Oh my freaking god!
Did you think it couldn't get worse?
Did you think that the Bushite atrocities reached critical mass with Dubya's arbitrary detention of terror suspects and illegal warrantless spying on us?
Well, guess what: It could actually get a whole lot worse.
From Newsweek:
-----
In the latest twist in the debate over presidential powers, a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States.
-----
[Read more.]
05 February 2006
Deroy Murdock: The real lessons of Brokeback Mountain
In an column published on the Capitol Hill Blue site, Deroy Murdock explains why social conservatives should all see Brokeback Mountain.
Some excerpts:
-----
Having lassoed eight Academy Award nominations, millions more Americans likely will see director Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain." Social conservatives should be among those who catch this widely lauded motion picture.
Socio-cons probably have sidestepped this so-called gay cowboy movie. Too bad. While it hardly screams, "family values," "Brokeback" engages profound issues that merit consideration by those who think seriously about the challenges that families face.
Stylistically, socio-cons need not fear "Brokeback" as a didactic, in-your-face, gay screed. "We're here. We're queer" it is not. Nor is this film a flamboyant camp-fest, like the flighty but hilarious "The Birdcage" or much of "The Producers," both coincidentally starring Nathan Lane.
Indeed, as a romance between two thoroughly masculine ranch hands, "Brokeback" begins to reverse the damage caused by "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and similar offerings that reinforce the stereotype that gay men are indispensable when one needs to select fabulous neckties or striking pastels for stunning interiors. How sad that such entertainment still elicits laughs, even as most Americans would be justifiably outraged at any show titled "Jewish Guy with a Banker's Eye" or "The Mexican Gardening Hour."
Beyond equating same-sex affection with manliness, "Brokeback" addresses important matters on the political agenda.
[...]
"Brokeback Mountain" should prompt social conservatives to ponder whether it is good family policy to encourage gay men to live lives that are traditional yet untrue. Would honest gay marriages be less destructive than deceitful straight ones? I think so. Many disagree. Even if they oppose it, however, seeing this film may give heterosexual marriage proponents a better insight into why so many Americans advocate homosexual marriage.
"Brokeback" also concerns homophobic violence. The October 1998 beating death of gay college student Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyo., the July 1999 fatal baseball-bat attack on gay Army Pvt. Barry Winchell, and the non-lethal assault on gay soldier Kyle Lawson last October, among other incidents, should remind filmgoers that this grave matter was not buried on the Great Plains decades ago.
Beautifully acted, photographed, written, and directed, "Brokeback Mountain" quietly but powerfully asks questions that are relevant today. Americans left, middle and right should see this touching, haunting love story, then give it the thorough mulling over it deserves.
-----
[Read more.]
Some excerpts:
-----
Having lassoed eight Academy Award nominations, millions more Americans likely will see director Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain." Social conservatives should be among those who catch this widely lauded motion picture.
Socio-cons probably have sidestepped this so-called gay cowboy movie. Too bad. While it hardly screams, "family values," "Brokeback" engages profound issues that merit consideration by those who think seriously about the challenges that families face.
Stylistically, socio-cons need not fear "Brokeback" as a didactic, in-your-face, gay screed. "We're here. We're queer" it is not. Nor is this film a flamboyant camp-fest, like the flighty but hilarious "The Birdcage" or much of "The Producers," both coincidentally starring Nathan Lane.
Indeed, as a romance between two thoroughly masculine ranch hands, "Brokeback" begins to reverse the damage caused by "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and similar offerings that reinforce the stereotype that gay men are indispensable when one needs to select fabulous neckties or striking pastels for stunning interiors. How sad that such entertainment still elicits laughs, even as most Americans would be justifiably outraged at any show titled "Jewish Guy with a Banker's Eye" or "The Mexican Gardening Hour."
Beyond equating same-sex affection with manliness, "Brokeback" addresses important matters on the political agenda.
[...]
"Brokeback Mountain" should prompt social conservatives to ponder whether it is good family policy to encourage gay men to live lives that are traditional yet untrue. Would honest gay marriages be less destructive than deceitful straight ones? I think so. Many disagree. Even if they oppose it, however, seeing this film may give heterosexual marriage proponents a better insight into why so many Americans advocate homosexual marriage.
"Brokeback" also concerns homophobic violence. The October 1998 beating death of gay college student Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyo., the July 1999 fatal baseball-bat attack on gay Army Pvt. Barry Winchell, and the non-lethal assault on gay soldier Kyle Lawson last October, among other incidents, should remind filmgoers that this grave matter was not buried on the Great Plains decades ago.
Beautifully acted, photographed, written, and directed, "Brokeback Mountain" quietly but powerfully asks questions that are relevant today. Americans left, middle and right should see this touching, haunting love story, then give it the thorough mulling over it deserves.
-----
[Read more.]
Academy members afraid of "Brokeback Mountain"?
In a piece in the current issue of LA Weekly, Nikki Finke bitch-slaps the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and points out that Brokeback Mountain might not score as many Oscars as it could -- not because it's not a great film, but because it will go unseen by homophobic judges.
An excerpt:
-----
Given that it's Oscar time, I nominate the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for Best Bunch of Hypocrites. That’s because this year’s dirty little secret is the anecdotal evidence pouring in to me about hetero members being unwilling to screen Brokeback Mountain. For a community that takes pride in progressive values, it’s shameful that Hollywood’s homophobia may be on a par with Pat Robertson’s.
Despite the hype you’re reading in the press and on the Internet about Brokeback, with its eight nominations, being the supposed favorite to take home the Best Picture Oscar on March 5, Crash could end up winning. The issue isn’t which film is better. The issue is more like which movie was seen by the Academy. Frankly, I find horrifying each whispered admission to me from Academy members who usually pose as social liberals that they’re disgusted by even the possibility of glimpsing simulated gay sex. Earth to the easily offended: This movie has been criticized for being too sexually tame. Hey, Academy, what are you worried about: that you’ll turn gay or, worse, get a stiffie by just the hint of hunk-on-hunk action?
That Brokeback isn’t the Oscar favorite may have been foreshadowed at the SAG awards, when Crash topped it for best picture and Philip Seymour Hoffman won over Heath Ledger. Remember: Truman Capote was so unthreatening — as compared to the in-your-face sexiness of Ledger looking longingly at Jake Gyllenhaal’s loins — that Johnny Carson used to invite him into the nation’s living rooms as a frequent guest on The Tonight Show.
It’s not that Crash isn’t Oscar-worthy and Brokeback is. Both are good, if flawed, movies. Crash makes up in aesthetic bleakness what it lacks in subtlety -- Los Angeles is a city of minorities divided but colliding, duh! -- but it’s also gripping and powerful. Brokeback gives us something we haven’t seen before -- closet-case sheepherders tastefully presented so they redefine the notion of love. But it’s also slow and ponderous.
Look, I do understand the degree to which the cowboy has been an iconic figure in motion pictures through the ages. Also, that many geriatric Academy members not only worked on oaters, but also worshipped Audie Murphy, Gene Autry, John Wayne and other saddle-sore celluloid heroes. And that only an equally iconic figure like Clint Eastwood could redefine the genre in Unforgiven in a way that didn’t turn off the old-timers. But, jeez, I’m not just talking about the geezers. I’m talking baby boomers and younger Academy members who are sketched out about seeing Brokeback.
Sure, even without seeing the movie, they could feel guilt-tripped or succumb to a herd mentality to vote for the gay-cowboy movie and strike a blow against Republican wedge politics and religious hatemongering. But, if they don’t, then Brokeback may lose for all the Right’s reasons.
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt:
-----
Given that it's Oscar time, I nominate the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for Best Bunch of Hypocrites. That’s because this year’s dirty little secret is the anecdotal evidence pouring in to me about hetero members being unwilling to screen Brokeback Mountain. For a community that takes pride in progressive values, it’s shameful that Hollywood’s homophobia may be on a par with Pat Robertson’s.
Despite the hype you’re reading in the press and on the Internet about Brokeback, with its eight nominations, being the supposed favorite to take home the Best Picture Oscar on March 5, Crash could end up winning. The issue isn’t which film is better. The issue is more like which movie was seen by the Academy. Frankly, I find horrifying each whispered admission to me from Academy members who usually pose as social liberals that they’re disgusted by even the possibility of glimpsing simulated gay sex. Earth to the easily offended: This movie has been criticized for being too sexually tame. Hey, Academy, what are you worried about: that you’ll turn gay or, worse, get a stiffie by just the hint of hunk-on-hunk action?
That Brokeback isn’t the Oscar favorite may have been foreshadowed at the SAG awards, when Crash topped it for best picture and Philip Seymour Hoffman won over Heath Ledger. Remember: Truman Capote was so unthreatening — as compared to the in-your-face sexiness of Ledger looking longingly at Jake Gyllenhaal’s loins — that Johnny Carson used to invite him into the nation’s living rooms as a frequent guest on The Tonight Show.
It’s not that Crash isn’t Oscar-worthy and Brokeback is. Both are good, if flawed, movies. Crash makes up in aesthetic bleakness what it lacks in subtlety -- Los Angeles is a city of minorities divided but colliding, duh! -- but it’s also gripping and powerful. Brokeback gives us something we haven’t seen before -- closet-case sheepherders tastefully presented so they redefine the notion of love. But it’s also slow and ponderous.
