned from commentaries on this summer's series of storms that the primary reason the storms in the Gulf have been so strong this year is that hurricanes gain strength from warm waters - and they have been warmer than usual.
Strangely, this year is not even an El-Nino nor La-Nina thus one would think somewhat normal - if anything is.
Also, it has just been announced on TV that many football games have been canceled for this next weekend! My goodness! - what are the couch potatoes going to do this weekend?
I note that the stock market is up today (even I made some money) - so perhaps the money people are anticipating a robust economy resulting from yet another rebuilding with non-bid contracts of the deep South with even deeper Federal deficits. And, of course, further profits from selling scarce oil and gas to UNO who. They are already praying for a colder than usual winter along with severe shortages. It seems that large disasters are good for business!
If it gets bad enough, perhaps the people will allow them to drill in the arctic wilderness and other sacrosanct places in Colorado and Montana near the parks - even if they don't really have all that much oil to provide and most certainly won't solve our energy problems.
And finally, if this isn't enough for one day, Tom De Lay is technically under arrest! I won't say that it "Couldn't happen to a nicer guy!" - but I do wonder whether it will have any real effect on his political career...
According to Jeff Franks of Reuters in Houston today, "An arrest warrant was issued on Wednesday and bail set at $10,000 for former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay ahead of his first appearance in court on money laundering and conspiracy charges."
"The warrant ordered by state District Judge Bob Perkins in Austin, Texas, called upon any Texas law enforcement officer to arrest DeLay, but he was expected to turn himself in voluntarily."
He added that "DeLay has been charged with conspiracy and money laundering in a campaign finance scheme tied to his political action committee, Texans for a Republican Majority, or TRMPAC. He could face up to life in prison if convicted."
One thing is certain about Texas law - they don't mess around!
According to Reuters, he is accused of laundering $190,000 in corporate campaign contributions through the Republican National Committee for distribution in 2002 to Republican candidates for the Texas Legislature.
At DeLay's urging, the Republican-led legislature conducted a controversial re-mapping of Texas congressional districts that helped add five Republicans to the U.S. House.
He's also been chastised by the House Ethics Committee over the past year for ethics problems involving lobbyists, fund-raising and foreign travel.
But seriously, I really feel very, very sorry for those who have suffered and lost everything this season.
Also, I believe that this is primarily a peak in a weather cycle or group of cycles and certainly has nothing to do with George Bush, sin or even Jesus. I would be interested in more definitive scientific information which would indicate whether global warming actually does have a part to play.
The last scenario I'm aware of is that there is a melting of permafrost and the polar ice cap with a resulting increase in ocean volume and coastal submergence but it is unclear to me how that has anything to do with hurricanes or tropical storms.
Although, come to think of it - one fact is that the ice pack melting on Greenland is flowing into the North Atlantic. The cold waters could and might be blocking the Gulf Stream of warm waters flowing north up the east coast in a clock-wise flow about the Atlantic.
If that is happening, the warm waters of the Gulf could be trapped there and become much warmer than usual.
I have also learned from commentaries on this summer's series of storms that the primary reason the storms in the Gulf have been so strong this year is that hurricanes gain strength from warm waters - and they have been warmer than usual.
Strangely, this year is not even an El-Nino nor La-Nina thus one would think somewhat normal - if anything is.
Also, it has just been announced on TV that many football games have been canceled for this next weekend! My goodness! - what are the couch potatoes going to do this weekend?
I note that the stock market is up today (even I made some money) - so perhaps the money people are anticipating a robust economy resulting from yet another rebuilding with non-bid contracts of the deep South with even deeper Federal deficits. And, of course, further profits from selling scarce oil and gas to UNO who. They are already praying for a colder than usual winter along with severe shortages. It seems that large disasters are good for business!
If it gets bad enough, perhaps the people will allow them to drill in the arctic wilderness and other sacrosanct places in Colorado and Montana near the parks - even if they don't really have all that much oil to provide and most certainly won't solve our energy problems.
And finally, if this isn't enough for one day, Tom De Lay is technically under arrest! I won't say that it "Couldn't happen to a nicer guy!" - but I do wonder whether it will have any real effect on his political career...
According to Jeff Franks of Reuters in Houston today, "An arrest warrant was issued on Wednesday and bail set at $10,000 for former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay ahead of his first appearance in court on money laundering and conspiracy charges."
"The warrant ordered by state District Judge Bob Perkins in Austin, Texas, called upon any Texas law enforcement officer to arrest DeLay, but he was expected to turn himself in voluntarily."
He added that "DeLay has been charged with conspiracy and money laundering in a campaign finance scheme tied to his political action committee, Texans for a Republican Majority, or TRMPAC. He could face up to life in prison if convicted."
One thing is certain about Texas law - they don't mess around!
According to Reuters, he is accused of laundering $190,000 in corporate campaign contributions through the Republican National Committee for distribution in 2002 to Republican candidates for the Texas Legislature.
At DeLay's urging, the Republican-led legislature conducted a controversial re-mapping of Texas congressional districts that helped add five Republicans to the U.S. House.
He's also been chastised by the House Ethics Committee over the past year for ethics problems involving lobbyists, fund-raising and foreign travel.
Jailing of Reporter
Senators Question Jailing of Reporter
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer
[I'm not sure how I come down on this one. It seems to be the conflict between the right of society to obtain important, vital information against putting the source of the information in possible jeopardy. Unfortunately, as a cousin of mine points out, it is the "messenger" who gets "shot."
Perhaps it would be possible for compromise in such cases by forming a secure ad hoc panel, a neutral jury to be formed with the consent of both parties, the judge and the reporter, who would have the "right to know but not divulge." The panel's only task would be to determine the limits of first amendment protection afforded both the source and the reporter. After all, only an informed panel would have sufficient information to make a fair judgement in that particular case. ....AG]
------------------------------------------
Skeptical senators, concerned over the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller, grilled a Justice Department representative who testified that government procedures for getting information from reporters had worked well for 33 years and didn't need to be altered.
"Here you have a reporter in jail for 85 days and millions of Americans wonder why? I'm one of those," Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) said Wednesday as the Judiciary Committee he heads called Miller and others to testify on a proposed bill that would allow reporters to keep the identity of their sources secret.
The jailing of Miller for refusing to discuss her sources with federal prosecutors investigating the disclosure of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity "has had an obvious chilling effect on other reporters" around the country, said Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican.
Representing the Justice Department, Chuck Rosenberg, a U.S. attorney in Texas, declined to discuss specifics of Miller's case but said, "We should not enter this debate believing that the First Amendment is under assault by the Department of Justice. Manifestly it is not."
Rosenberg said that since 1991 only 12 of 243 subpoenas issued under Justice Department guidelines to news media called for confidential source information.
"We seek information about confidential sources from reporters only when it really, really matters," Rosenberg said. "What is broken about the way we are handling subpoenas to the media? ... I don't see anything in our work that justifies discarding 33 years of careful practice that has served the nation well."
On her way into the hearing, Miller offered a different view: "We need a federal shield law. That's why I'm here. I went through a lot to be able to make this statement."
Miller told Specter that after her jailing the Cleveland Plain-Dealer decided against going forward with two stories to avoid a similar predicament.
"I believe we need a statute," Specter said, because that would give judges responsibility for balancing the need for confidentiality against the demands of national security in such cases.
Former U.S. attorney Joseph DiGenova suggested the committee enact the existing Justice guidelines into law, so reporters could get courts to enforce them because "notwithstanding what they're saying today, they (Justice officials) don't always do that."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., asked Rosenberg if the department would support that, but Rosenberg said even that would be a bad idea because court appeals could delay action at times "when we need to move fast."
"Is that your argument — to have no bill at all?" Feinstein asked.
"Yes," Rosenberg replied.