Look, I do understand the degree to which the cowboy has been an iconic figure in motion pictures through the ages. Also, that many geriatric Academy members not only worked on oaters, but also worshipped Audie Murphy, Gene Autry, John Wayne and other saddle-sore celluloid heroes. And that only an equally iconic figure like Clint Eastwood could redefine the genre in Unforgiven in a way that didn’t turn off the old-timers. But, jeez, I’m not just talking about the geezers. I’m talking baby boomers and younger Academy members who are sketched out about seeing Brokeback.
Sure, even without seeing the movie, they could feel guilt-tripped or succumb to a herd mentality to vote for the gay-cowboy movie and strike a blow against Republican wedge politics and religious hatemongering. But, if they don’t, then Brokeback may lose for all the Right’s reasons.
-----
[Read more.]
04 February 2006
No blood for bling
Valentine's Day is just around the corner, and many of you will be shopping for diamond jewelry to give to that special someone on this romantic holiday.
But did you know that the cost of that diamond might be far greater than what you see on the price tag? Did you know that someone may have died for your diamond? I'm talking about "conflict diamonds", also known as "blood diamonds".
First of all, don't be alarmed, and don't think that your Valentine's Day (and possibly your marriage) might be ruined if you can't feel good about giving your beloved that sparkling stone. These days, most of the diamonds that find their way into our retail stores are clean, thanks to the Clean Diamond Trade Act of 2003. However, some conflict diamonds still slip through the cracks, due to poor government oversight and unscrupulous jewelers. Concerned shoppers should demand the truth about the diamonds that any jeweler tries to sell you.
Some background: In some African countries, the diamond-rich regions are controlled by armed groups of insurgents. Profits from the diamonds are used to fund these groups' terror tactics and gross human rights abuses against the local population.
In addition, concerns have mounted over possible links between conflict diamonds and al-Qaeda. That alone should make you want to be careful about the diamonds you buy.
The Kimberly Process Certification Scheme, introduced in 2003 in a joint government-industry initiative, is a voluntary system through which shipments of diamonds can be certified as conflict free. In the United States, the Clean Diamond Trade Act provides for enforcement of the Kimberly Process. But there are loopholes, so there is still cause for concern.
Americans consume 65% of the world's diamonds. But Americans also pride themselves on being smart shoppers. By just taking the time to do some research and ask some questions, you can have your diamonds and a clean conscience too.
Some tips:
1. Ask your jeweler about his conflict diamond policy. If he gives you a blank look, or won't assure you that the shop has a policy on conflict diamonds, go elsewhere.
2. If you are told that the shop has a conflict diamond policy, ask to see a hard copy, or at least ensure that the jeweler can explain the policy to your satisfaction. If he can't, go elsewhere.
3. Ensure that the shop's policy includes a provision requiring that its suppliers provide written warranties showing that all diamonds are conflict free.
4. Ensure that the shop is keeping records of the warranties and having those records verified as part of its financial auditing process.
Jewelers need to take this issue seriously. And shoppers of conscience have the power to force them to take it seriously.
Most diamond shoppers very carefully consider the "4 c's" of diamond shopping - clarity, color, cut, and carat. It's time to add another "c" to the list - conflict.
This Valentine's Day and every day, we must stand up for a policy of "no blood for bling."
But did you know that the cost of that diamond might be far greater than what you see on the price tag? Did you know that someone may have died for your diamond? I'm talking about "conflict diamonds", also known as "blood diamonds".
First of all, don't be alarmed, and don't think that your Valentine's Day (and possibly your marriage) might be ruined if you can't feel good about giving your beloved that sparkling stone. These days, most of the diamonds that find their way into our retail stores are clean, thanks to the Clean Diamond Trade Act of 2003. However, some conflict diamonds still slip through the cracks, due to poor government oversight and unscrupulous jewelers. Concerned shoppers should demand the truth about the diamonds that any jeweler tries to sell you.
Some background: In some African countries, the diamond-rich regions are controlled by armed groups of insurgents. Profits from the diamonds are used to fund these groups' terror tactics and gross human rights abuses against the local population.
In addition, concerns have mounted over possible links between conflict diamonds and al-Qaeda. That alone should make you want to be careful about the diamonds you buy.
The Kimberly Process Certification Scheme, introduced in 2003 in a joint government-industry initiative, is a voluntary system through which shipments of diamonds can be certified as conflict free. In the United States, the Clean Diamond Trade Act provides for enforcement of the Kimberly Process. But there are loopholes, so there is still cause for concern.
Americans consume 65% of the world's diamonds. But Americans also pride themselves on being smart shoppers. By just taking the time to do some research and ask some questions, you can have your diamonds and a clean conscience too.
Some tips:
1. Ask your jeweler about his conflict diamond policy. If he gives you a blank look, or won't assure you that the shop has a policy on conflict diamonds, go elsewhere.
2. If you are told that the shop has a conflict diamond policy, ask to see a hard copy, or at least ensure that the jeweler can explain the policy to your satisfaction. If he can't, go elsewhere.
3. Ensure that the shop's policy includes a provision requiring that its suppliers provide written warranties showing that all diamonds are conflict free.
4. Ensure that the shop is keeping records of the warranties and having those records verified as part of its financial auditing process.
Jewelers need to take this issue seriously. And shoppers of conscience have the power to force them to take it seriously.
Most diamond shoppers very carefully consider the "4 c's" of diamond shopping - clarity, color, cut, and carat. It's time to add another "c" to the list - conflict.
This Valentine's Day and every day, we must stand up for a policy of "no blood for bling."
03 February 2006
Downing Street Memo: The sequel
More documentation has surfaced indicating that George W. Bush and Tony Blair had agreed to attack Iraq even though they knew that Hans Blix and his team of UN inspectors would likely find no weapons of mass destruction in that country, and even though it might violate UN policy.
From The Guardian Unlimited (UK):
-----
Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today.
A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.
-----
[Read more.]
Shame!
From The Guardian Unlimited (UK):
-----
Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today.
A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.
-----
[Read more.]
Shame!
Enron e-mail du jour
I'm told that this is real:
-----
From: ralph@censtrat.com
To: rshapiro@enron.com
Date: 19 Dec 2000 15:19 PST
Subject: abramoff
Rick, good to see you today. excited about the prospects of the new office,kitchen cabinet/advisory team, etc. as we discussed, jack abramoff is joining barry richards' law firm,Greenberg Traurig, on january 1. richards was just named lawyer of the yearby the American lawyer while abramoff is arguably the most influential and effective gop lobbyist in congress. i share several clients with him and have yet to see him lose a battle. he also is very close to Delay and could help enormously on that front. raised $ for bush. until december 31 he can be reached at 202-661-3851. he assistant is Susan Ralston.
-----
Read more incriminating Enron communications at The Great Divide.
-----
From: ralph@censtrat.com
To: rshapiro@enron.com
Date: 19 Dec 2000 15:19 PST
Subject: abramoff
Rick, good to see you today. excited about the prospects of the new office,kitchen cabinet/advisory team, etc. as we discussed, jack abramoff is joining barry richards' law firm,Greenberg Traurig, on january 1. richards was just named lawyer of the yearby the American lawyer while abramoff is arguably the most influential and effective gop lobbyist in congress. i share several clients with him and have yet to see him lose a battle. he also is very close to Delay and could help enormously on that front. raised $ for bush. until december 31 he can be reached at 202-661-3851. he assistant is Susan Ralston.
-----
Read more incriminating Enron communications at The Great Divide.
Scooter Libby's trial date moved to conveniently not disrupt Republicans' re-election efforts
Scooter Libby's trial had been set for September 2006, but now it has been moved to January 2007. [Read story.]
How convenient! Now his conviction won't happen until after the 2006 mid-term elections.
Coincidence?
How convenient! Now his conviction won't happen until after the 2006 mid-term elections.
Coincidence?
More missing Plamegate e-mails: The plot thickens
Is Fitzgerald circling in on Rove?
From truthout:
-----
More than two dozen emails sent to various senior Bush administration officials between May 2003 and early July 2003 related to covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, are missing, and the special prosecutor investigating the case suspects that the communications may have been destroyed, according to high level sources close to the two-year old probe.
The sources, who are knowledgeable about Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation and have read hundreds of pages of grand jury testimony, said the emails in question were sent between May and July 2003 by I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, former CIA official Frederick Fleitz, former Cheney aide John Hannah, former Cheney National Security assistant David Wurmser, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John Bolton, and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.
Fitzgerald also suspects that some emails sent to Vice President Cheney by Libby and senior officials at the CIA as well as Libby and Cheney's email replies during this time were not turned over to Fitzgerald's staff.
The sources added that Fitzgerald had learned about the existence of the missing emails during grand jury testimony given by key players in the case, some of whom are now cooperating with the probe in order to avert an indictment for their own roles in the leak.
The emails contained references to Valerie Plame Wilson's identity and CIA status, but did not say that she was an undercover operative of the CIA. Moreover, according to sources, the emails contained suggestions by the officials on how the White House should respond to what it believed were increasingly destructive comments Wilson had been making about the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence.