In her testimony, Miller acknowledged her own stories suggesting Iraq had weapons of mass destruction were flawed by sources with wrong information. But Miller argued that "even flawed reporters should not be jailed for protecting even flawed sources."
Many sources with accurate information needed by the public will provide it only to reporters who promise confidentiality even before the reporter can assess the information, she claimed.
Justice's Rosenberg said in testimony submitted for the record that the bill as drafted would seriously impede the government's ability to "enforce the law, fight terrorism and protect the national security."
Miller's fight has given new life to the federal shield idea that Congress has ignored for decades. Two Indiana Republicans, Rep. Mike Pence (news, bio, voting record) and Sen. Richard Lugar (news, bio, voting record), introduced the Free Flow of Information Act in January. Wednesday's hearing was the second since Miller was locked up.
Plame's name was exposed by columnist Robert Novak in July 2003, eight days after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote in a Times opinion piece that the Bush administration had manipulated intelligence about Iraqi weapons programs to justify going to war. Wilson and others have argued Plame was exposed to intimidate officials critical of President Bush's policies.
Miller, 57, never wrote about Plame but was jailed for contempt of court for not being willing to testify about her sources. She was freed Sept. 29 after saying Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, had released her from her obligation to keep his name secret.
Miller noted that some have said her source "did not deserve confidentiality because his motives were not pure." But she argued that while journalists should try to learn leakers' motives, "what counts far more ... is the truth and significance of what they are saying."
"Those who need anonymity are not only the poor and the powerless, those whose lives or jobs might be in jeopardy if they speak up publicly, but even the powerful," Miller said. "All are entitled to anonymity if they are telling the truth and have something of importance to say to the American people."
The bill would replace Justice Department guidelines designed to make news media subpoenas a tool of last resort. It would ban compelling news media members from identifying sources except where "necessary to prevent imminent and actual harm to national security."
Rosenberg said the Justice Department has "a fundamental objection to the principle of a reporter's privilege as an exception to every citizen's duty to give testimony in a federal criminal proceeding."
He said the bill's standard would "prevent the government from obtaining potentially life-saving source information in a murder-for-hire investigation" and "preclude subpoenaing source information in many cases involving leaks of classified information."
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer
[I'm not sure how I come down on this one. It seems to be the conflict between the right of society to obtain important, vital information against putting the source of the information in possible jeopardy. Unfortunately, as a cousin of mine points out, it is the "messenger" who gets "shot."
Perhaps it would be possible for compromise in such cases by forming a secure ad hoc panel, a neutral jury to be formed with the consent of both parties, the judge and the reporter, who would have the "right to know but not divulge." The panel's only task would be to determine the limits of first amendment protection afforded both the source and the reporter. After all, only an informed panel would have sufficient information to make a fair judgement in that particular case. ....AG]
------------------------------------------
Skeptical senators, concerned over the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller, grilled a Justice Department representative who testified that government procedures for getting information from reporters had worked well for 33 years and didn't need to be altered.
"Here you have a reporter in jail for 85 days and millions of Americans wonder why? I'm one of those," Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) said Wednesday as the Judiciary Committee he heads called Miller and others to testify on a proposed bill that would allow reporters to keep the identity of their sources secret.
The jailing of Miller for refusing to discuss her sources with federal prosecutors investigating the disclosure of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity "has had an obvious chilling effect on other reporters" around the country, said Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican.
Representing the Justice Department, Chuck Rosenberg, a U.S. attorney in Texas, declined to discuss specifics of Miller's case but said, "We should not enter this debate believing that the First Amendment is under assault by the Department of Justice. Manifestly it is not."
Rosenberg said that since 1991 only 12 of 243 subpoenas issued under Justice Department guidelines to news media called for confidential source information.
"We seek information about confidential sources from reporters only when it really, really matters," Rosenberg said. "What is broken about the way we are handling subpoenas to the media? ... I don't see anything in our work that justifies discarding 33 years of careful practice that has served the nation well."