The witnesses, who are current and former White House officials who are cooperating in the case, told the grand jury that they communicated verbally and through email with Libby and Rove and other senior officials about Wilson's comments to reporters about the administration's intelligence and how the White House should respond to the media regarding that.
Fitzgerald's staff, however, could not locate the email communication the officials disclosed during their grand jury testimony in the thousands of documents his staff had obtained during the course of his investigation.
Fitzgerald's suspicions about the possibility of evidence destruction arose just a few weeks after he took over the probe into the leak of Plame Wilson's undercover CIA status in early 2004. By then, sources close to the case said, he already believed that Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney's then-chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby - who was indicted on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators related to his role in the leak - were hindering his investigation.
-----
[Read more.]
From truthout:
-----
More than two dozen emails sent to various senior Bush administration officials between May 2003 and early July 2003 related to covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, are missing, and the special prosecutor investigating the case suspects that the communications may have been destroyed, according to high level sources close to the two-year old probe.
The sources, who are knowledgeable about Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation and have read hundreds of pages of grand jury testimony, said the emails in question were sent between May and July 2003 by I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, former CIA official Frederick Fleitz, former Cheney aide John Hannah, former Cheney National Security assistant David Wurmser, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John Bolton, and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.
Fitzgerald also suspects that some emails sent to Vice President Cheney by Libby and senior officials at the CIA as well as Libby and Cheney's email replies during this time were not turned over to Fitzgerald's staff.
The sources added that Fitzgerald had learned about the existence of the missing emails during grand jury testimony given by key players in the case, some of whom are now cooperating with the probe in order to avert an indictment for their own roles in the leak.
The emails contained references to Valerie Plame Wilson's identity and CIA status, but did not say that she was an undercover operative of the CIA. Moreover, according to sources, the emails contained suggestions by the officials on how the White House should respond to what it believed were increasingly destructive comments Wilson had been making about the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence.
The witnesses, who are current and former White House officials who are cooperating in the case, told the grand jury that they communicated verbally and through email with Libby and Rove and other senior officials about Wilson's comments to reporters about the administration's intelligence and how the White House should respond to the media regarding that.
Fitzgerald's staff, however, could not locate the email communication the officials disclosed during their grand jury testimony in the thousands of documents his staff had obtained during the course of his investigation.
Fitzgerald's suspicions about the possibility of evidence destruction arose just a few weeks after he took over the probe into the leak of Plame Wilson's undercover CIA status in early 2004. By then, sources close to the case said, he already believed that Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney's then-chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby - who was indicted on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators related to his role in the leak - were hindering his investigation.
-----
[Read more.]
Cheney pulls a Nixon: Possible Plame-related e-mails deleted against White House policy
Remember Plategate?
Maybe these guys felt that it's fine to out a CIA agent and thereby blow the cover of all of her associates because, after all, they've got their own spy thing going on.
From a New York Daily News article as quoted and analyzed in Talking Points Memo:
-----
[Special Prosecutor Patrick] Fitzgerald ... said ... that many e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy.
-----
[Read more.]
I'll bet those deleted e-mails contained some pretty interesting content.
Maybe these guys felt that it's fine to out a CIA agent and thereby blow the cover of all of her associates because, after all, they've got their own spy thing going on.
From a New York Daily News article as quoted and analyzed in Talking Points Memo:
-----
[Special Prosecutor Patrick] Fitzgerald ... said ... that many e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy.
-----
[Read more.]
I'll bet those deleted e-mails contained some pretty interesting content.
02 February 2006
Santorum becomes "E-mail Nazi"; makes it hard for constituents to contact him
I frequently send automated e-mail messages to my senators and other policymakers from various activist sites and e-mail alerts. Virtually all the big NGOs and political organizations have these click-to-take-action things in place.
Some people have told me that they don't bother with these actions, because they're virtual "form letters", and they don't believe that they'll be taken seriously since they're so uniform.
As a volunteer leader with Amnesty International, however, I've seen evidence to the contrary. I have met with former prisoners of conscience who have been freed as a result of the political pressure of so many form letters and petitions.
But Rick Santorum, senator from my own state of Pennsylvania, doesn't want to be bothered with our collective points of view. We have to contact him on his own terms, or else he won't listen (and the perhaps he still won't, but that's a whole other post).
Here is a form-letter auto-response I got from Santorum the last three times I used those activist sites to share my opinions with the person whose job it is to represent me:
-----
Thank you for emailing me. I have detected, however, that your email message was not submitted through my website. Therefore, I am unable to process your email request. Please go to www.santorum.senate.gov and click on the "contact information" link and then select "Email Senator Santorum" at the bottom of the page. If you need further assistance, please feel free to contact my office at:
511 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Telephone: 202-224-6324
Thank you again for contacting me.
-----
Apparently it's OK for him to use an automated form letter.
What a wuss.
Some people have told me that they don't bother with these actions, because they're virtual "form letters", and they don't believe that they'll be taken seriously since they're so uniform.
As a volunteer leader with Amnesty International, however, I've seen evidence to the contrary. I have met with former prisoners of conscience who have been freed as a result of the political pressure of so many form letters and petitions.
But Rick Santorum, senator from my own state of Pennsylvania, doesn't want to be bothered with our collective points of view. We have to contact him on his own terms, or else he won't listen (and the perhaps he still won't, but that's a whole other post).
Here is a form-letter auto-response I got from Santorum the last three times I used those activist sites to share my opinions with the person whose job it is to represent me:
-----
Thank you for emailing me. I have detected, however, that your email message was not submitted through my website. Therefore, I am unable to process your email request. Please go to www.santorum.senate.gov and click on the "contact information" link and then select "Email Senator Santorum" at the bottom of the page. If you need further assistance, please feel free to contact my office at:
511 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Telephone: 202-224-6324
Thank you again for contacting me.
-----
Apparently it's OK for him to use an automated form letter.
What a wuss.
01 February 2006
New State of the Union game: Count the lies
The official transcript of last night's State of the Union speech is available on the White House website.
Read it and count the lies.
Read it and count the lies.
31 January 2006
How to prepare for the State of the Union
George W. Bush's State of the Union address is scheduled to start in one hour. Time to prepare:
• The ACLU's "Spin of the Union": In his fifth State of the Union address, President Bush will undoubtedly attempt to justify his illegal NSA domestic spying program. To help you cut through the rhetoric, we've prepared a "Spin of the Union" guide, listing some of the spin tactics the Bush Administration has been using in recent days. Listen closely during his address and check which spin you hear the most.
• Veteran's Mother's State of Our Family Address: Just read it.
• The State of the Union Address Drinking Game 2006: If all else fails, drown your sorrows. This game will have you passed out under the table 10 minutes into the speech.
• The ACLU's "Spin of the Union": In his fifth State of the Union address, President Bush will undoubtedly attempt to justify his illegal NSA domestic spying program. To help you cut through the rhetoric, we've prepared a "Spin of the Union" guide, listing some of the spin tactics the Bush Administration has been using in recent days. Listen closely during his address and check which spin you hear the most.
• Veteran's Mother's State of Our Family Address: Just read it.
• The State of the Union Address Drinking Game 2006: If all else fails, drown your sorrows. This game will have you passed out under the table 10 minutes into the speech.
Did Gonzales commit perjury at his confirmation hearings?
Remember: This guys is our Attorney General -- charged with ultimate responsibility for enforcing the law of the land.
Read this and feel cheated.
From yesterday's Washington Post:
-----
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he appeared to try to avoid answering a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.
In a letter to the attorney general yesterday, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005. At the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.
Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. He added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.
In fact, the president did secretly authorize the National Security Agency to begin warrantless monitoring of calls and e-mails between the United States and other nations soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The program, publicly revealed in media reports last month, was unknown to Feingold and his staff at the time Feingold questioned Gonzales, according to a staff member. Feingold's aides developed the 2005 questions based on privacy advocates' concerns about broad interpretations of executive power.
-----
[Read more.]
Go get 'im, Russ.
Read this and feel cheated.
From yesterday's Washington Post:
-----
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he appeared to try to avoid answering a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.
In a letter to the attorney general yesterday, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005. At the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.
Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. He added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.
In fact, the president did secretly authorize the National Security Agency to begin warrantless monitoring of calls and e-mails between the United States and other nations soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The program, publicly revealed in media reports last month, was unknown to Feingold and his staff at the time Feingold questioned Gonzales, according to a staff member. Feingold's aides developed the 2005 questions based on privacy advocates' concerns about broad interpretations of executive power.
-----
[Read more.]
Go get 'im, Russ.
Farewell, Coretta.
Breaking news: The amazing Coretta Scott King, widow of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., has died. [Read story.]
And, in a few hours, the Senate will be confirming a new Supreme Court Justice who seems to want to undo a lot of the social progress that Dr. King's movement helped to bring about over the past 50 years.
Very sad.
And, in a few hours, the Senate will be confirming a new Supreme Court Justice who seems to want to undo a lot of the social progress that Dr. King's movement helped to bring about over the past 50 years.
Very sad.
Palace revolt
Newsweek reports: They were loyal conservatives, and Bush appointees. They fought a quiet battle to rein in the president's power in the war on terror. And they paid a price for it.
An excerpt from the February 6 issue:
-----
James Comey, a lanky, 6-foot-8 former prosecutor who looks a little like Jimmy Stewart, resigned as deputy attorney general in the summer of 2005. The press and public hardly noticed. Comey's farewell speech, delivered in the Great Hall of the Justice Department, contained all the predictable, if heartfelt, appreciations. But mixed in among the platitudes was an unusual passage. Comey thanked "people who came to my office, or my home, or called my cell phone late at night, to quietly tell me when I was about to make a mistake; they were the people committed to getting it right—and to doing the right thing—whatever the price. These people," said Comey, "know who they are. Some of them did pay a price for their commitment to right, but they wouldn't have it any other way."
One of those people —- a former assistant attorney general named Jack Goldsmith —- was absent from the festivities and did not, for many months, hear Comey's grateful praise. In the summer of 2004, Goldsmith, 43, had left his post in George W. Bush's Washington to become a professor at Harvard Law School. Stocky, rumpled, genial, though possessing an enormous intellect, Goldsmith is known for his lack of pretense; he rarely talks about his time in government. In liberal Cambridge, Mass., he was at first snubbed in the community and mocked as an atrocity-abetting war criminal by his more knee-jerk colleagues. ICY WELCOME FOR NEW LAW PROF, headlined The Harvard Crimson.
They had no idea. Goldsmith was actually the opposite of what his detractors imagined. For nine months, from October 2003 to June 2004, he had been the central figure in a secret but intense rebellion of a small coterie of Bush administration lawyers. Their insurrection, described to NEWSWEEK by current and former administration officials who did not wish to be identified discussing confidential deliberations, is one of the most significant and intriguing untold stories of the war on terror.
These Justice Department lawyers, backed by their intrepid boss Comey, had stood up to the hard-liners, centered in the office of the vice president, who wanted to give the president virtually unlimited powers in the war on terror. Demanding that the White House stop using what they saw as farfetched rationales for riding rough-shod over the law and the Constitution, Goldsmith and the others fought to bring government spying and interrogation methods within the law. They did so at their peril; ostracized, some were denied promotions, while others left for more comfortable climes in private law firms and academia. Some went so far as to line up private lawyers in 2004, anticipating that the president's eavesdropping program would draw scrutiny from Congress, if not prosecutors. These government attorneys did not always succeed, but their efforts went a long way toward vindicating the principle of a nation of laws and not men.
The rebels were not whistle-blowers in the traditional sense. They did not want —- indeed avoided —- publicity. (Goldsmith confirmed public facts about himself but otherwise declined to comment. Comey also declined to comment.) They were not downtrodden career civil servants. Rather, they were conservative political appointees who had been friends and close colleagues of some of the true believers they were fighting against. They did not see the struggle in terms of black and white but in shades of gray —- as painfully close calls with unavoidable pitfalls. They worried deeply about whether their principles might put Americans at home and abroad at risk. Their story has been obscured behind legalisms and the veil of secrecy over the White House. But it is a quietly dramatic profile in courage. (For its part the White House denies any internal strife. "The proposition of internal division in our fight against terrorism isn't based in fact," says Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Vice President Dick Cheney. "This administration is united in its commitment to protect Americans, defeat terrorism and grow democracy.")
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt from the February 6 issue:
-----
James Comey, a lanky, 6-foot-8 former prosecutor who looks a little like Jimmy Stewart, resigned as deputy attorney general in the summer of 2005. The press and public hardly noticed. Comey's farewell speech, delivered in the Great Hall of the Justice Department, contained all the predictable, if heartfelt, appreciations. But mixed in among the platitudes was an unusual passage. Comey thanked "people who came to my office, or my home, or called my cell phone late at night, to quietly tell me when I was about to make a mistake; they were the people committed to getting it right—and to doing the right thing—whatever the price. These people," said Comey, "know who they are. Some of them did pay a price for their commitment to right, but they wouldn't have it any other way."
One of those people —- a former assistant attorney general named Jack Goldsmith —- was absent from the festivities and did not, for many months, hear Comey's grateful praise. In the summer of 2004, Goldsmith, 43, had left his post in George W. Bush's Washington to become a professor at Harvard Law School. Stocky, rumpled, genial, though possessing an enormous intellect, Goldsmith is known for his lack of pretense; he rarely talks about his time in government. In liberal Cambridge, Mass., he was at first snubbed in the community and mocked as an atrocity-abetting war criminal by his more knee-jerk colleagues. ICY WELCOME FOR NEW LAW PROF, headlined The Harvard Crimson.
They had no idea. Goldsmith was actually the opposite of what his detractors imagined. For nine months, from October 2003 to June 2004, he had been the central figure in a secret but intense rebellion of a small coterie of Bush administration lawyers. Their insurrection, described to NEWSWEEK by current and former administration officials who did not wish to be identified discussing confidential deliberations, is one of the most significant and intriguing untold stories of the war on terror.
These Justice Department lawyers, backed by their intrepid boss Comey, had stood up to the hard-liners, centered in the office of the vice president, who wanted to give the president virtually unlimited powers in the war on terror. Demanding that the White House stop using what they saw as farfetched rationales for riding rough-shod over the law and the Constitution, Goldsmith and the others fought to bring government spying and interrogation methods within the law. They did so at their peril; ostracized, some were denied promotions, while others left for more comfortable climes in private law firms and academia. Some went so far as to line up private lawyers in 2004, anticipating that the president's eavesdropping program would draw scrutiny from Congress, if not prosecutors. These government attorneys did not always succeed, but their efforts went a long way toward vindicating the principle of a nation of laws and not men.
The rebels were not whistle-blowers in the traditional sense. They did not want —- indeed avoided —- publicity. (Goldsmith confirmed public facts about himself but otherwise declined to comment. Comey also declined to comment.) They were not downtrodden career civil servants. Rather, they were conservative political appointees who had been friends and close colleagues of some of the true believers they were fighting against. They did not see the struggle in terms of black and white but in shades of gray —- as painfully close calls with unavoidable pitfalls. They worried deeply about whether their principles might put Americans at home and abroad at risk. Their story has been obscured behind legalisms and the veil of secrecy over the White House. But it is a quietly dramatic profile in courage. (For its part the White House denies any internal strife. "The proposition of internal division in our fight against terrorism isn't based in fact," says Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Vice President Dick Cheney. "This administration is united in its commitment to protect Americans, defeat terrorism and grow democracy.")
-----
[Read more.]
Bush tried to gag environmental expert
As is his typical mode of operation, if Bush doesn't like the truth, he silences the messenger.
And, of course, cutting greenhouse gas emissions would be inconvenient and costly for Bush's corporate bedpartners.
From The Independent (UK):
-----
One of NASA's leading climate experts has accused the Bush administration of trying to censor him on global warming and the need for immediate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said agency officials had ordered that public affairs officers review his lectures, papers and postings on the institute's website as well as vetting requests for interviews from reporters.
The clamp-down followed a lecture he gave last month calling for emission reductions, a move the White House refuses to support. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," said Mr. Hansen, who is ignoring the restrictions placed on him.
[...]
Mr. Hansen has been issuing warnings about climate change since 1988 and has had confrontations with politicians from both Republican and Democratic administrations.
He has twice briefed the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, and other senior officials of this administration. But he provoked their ire shortly before the 2004 presidential election when he complained that government scientists were being silenced and said he would be voting for the Democratic candidate, Senator John Kerry.
In an interview with the The New York Times, Mr. Hansen said the pressure had been stepped up considerably since his speech last month in San Francisco when he said 2005 was probably the hottest year on record.
-----
[Read more.]
And, of course, cutting greenhouse gas emissions would be inconvenient and costly for Bush's corporate bedpartners.
From The Independent (UK):
-----
One of NASA's leading climate experts has accused the Bush administration of trying to censor him on global warming and the need for immediate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said agency officials had ordered that public affairs officers review his lectures, papers and postings on the institute's website as well as vetting requests for interviews from reporters.
The clamp-down followed a lecture he gave last month calling for emission reductions, a move the White House refuses to support. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," said Mr. Hansen, who is ignoring the restrictions placed on him.
[...]
Mr. Hansen has been issuing warnings about climate change since 1988 and has had confrontations with politicians from both Republican and Democratic administrations.
He has twice briefed the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, and other senior officials of this administration. But he provoked their ire shortly before the 2004 presidential election when he complained that government scientists were being silenced and said he would be voting for the Democratic candidate, Senator John Kerry.
In an interview with the The New York Times, Mr. Hansen said the pressure had been stepped up considerably since his speech last month in San Francisco when he said 2005 was probably the hottest year on record.
-----
[Read more.]
Marjorie Cohn: Military hides cause of women soldiers' deaths
The list of Bush administration war crimes just keeps on growing.
From truthout:
-----
In a startling revelation, the former commander of Abu Ghraib prison testified that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former senior US military commander in Iraq, gave orders to cover up the cause of death for some female American soldiers serving in Iraq.
Last week, Col. Janis Karpinski told a panel of judges at the Commission of Inquiry for Crimes against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration in New York that several women had died of dehydration because they refused to drink liquids late in the day. They were afraid of being assaulted or even raped by male soldiers if they had to use the women's latrine after dark.