On her way into the hearing, Miller offered a different view: "We need a federal shield law. That's why I'm here. I went through a lot to be able to make this statement."
Miller told Specter that after her jailing the Cleveland Plain-Dealer decided against going forward with two stories to avoid a similar predicament.
"I believe we need a statute," Specter said, because that would give judges responsibility for balancing the need for confidentiality against the demands of national security in such cases.
Former U.S. attorney Joseph DiGenova suggested the committee enact the existing Justice guidelines into law, so reporters could get courts to enforce them because "notwithstanding what they're saying today, they (Justice officials) don't always do that."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., asked Rosenberg if the department would support that, but Rosenberg said even that would be a bad idea because court appeals could delay action at times "when we need to move fast."
"Is that your argument — to have no bill at all?" Feinstein asked.
"Yes," Rosenberg replied.
In her testimony, Miller acknowledged her own stories suggesting Iraq had weapons of mass destruction were flawed by sources with wrong information. But Miller argued that "even flawed reporters should not be jailed for protecting even flawed sources."
Many sources with accurate information needed by the public will provide it only to reporters who promise confidentiality even before the reporter can assess the information, she claimed.
Justice's Rosenberg said in testimony submitted for the record that the bill as drafted would seriously impede the government's ability to "enforce the law, fight terrorism and protect the national security."
Miller's fight has given new life to the federal shield idea that Congress has ignored for decades. Two Indiana Republicans, Rep. Mike Pence (news, bio, voting record) and Sen. Richard Lugar (news, bio, voting record), introduced the Free Flow of Information Act in January. Wednesday's hearing was the second since Miller was locked up.
Plame's name was exposed by columnist Robert Novak in July 2003, eight days after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote in a Times opinion piece that the Bush administration had manipulated intelligence about Iraqi weapons programs to justify going to war. Wilson and others have argued Plame was exposed to intimidate officials critical of President Bush's policies.
Miller, 57, never wrote about Plame but was jailed for contempt of court for not being willing to testify about her sources. She was freed Sept. 29 after saying Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, had released her from her obligation to keep his name secret.
Miller noted that some have said her source "did not deserve confidentiality because his motives were not pure." But she argued that while journalists should try to learn leakers' motives, "what counts far more ... is the truth and significance of what they are saying."
"Those who need anonymity are not only the poor and the powerless, those whose lives or jobs might be in jeopardy if they speak up publicly, but even the powerful," Miller said. "All are entitled to anonymity if they are telling the truth and have something of importance to say to the American people."
The bill would replace Justice Department guidelines designed to make news media subpoenas a tool of last resort. It would ban compelling news media members from identifying sources except where "necessary to prevent imminent and actual harm to national security."
Rosenberg said the Justice Department has "a fundamental objection to the principle of a reporter's privilege as an exception to every citizen's duty to give testimony in a federal criminal proceeding."
He said the bill's standard would "prevent the government from obtaining potentially life-saving source information in a murder-for-hire investigation" and "preclude subpoenaing source information in many cases involving leaks of classified information."
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Republican Calls for Miers to withdraw ...
San Francisco Chronicle - "Calls for Miers to withdraw get louder Moves to mollify critics aren't working." by Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau Friday, October 14, 2005
My question here is, are the Democrats being snookered again by wily Rove, et al? Consider Miers to be ideologically married, hook, line and sinker to the right to life movement without any reservations for judicial caution or analysis on a case by case basis. Yet, despite some good legal credentials, she is considered to be far from Supreme Court quality - or is she?
Consider also that one way to direct attention away from her wild and wooly belief system would be for the Republicans to attack her lack of judicial credentials. What better way to take the wind out of Democrat sails by being the first to point out her shortcomings? The Democrats might not then even attempt a filibuster because they would think they had already won - that even the Republicans agree with them - that is, until the nomination would go to the Senate for an up/down vote!