The latrine for female soldiers at Camp Victory wasn't located near their barracks, so they had to go outside if they needed to use the bathroom. "There were no lights near any of their facilities, so women were doubly easy targets in the dark of the night," Karpinski told retired US Army Col. David Hackworth in a September 2004 interview. It was there that male soldiers assaulted and raped women soldiers. So the women took matters into their own hands. They didn't drink in the late afternoon so they wouldn't have to urinate at night. They didn't get raped. But some died of dehydration in the desert heat, Karpinski said.
Karpinski testified that a surgeon for the coalition's joint task force said in a briefing that "women in fear of getting up in the hours of darkness to go out to the port-a-lets or the latrines were not drinking liquids after 3 or 4 in the afternoon, and in 120 degree heat or warmer, because there was no air-conditioning at most of the facilities, they were dying from dehydration in their sleep."
"And rather than make everybody aware of that - because that's shocking, and as a leader if that's not shocking to you then you're not much of a leader - what they told the surgeon to do is don't brief those details anymore. And don't say specifically that they're women. You can provide that in a written report but don't brief it in the open anymore."
For example, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, Sanchez's top deputy in Iraq, saw "dehydration" listed as the cause of death on the death certificate of a female master sergeant in September 2003. Under orders from Sanchez, he directed that the cause of death no longer be listed, Karpinski stated. The official explanation for this was to protect the women's privacy rights.
Sanchez's attitude was: "The women asked to be here, so now let them take what comes with the territory," Karpinski quoted him as saying. Karpinski told me that Sanchez, who was her boss, was very sensitive to the political ramifications of everything he did. She thinks it likely that when the information about the cause of these women's deaths was passed to the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld ordered that the details not be released. "That's how Rumsfeld works," she said.
"It was out of control," Karpinski told a group of students at Thomas Jefferson School of Law last October. There was an 800 number women could use to report sexual assaults. But no one had a phone, she added. And no one answered that number, which was based in the United States. Any woman who successfully connected to it would get a recording. Even after more than 83 incidents were reported during a six-month period in Iraq and Kuwait, the 24-hour rape hot line was still answered by a machine that told callers to leave a message.
"There were countless such situations all over the theater of operations - Iraq and Kuwait - because female soldiers didn't have a voice, individually or collectively," Karpinski told Hackworth. "Even as a general I didn't have a voice with Sanchez, so I know what the soldiers were facing. Sanchez did not want to hear about female soldier requirements and/or issues."
[...]
Sexual assault in the US military has become a hot topic in the last few years, "not just because of the high number of rapes and other assaults, but also because of the tendency to cover up assaults and to harass or retaliate against women who report assaults," according to Kathy Gilberd, co-chair of the National Lawyers Guild's Military Law Task Force.
[...]
But most shameful is Sanchez's cover-up of the dehydration deaths of women that occurred in Iraq. Sanchez is no stranger to outrageous military orders. He was heavily involved in the torture scandal that surfaced at Abu Ghraib. Sanchez approved the use of unmuzzled dogs and the insertion of prisoners head-first into sleeping bags after which they are tied with an electrical cord and their are mouths covered. At least one person died as the result of the sleeping bag technique. Karpinski charges that Sanchez attempted to hide the torture after the hideous photographs became public.
-----
[Read more.]
From truthout:
-----
In a startling revelation, the former commander of Abu Ghraib prison testified that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former senior US military commander in Iraq, gave orders to cover up the cause of death for some female American soldiers serving in Iraq.
Last week, Col. Janis Karpinski told a panel of judges at the Commission of Inquiry for Crimes against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration in New York that several women had died of dehydration because they refused to drink liquids late in the day. They were afraid of being assaulted or even raped by male soldiers if they had to use the women's latrine after dark.
The latrine for female soldiers at Camp Victory wasn't located near their barracks, so they had to go outside if they needed to use the bathroom. "There were no lights near any of their facilities, so women were doubly easy targets in the dark of the night," Karpinski told retired US Army Col. David Hackworth in a September 2004 interview. It was there that male soldiers assaulted and raped women soldiers. So the women took matters into their own hands. They didn't drink in the late afternoon so they wouldn't have to urinate at night. They didn't get raped. But some died of dehydration in the desert heat, Karpinski said.
Karpinski testified that a surgeon for the coalition's joint task force said in a briefing that "women in fear of getting up in the hours of darkness to go out to the port-a-lets or the latrines were not drinking liquids after 3 or 4 in the afternoon, and in 120 degree heat or warmer, because there was no air-conditioning at most of the facilities, they were dying from dehydration in their sleep."
"And rather than make everybody aware of that - because that's shocking, and as a leader if that's not shocking to you then you're not much of a leader - what they told the surgeon to do is don't brief those details anymore. And don't say specifically that they're women. You can provide that in a written report but don't brief it in the open anymore."
For example, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, Sanchez's top deputy in Iraq, saw "dehydration" listed as the cause of death on the death certificate of a female master sergeant in September 2003. Under orders from Sanchez, he directed that the cause of death no longer be listed, Karpinski stated. The official explanation for this was to protect the women's privacy rights.
Sanchez's attitude was: "The women asked to be here, so now let them take what comes with the territory," Karpinski quoted him as saying. Karpinski told me that Sanchez, who was her boss, was very sensitive to the political ramifications of everything he did. She thinks it likely that when the information about the cause of these women's deaths was passed to the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld ordered that the details not be released. "That's how Rumsfeld works," she said.
"It was out of control," Karpinski told a group of students at Thomas Jefferson School of Law last October. There was an 800 number women could use to report sexual assaults. But no one had a phone, she added. And no one answered that number, which was based in the United States. Any woman who successfully connected to it would get a recording. Even after more than 83 incidents were reported during a six-month period in Iraq and Kuwait, the 24-hour rape hot line was still answered by a machine that told callers to leave a message.
"There were countless such situations all over the theater of operations - Iraq and Kuwait - because female soldiers didn't have a voice, individually or collectively," Karpinski told Hackworth. "Even as a general I didn't have a voice with Sanchez, so I know what the soldiers were facing. Sanchez did not want to hear about female soldier requirements and/or issues."
[...]
Sexual assault in the US military has become a hot topic in the last few years, "not just because of the high number of rapes and other assaults, but also because of the tendency to cover up assaults and to harass or retaliate against women who report assaults," according to Kathy Gilberd, co-chair of the National Lawyers Guild's Military Law Task Force.
[...]
But most shameful is Sanchez's cover-up of the dehydration deaths of women that occurred in Iraq. Sanchez is no stranger to outrageous military orders. He was heavily involved in the torture scandal that surfaced at Abu Ghraib. Sanchez approved the use of unmuzzled dogs and the insertion of prisoners head-first into sleeping bags after which they are tied with an electrical cord and their are mouths covered. At least one person died as the result of the sleeping bag technique. Karpinski charges that Sanchez attempted to hide the torture after the hideous photographs became public.
-----
[Read more.]
U.S. Army detained suspects' daughters, wives as leverage
So now we're kidnapping women and holding them hostage. Even nursing mothers.
God bless America.
From The Seattle Times:
-----
The U.S. Army has been detaining Iraqi women to help track down husbands or fathers who are suspected terrorists, according to documents released Friday and an interview with a female detainee who was released Thursday after four months in prison.
A series of e-mails written by U.S. soldiers and an internal Army memo, all released Friday in response to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, describe two cases of women who were imprisoned because American officials wanted information about their husbands.
The Iraqi woman said Friday that she and eight other female detainees in her cell had talked often among themselves. She discovered that all were being held because U.S. officials had suspected their male relatives of having ties to terrorism. In some cases, men in their families were killed during U.S. raids, the woman alleged.
The woman, whose voice trembled as she told her story, said she did not want to be named because she feared that she or a member of her family would be arrested.
U.S. officials declined to discuss specific cases, including whether the women were held solely because U.S. forces suspected that male relatives were terrorists. But Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, an Army spokesman in Baghdad, said Friday that the U.S. military held only people who were considered threats.
"We recognize insurgents don't work alone. They work in groups. Questioning certainly focuses on who they are associated with," Johnson said. "If we believe they have information or an association with terrorist activity, we would make a determination about exactly what that role may be."
The woman said she was visiting a relative in southwest Baghdad four months ago when multinational forces raided the home. Her relative's husband was killed, she said, and she and her husband were detained.
She said she was held with eight other women in a small room at Baghdad International Airport.
"We were talking about the charges against each of us," she said. "It turned out to be all the same. We were taken because they suspected our husbands or fathers of being terrorists."
She said she was cut off from her family during her capture and that she didn't see or hear from her husband until he, too, was released Thursday.
She said interrogators questioned her extensively during the first 12 days of her imprisonment but also offered her tea and juice.
"I was treated in a good way, no torture," she said.
The U.S. detention of female prisoners is a sensitive issue for the Iraqi populace, which considers the mistreatment of a woman a dishonor to her family. Iraqis find it particularly offensive that foreign male officers are holding female prisoners, as many Iraqis fear that U.S. soldiers will treat them disrespectfully.
Several terrorist groups that are holding hostages — inducing the one that claims responsibility for kidnapping U.S. journalist Jill Carroll — have demanded the release of female prisoners.
U.S. and Iraqi officials have said the decision to release five women Thursday wasn't related to Carroll's kidnapping but was the result of a routine review of detainee cases.
U.S. officials said that after the release of the five, four of the 14,000 prisoners they were holding were female. The Iraqi Justice Ministry said Friday that six women remain in custody.
In a memo written in June 2004 and released Friday, an officer with the Defense Intelligence Agency, whose name was redacted, described the arrest of a 28-year-old woman from Tamiya, northwest of Baghdad. She had three children, including one who was nursing.
U.S. forces raided her in-laws' home, calling her husband the "primary target." Before the raid, soldiers had decided that if the woman were at the in-laws' home, they would detain her "in order to leverage the primary target's surrender," the memo's author wrote.
-----
[Read more.]
God bless America.
From The Seattle Times:
-----
The U.S. Army has been detaining Iraqi women to help track down husbands or fathers who are suspected terrorists, according to documents released Friday and an interview with a female detainee who was released Thursday after four months in prison.
A series of e-mails written by U.S. soldiers and an internal Army memo, all released Friday in response to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, describe two cases of women who were imprisoned because American officials wanted information about their husbands.
The Iraqi woman said Friday that she and eight other female detainees in her cell had talked often among themselves. She discovered that all were being held because U.S. officials had suspected their male relatives of having ties to terrorism. In some cases, men in their families were killed during U.S. raids, the woman alleged.
The woman, whose voice trembled as she told her story, said she did not want to be named because she feared that she or a member of her family would be arrested.
U.S. officials declined to discuss specific cases, including whether the women were held solely because U.S. forces suspected that male relatives were terrorists. But Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, an Army spokesman in Baghdad, said Friday that the U.S. military held only people who were considered threats.
"We recognize insurgents don't work alone. They work in groups. Questioning certainly focuses on who they are associated with," Johnson said. "If we believe they have information or an association with terrorist activity, we would make a determination about exactly what that role may be."
The woman said she was visiting a relative in southwest Baghdad four months ago when multinational forces raided the home. Her relative's husband was killed, she said, and she and her husband were detained.
She said she was held with eight other women in a small room at Baghdad International Airport.
"We were talking about the charges against each of us," she said. "It turned out to be all the same. We were taken because they suspected our husbands or fathers of being terrorists."
She said she was cut off from her family during her capture and that she didn't see or hear from her husband until he, too, was released Thursday.
She said interrogators questioned her extensively during the first 12 days of her imprisonment but also offered her tea and juice.
"I was treated in a good way, no torture," she said.
The U.S. detention of female prisoners is a sensitive issue for the Iraqi populace, which considers the mistreatment of a woman a dishonor to her family. Iraqis find it particularly offensive that foreign male officers are holding female prisoners, as many Iraqis fear that U.S. soldiers will treat them disrespectfully.
Several terrorist groups that are holding hostages — inducing the one that claims responsibility for kidnapping U.S. journalist Jill Carroll — have demanded the release of female prisoners.
U.S. and Iraqi officials have said the decision to release five women Thursday wasn't related to Carroll's kidnapping but was the result of a routine review of detainee cases.
U.S. officials said that after the release of the five, four of the 14,000 prisoners they were holding were female. The Iraqi Justice Ministry said Friday that six women remain in custody.
In a memo written in June 2004 and released Friday, an officer with the Defense Intelligence Agency, whose name was redacted, described the arrest of a 28-year-old woman from Tamiya, northwest of Baghdad. She had three children, including one who was nursing.
U.S. forces raided her in-laws' home, calling her husband the "primary target." Before the raid, soldiers had decided that if the woman were at the in-laws' home, they would detain her "in order to leverage the primary target's surrender," the memo's author wrote.
-----
[Read more.]
Budget cut will hurt poor people on Medicaid (of course)
But talks about a "culture of life", but he means the lives of the rich. Poor families are on their own. If a poor child gets sick, oh well.
Bush is not "pro-life". He's pro-birth. Once you're born, you're on your own -- unless your family happens to be wealthy.
In tonight's State of the Union address, he'll probably tell us how great this plan is.
From yesterday's New York Times via truthout:
-----
Millions of low-income people would have to pay more for health care under a bill worked out by Congress, and some of them would forgo care or drop out of Medicaid because of the higher co-payments and premiums, the Congressional Budget Office says in a new report.
The Senate has already approved the measure, the first major effort to rein in federal benefit programs in eight years, and the House is expected to vote Wednesday, clearing the bill for President Bush.
In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Mr. Bush plans to recommend a variety of steps to help people obtain health insurance and cope with rising health costs. But the bill, the Deficit Reduction Act, written by Congress over the last year with support from the White House, could reduce coverage and increase the number of uninsured, the budget office said.
Over all, the bill is estimated to save $38.8 billion in the next five years and $99.3 billion from 2006 to 2015, with cuts in student loans, crop subsidies and many other programs, the budget office said. Medicaid and Medicare account for half of the savings, 27 percent and 23 percent over 10 years.
[...]
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said the bill was needed because Medicaid had been growing at an unsustainable rate.
But Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, said the budget office report confirmed that the bill would "cut access to care for some of our most vulnerable citizens."
The bill gives states sweeping new authority to charge premiums and co-payments under Medicaid.
"In response to the new premiums, some beneficiaries would not apply for Medicaid, would leave the program or would become ineligible due to nonpayment," the Congressional Budget Office said in its report, completed Friday night. "CBO estimates that about 45,000 enrollees would lose coverage in fiscal year 2010 and that 65,000 would lose coverage in fiscal year 2015 because of the imposition of premiums. About 60 percent of those losing coverage would be children."
-----
[Read more.]
Bush is not "pro-life". He's pro-birth. Once you're born, you're on your own -- unless your family happens to be wealthy.
In tonight's State of the Union address, he'll probably tell us how great this plan is.
From yesterday's New York Times via truthout:
-----
Millions of low-income people would have to pay more for health care under a bill worked out by Congress, and some of them would forgo care or drop out of Medicaid because of the higher co-payments and premiums, the Congressional Budget Office says in a new report.
The Senate has already approved the measure, the first major effort to rein in federal benefit programs in eight years, and the House is expected to vote Wednesday, clearing the bill for President Bush.
In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Mr. Bush plans to recommend a variety of steps to help people obtain health insurance and cope with rising health costs. But the bill, the Deficit Reduction Act, written by Congress over the last year with support from the White House, could reduce coverage and increase the number of uninsured, the budget office said.
Over all, the bill is estimated to save $38.8 billion in the next five years and $99.3 billion from 2006 to 2015, with cuts in student loans, crop subsidies and many other programs, the budget office said. Medicaid and Medicare account for half of the savings, 27 percent and 23 percent over 10 years.
[...]
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said the bill was needed because Medicaid had been growing at an unsustainable rate.
But Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, said the budget office report confirmed that the bill would "cut access to care for some of our most vulnerable citizens."
The bill gives states sweeping new authority to charge premiums and co-payments under Medicaid.
"In response to the new premiums, some beneficiaries would not apply for Medicaid, would leave the program or would become ineligible due to nonpayment," the Congressional Budget Office said in its report, completed Friday night. "CBO estimates that about 45,000 enrollees would lose coverage in fiscal year 2010 and that 65,000 would lose coverage in fiscal year 2015 because of the imposition of premiums. About 60 percent of those losing coverage would be children."
-----
[Read more.]
30 January 2006
NOW statement on today's vote to end the Alito debate
Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) just released this statement about today's cloture vote on the Alito nomination:
-----
We commend the 25 honorable senators, led by John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, who voted on principle today -- choosing a valiant stand for justice over weak-kneed capitulation to George Bush's stacking of the Supreme Court.
Today's vote is the only Alito vote that really counts. Votes against Alito tomorrow are irrelevant, and no senator who voted "Yes" today can hide behind a "No" vote tomorrow.
Supporters of women's rights, civil rights and the separation of powers lost this pivotal battle because senators who should have been fighting for their constituents chose not to do so. But in the process we exposed the despicable agenda of the right wing, and their unrelenting determination to undermine our rights and liberties.
This is the first of many fights for the soul of our democracy, and we will eventually emerge victorious.
-----
We commend the 25 honorable senators, led by John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, who voted on principle today -- choosing a valiant stand for justice over weak-kneed capitulation to George Bush's stacking of the Supreme Court.
Today's vote is the only Alito vote that really counts. Votes against Alito tomorrow are irrelevant, and no senator who voted "Yes" today can hide behind a "No" vote tomorrow.
Supporters of women's rights, civil rights and the separation of powers lost this pivotal battle because senators who should have been fighting for their constituents chose not to do so. But in the process we exposed the despicable agenda of the right wing, and their unrelenting determination to undermine our rights and liberties.
This is the first of many fights for the soul of our democracy, and we will eventually emerge victorious.
Senate votes for cloture on Alito debate
This is a sad day. And it's looking like it will be an even sadder day tomorrow when they take the final vote.
This country is headed in a very bad direction.
From the New York Times via truthout:
-----
The nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. for the Supreme Court cleared an all-important procedural hurdle in the Senate this afternoon as liberal Democrats failed to muster enough support to block a vote on his confirmation.
The Senate voted, 72 to 25, to shut off debate and hold a vote on confirmation Tuesday morning. Sixty votes are needed to shut off debate, and 41 to keep one going, so opponents of the nominee fell far short this afternoon.