Thus, I worry much more about her evangelical Christian leanings than her competency as a Supreme Court judge.
In my opinion, given native-born capabilities, IQ, temperament, etc. and a reasonable education and interest in law and society, anyone can ‘rise to the occasion' on the bench, given the circumstances.
In the animal world, if the leader of those critters who live in flocks, packs, etc. are killed or maimed, the leadership is quickly assumed by a subservient member of the group. And believe it or not, the character and temperament of the new leader changes to fit the new job. If you think about it, a leaderless society would be in jeopardy and not survive, evolution obviously does not permit this.
So, has someone who is not a lawyer ever served on the Supreme Court Bench? A Google search tells us: "Although the Supreme Court of the United States has never had a non-lawyer as a Justice, there are a number of state courts with non-lawyers on the bench."
My question here is, are the Democrats being snookered again by wily Rove, et al? Consider Miers to be ideologically married, hook, line and sinker to the right to life movement without any reservations for judicial caution or analysis on a case by case basis. Yet, despite some good legal credentials, she is considered to be far from Supreme Court quality - or is she?
Consider also that one way to direct attention away from her wild and wooly belief system would be for the Republicans to attack her lack of judicial credentials. What better way to take the wind out of Democrat sails by being the first to point out her shortcomings? The Democrats might not then even attempt a filibuster because they would think they had already won - that even the Republicans agree with them - that is, until the nomination would go to the Senate for an up/down vote!
Thus, I worry much more about her evangelical Christian leanings than her competency as a Supreme Court judge.
In my opinion, given native-born capabilities, IQ, temperament, etc. and a reasonable education and interest in law and society, anyone can ‘rise to the occasion' on the bench, given the circumstances.
In the animal world, if the leader of those critters who live in flocks, packs, etc. are killed or maimed, the leadership is quickly assumed by a subservient member of the group. And believe it or not, the character and temperament of the new leader changes to fit the new job. If you think about it, a leaderless society would be in jeopardy and not survive, evolution obviously does not permit this.
So, has someone who is not a lawyer ever served on the Supreme Court Bench? A Google search tells us: "Although the Supreme Court of the United States has never had a non-lawyer as a Justice, there are a number of state courts with non-lawyers on the bench."
Levi Woodbury, named to the Supreme Court by President Polk in 1851, was the first Justice to have formally attended law school. Prior to this, all Justices had gotten their training through apprenticeships, similar to the British system. The apprentice system was in common use through the first century of the Supreme Court's history, and James Byrnes in 1941 was the last Supreme Court Justice trained through apprenticeship.Consider that Supreme Court justices have not always been Federal judges. Again, Google shows us that:
* Former President Taft was named Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Harding in 1921. He remains the only person ever to have served in both offices. [Did you know that President Warren Harding is thought by some to have belonged to the Klu Klux Klan? This is unsubstantiated, of course.
* Earl Warren was the sitting governor of California when President Eisenhower named him Chief Justice in 1953.
* Sandra Day O'Connor, a former member of the Arizona state legislature, was a judge on the Arizona State Court of Appeals when President Reagan named her to the Supreme Court in 1981.
* Chief Justice William Rehnquist was the Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Nixon Administration from 1969 to his confirmation to the Supreme Court in 1971. Prior to that he had worked in private practice in his home state of Arizona and had been a legal advisor to Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign for President.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Welcome...
To those of you who are lucky enough to view this post you will not get any prizes for stopping by since this is a brand new blog!
I promise that I will present op-eds which, hopefully, will titillate those of us who are in the middle and will exasperate those of us who are either religious fundamentalists or those who live on the left bank.
Although, perhaps anyone who is not a Christian fanatic is presumed to be a ‘Libral'?
I promise that I will present op-eds which, hopefully, will titillate those of us who are in the middle and will exasperate those of us who are either religious fundamentalists or those who live on the left bank.
Although, perhaps anyone who is not a Christian fanatic is presumed to be a ‘Libral'?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)