Some Democrats and at least one Republican who voted to end debate are certain to oppose the nominee in the actual confirmation vote on Tuesday. But since only a simple majority is required for confirmation, Samuel Alito could be a member of the Supreme Court by Tuesday afternoon.
The futile attempt to prevent a confirmation vote was led by Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry, both of Massachusetts. Mr. Kennedy said Judge Alito's decisions "demonstrate a systematic tilt toward powerful institutions and against individuals attempting to vindicate their rights."
"How can a clear record like that possibly justify a lifetime position on the Supreme Court?" Mr. Kennedy asked.
Mr. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, said the Judge Alito had shown patterns that "demonstrate a hostility to the disadvantaged and the poor."
Judge Alito, who has been on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for 15 years, would replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The nominee's critics say his record as a judge, and his earlier work as a lawyer in the Reagan administration, signal that he would tilt the tribunal further to the right, in favor of presidential power and big business and away from personal freedom and the rights of ordinary Americans.
-----
[Read more.]
This country is headed in a very bad direction.
From the New York Times via truthout:
-----
The nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. for the Supreme Court cleared an all-important procedural hurdle in the Senate this afternoon as liberal Democrats failed to muster enough support to block a vote on his confirmation.
The Senate voted, 72 to 25, to shut off debate and hold a vote on confirmation Tuesday morning. Sixty votes are needed to shut off debate, and 41 to keep one going, so opponents of the nominee fell far short this afternoon.
Some Democrats and at least one Republican who voted to end debate are certain to oppose the nominee in the actual confirmation vote on Tuesday. But since only a simple majority is required for confirmation, Samuel Alito could be a member of the Supreme Court by Tuesday afternoon.
The futile attempt to prevent a confirmation vote was led by Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry, both of Massachusetts. Mr. Kennedy said Judge Alito's decisions "demonstrate a systematic tilt toward powerful institutions and against individuals attempting to vindicate their rights."
"How can a clear record like that possibly justify a lifetime position on the Supreme Court?" Mr. Kennedy asked.
Mr. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, said the Judge Alito had shown patterns that "demonstrate a hostility to the disadvantaged and the poor."
Judge Alito, who has been on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for 15 years, would replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The nominee's critics say his record as a judge, and his earlier work as a lawyer in the Reagan administration, signal that he would tilt the tribunal further to the right, in favor of presidential power and big business and away from personal freedom and the rights of ordinary Americans.
-----
[Read more.]
State of the Union: What Bush will say, what you should know
Your homework:
The Center for American Progress has put together a rather comprehensive list of talking points that Bush will probably use tomorrow in his State of the Union address, along with the real facts.
[Read and compare.]
The Center for American Progress has put together a rather comprehensive list of talking points that Bush will probably use tomorrow in his State of the Union address, along with the real facts.
[Read and compare.]
Spinning the State of the Union
In a very good column in Saturday's Boston Globe, Robert Kuttner examines various possibilities of how Bush will twist the facts in tomorrow's State of the Union address to paint a rosy picture.
An excerpt:
-----
How do YOU give an upbeat State of the Union address when your major foreign policy, Iraq, is a quagmire; your signature domestic program, Medicare drugs, is a bomb; and nearly two thirds of Americans, according to the latest Gallup Poll, think the country is worse off than five years ago?
Here are a few things to watch for in President Bush's first big election-year speech Tuesday:
Mission Accomplished? On Iraq, look for rhetoric of steady resolve, coupled with promises to limit American exposure. Bush could offer a partial reduction of US combat troops during 2006 (in time for the mid-term election) -- but without any realistic prospect of a stable Iraqi government to fill the vacuum. One idea: a "garrison strategy" of keeping most US forces safely inside bases. This might cut American combat losses, but cede the countryside to guerrilla fighters and anarchy.
The Boy Who Cried Nukes. On Iran, watch for stern saber-rattling without a realistic plan to contain Iran's alarming nuclear ambitions.
[...]
Last Refuge of a Scoundrel. Bush will demand that Congress extend the so-called USA Patriot Act, even though he insists that he doesn't need it in order to spy on Americans and conduct searches without warrants. Which is it, Mr. President? Bad law, or bad lawlessness?
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt:
-----
How do YOU give an upbeat State of the Union address when your major foreign policy, Iraq, is a quagmire; your signature domestic program, Medicare drugs, is a bomb; and nearly two thirds of Americans, according to the latest Gallup Poll, think the country is worse off than five years ago?
Here are a few things to watch for in President Bush's first big election-year speech Tuesday:
Mission Accomplished? On Iraq, look for rhetoric of steady resolve, coupled with promises to limit American exposure. Bush could offer a partial reduction of US combat troops during 2006 (in time for the mid-term election) -- but without any realistic prospect of a stable Iraqi government to fill the vacuum. One idea: a "garrison strategy" of keeping most US forces safely inside bases. This might cut American combat losses, but cede the countryside to guerrilla fighters and anarchy.
The Boy Who Cried Nukes. On Iran, watch for stern saber-rattling without a realistic plan to contain Iran's alarming nuclear ambitions.
[...]
Last Refuge of a Scoundrel. Bush will demand that Congress extend the so-called USA Patriot Act, even though he insists that he doesn't need it in order to spy on Americans and conduct searches without warrants. Which is it, Mr. President? Bad law, or bad lawlessness?
-----
[Read more.]
Dennis Kucinich: The truth about the state of our union
Tomorrow evening, George W. Bush will give his annual State of the Union address. He will most likely tell us that the economy is thriving and that he is willing the war on terror.
In anticipation, Congressman Dennis Kucinich wrote a very good article in the Huffington Post about the real state of the union.
An excerpt:
-----
On Tuesday night President Bush will stand before the Congress and the nation to deliver his annual State of the Union address. We are sure to hear a rosy tale of an economy on the rebound, a blossoming democracy in Iraq, a terror network on the run, and a Gulf Coast region rebuilding better and stronger than ever before.
As is most often the case with this Administration, the rhetoric does not match reality.
The facts are clear. Our economy is struggling and leaving tens of millions of Americans behind. According to the non-partisan National Journal, since President Bush first stood before Congress and the nation in 2001, the median income in this country has decreased, the jobless rate has jumped from 3.9% to 4.9% and the number of families living in poverty has increased from 8.7% to 10.2%. Our trade deficit has doubled. Inflation has gone up. Personal bankruptcies have gone up. Consumer debt has gone up. College tuition has gone up. And, the price of gas has gone up. All the while, this Administration has turned a $128 billion federal budget surplus into a $319 billion deficit.
Today, almost 6 million more Americans do not have any health insurance than when President Bush took office. In total, over 45.5 million Americans, or over 15% of our total population, have no health care coverage at all.
During his 2003 address, President Bush told the nation that Saddam Hussein "had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax", "materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin", "as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" and "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents".
Today, almost three years after the start of the President's war of choice, we know Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, had no connection to al-Qaeda and posed no threat to our nation. Yet, our armed forces are bogged down in the middle of civil war that our own generals say cannot be won by military force. Our presence in Iraq is counterproductive and has cost the lives of over 2,200 US troops and $250 billion.
President Bush has delivered four State of the Union addresses since the attacks on our nation on 9/11. In four speeches, the President has never once mentioned Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the terror attacks on this nation. The status of the FBI's most wanted man apparently is not important to the state of our union. Yet, in the same four speeches, President Bush has mentioned Saddam Hussein 24 times, and Iraq 78 times.
-----
[Read more.]
In anticipation, Congressman Dennis Kucinich wrote a very good article in the Huffington Post about the real state of the union.
An excerpt:
-----
On Tuesday night President Bush will stand before the Congress and the nation to deliver his annual State of the Union address. We are sure to hear a rosy tale of an economy on the rebound, a blossoming democracy in Iraq, a terror network on the run, and a Gulf Coast region rebuilding better and stronger than ever before.
As is most often the case with this Administration, the rhetoric does not match reality.
The facts are clear. Our economy is struggling and leaving tens of millions of Americans behind. According to the non-partisan National Journal, since President Bush first stood before Congress and the nation in 2001, the median income in this country has decreased, the jobless rate has jumped from 3.9% to 4.9% and the number of families living in poverty has increased from 8.7% to 10.2%. Our trade deficit has doubled. Inflation has gone up. Personal bankruptcies have gone up. Consumer debt has gone up. College tuition has gone up. And, the price of gas has gone up. All the while, this Administration has turned a $128 billion federal budget surplus into a $319 billion deficit.
Today, almost 6 million more Americans do not have any health insurance than when President Bush took office. In total, over 45.5 million Americans, or over 15% of our total population, have no health care coverage at all.
During his 2003 address, President Bush told the nation that Saddam Hussein "had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax", "materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin", "as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" and "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents".
Today, almost three years after the start of the President's war of choice, we know Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, had no connection to al-Qaeda and posed no threat to our nation. Yet, our armed forces are bogged down in the middle of civil war that our own generals say cannot be won by military force. Our presence in Iraq is counterproductive and has cost the lives of over 2,200 US troops and $250 billion.
President Bush has delivered four State of the Union addresses since the attacks on our nation on 9/11. In four speeches, the President has never once mentioned Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the terror attacks on this nation. The status of the FBI's most wanted man apparently is not important to the state of our union. Yet, in the same four speeches, President Bush has mentioned Saddam Hussein 24 times, and Iraq 78 times.
-----
[Read more.]
29 January 2006
More fun with Sam Alito
Today's Albany Times Union features a pretty good column about Judge Alito, political partisanship, and the frightening prospect of a more conservative Supreme Court.
Will Alito's confirmation be finalized just in time to give Bush one more thing to smirk about when he delivers his State of the Union address on Tuesday night?
An excerpt from the Times Union piece:
-----
An ominous cloud hangs over Judge Samuel Alito as the Senate Republican steamroller ushers him into a fitting for a Supreme Court robe.
The problem is that we cannot believe this certifiably right-wing jurist who is about to win a lifetime appointment to our highest court. To judge by his judicial record, he is a political opportunist with a hidden agenda, even though he claims not to have one. At least not one he is brave enough to own up to.
Under oath, he testified he would keep "an open mind" on the question of whether to retain the limited constitutional protection of abortion rights. Yet if his mind is open, it is only by a very small crack. Not even my slim kitten could worm her way through that one.
Abortion was not the only issue at stake but it dominated the debate. A crowd of abortion opponents cheered him this week as their savior -- the justice who would help overturn Roe vs. Wade and toss a woman's privacy rights to the vagaries of state law.
They seemed to know something the senators don't. Likewise, abortion proponents stepped up their futile campaign against him because evidence of his hostility to abortion kept mounting. They, too, instinctively knew something about Alito he wasn't acknowledging. "He has voted to restrict the rights (such as access to abortion) that Americans hold dear," Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y, warned.
The first Democrat to come out early for Alito was Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who said he was taking the nominee "for his word." On Thursday he was joined by Sens. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and Tim Johnson, S.D.
Nelson is up for re-election this year in a conservative Midwestern state and has his own complex reservations about abortion rights.
Earlier in the week, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats voted unanimously against Alito and their Republican colleagues voted unanimously for him. The Republicans called the Democrats partisan, insisting that Alito be judged on his qualifications alone; the Democrats called the Republicans right-wing robots, insisting that judicial philosophy really does matter.
But nobody was going to judge Alito strictly on his judicial neutrality and temperament. The high court is now as polarized as the rest of government. It was President Bush's pick and he took full advantage of it, after first selecting Harriet Miers, who was dumped for being insufficiently conservative for the right wing.
A highly partisan Supreme Court is not a good thing for the country. The fact is Bush can get away with tilting the court to the right because he has a Senate majority of 55 votes. Traditionally, senators vote in lock-step along party lines when it comes to major issues. And the Democrats have no stomach for a filibuster, which would probably fail anyway.
So with Alito's all-but certain confirmation we will now have to live with an ultra-conservative high court. The scales of justice will tilt against the little guy; it is only a matter of how far.
-----
[Read more.]
Will Alito's confirmation be finalized just in time to give Bush one more thing to smirk about when he delivers his State of the Union address on Tuesday night?
An excerpt from the Times Union piece:
-----
An ominous cloud hangs over Judge Samuel Alito as the Senate Republican steamroller ushers him into a fitting for a Supreme Court robe.
The problem is that we cannot believe this certifiably right-wing jurist who is about to win a lifetime appointment to our highest court. To judge by his judicial record, he is a political opportunist with a hidden agenda, even though he claims not to have one. At least not one he is brave enough to own up to.
Under oath, he testified he would keep "an open mind" on the question of whether to retain the limited constitutional protection of abortion rights. Yet if his mind is open, it is only by a very small crack. Not even my slim kitten could worm her way through that one.
Abortion was not the only issue at stake but it dominated the debate. A crowd of abortion opponents cheered him this week as their savior -- the justice who would help overturn Roe vs. Wade and toss a woman's privacy rights to the vagaries of state law.
They seemed to know something the senators don't. Likewise, abortion proponents stepped up their futile campaign against him because evidence of his hostility to abortion kept mounting. They, too, instinctively knew something about Alito he wasn't acknowledging. "He has voted to restrict the rights (such as access to abortion) that Americans hold dear," Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y, warned.
The first Democrat to come out early for Alito was Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who said he was taking the nominee "for his word." On Thursday he was joined by Sens. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and Tim Johnson, S.D.
Nelson is up for re-election this year in a conservative Midwestern state and has his own complex reservations about abortion rights.
Earlier in the week, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats voted unanimously against Alito and their Republican colleagues voted unanimously for him. The Republicans called the Democrats partisan, insisting that Alito be judged on his qualifications alone; the Democrats called the Republicans right-wing robots, insisting that judicial philosophy really does matter.
But nobody was going to judge Alito strictly on his judicial neutrality and temperament. The high court is now as polarized as the rest of government. It was President Bush's pick and he took full advantage of it, after first selecting Harriet Miers, who was dumped for being insufficiently conservative for the right wing.
A highly partisan Supreme Court is not a good thing for the country. The fact is Bush can get away with tilting the court to the right because he has a Senate majority of 55 votes. Traditionally, senators vote in lock-step along party lines when it comes to major issues. And the Democrats have no stomach for a filibuster, which would probably fail anyway.
So with Alito's all-but certain confirmation we will now have to live with an ultra-conservative high court. The scales of justice will tilt against the little guy; it is only a matter of how far.
-----
[Read more.]
28 January 2006
Mark Morford: Here is the big gay agenda
SF Gate's Mark Morford continues to demonstrate why he's one of my favorite columnists.
In his latest masterpiece, he once again goes after the painfully repressed right-wing homophobes, and he speaks the truth in his own inimitable style.
Some excerpts:
-----
I have spoken with my gay friends. I have been to yoga classes and men's health spas and Restoration Hardware, chic rug shops and the Castro Starbucks and really cute restaurants featuring mixed baby greens that cost $12. I have observed. I have taken notes. I have checked the fashions and the cars and the skin-tight T-shirts, the newsletters and the bumper stickers and the secret codes hidden within the rainbow flag.
It is time to come clean. It is time to reveal the truth. After all, the religious right has been hammering at it for years, the pseudo-Christians and the homophobes and the sexually terrified all fully and truly believing that there is a plot, a massive, deep-seated agenda among the gay community not only to decriminalize and demystify homosexuality but to actually coerce and cajole and actively lure the innocent white babies of America into the sordid and well-dressed "gay lifestyle," so much so that, much like aliens living in underground cities in Area 51, well, there must be something to it.
[...]
Do you want to know the real gay agenda, what 96.8 percent of all gay couples wish for every single day including Sunday? Here it is:
From what I can glean and above all else, the gay people of America seem to want this simply inexcusable level of boundless, unchecked normalcy. It's true. For some reason, they believe the utterly disgusting idea that they should be able to live their lives in peace and trust and health, with full support and assistance from their schools and hospitals and government, just like everyone else. I know. Shudder.
It is, in fact, remarkably similar to what heteros want. And women. And black people. And immigrants. And dwarves. That is, to be able to fall in love and maybe even get married (or at least have the option) and have decreasing amounts of sex and raise a family and hold down a good job and pay their taxes and argue with their lovers over who the hell spent 200 bucks on long distance to their mother, all while not having to worry about getting the living crap beaten out of them with tire chains by Arkansas and Alabama and most of Texas, or secretly loathed by small-minded pseudo-Christians who wouldn't know Jesus' true message if it bit them on the other cheek.
Ah, the deviousness of it all, the sheer nerve to desire the same sort of lives as everyone else. But do you want to know the kicker? The true aspect of the "gay agenda" that makes the religious right's skin really crawl? Here it is: When all of that normalcy is in place, when these repulsive gay beings who like to walk around in public and eat at restaurants and drink their lattes and laugh out loud and stick things into each other's bodies for sexual pleasure, well, they want the most appalling thing of all: They just want to be left alone.
I know. It's hideous. How dare they! How dare most gays ask not to be harassed and not really care to flaunt their sexuality or convince anyone that homosexuality is cool or righteous or the only way to be, beyond reassuring children that it's OK to be whatever religion or sexual orientation your mind and body and heart and soul guide you to be. Can you imagine? What horror. Ignorant, intolerant schoolteachers should protest that nasty idea right now. Oh wait.
This is, in fact, the most sinister gay agenda of all. Normalcy. Lack of fear. Happiness. The right to be miserably in love just like everyone else and have it recognized by the culture as, well, no big deal. Safe. Healthy. Beautiful, even. What nerve.
[...]
[G]ay people do not seem to care in the slightest for converting anyone to homosexuality, which of course would be the equivalent of converting a frying pan into a doorknob. It simply cannot be done. It's bitterly sad that this must be repeated so frequently in terms so simple that even [mindless dittoheads] can comprehend, but gayness is no more a lifestyle choice than is blond hair or blood type or that knowledge, deep down in your skin, that Bush is raping the soul of the nation. It just is.
-----
[Read more.]
In his latest masterpiece, he once again goes after the painfully repressed right-wing homophobes, and he speaks the truth in his own inimitable style.
Some excerpts:
-----
I have spoken with my gay friends. I have been to yoga classes and men's health spas and Restoration Hardware, chic rug shops and the Castro Starbucks and really cute restaurants featuring mixed baby greens that cost $12. I have observed. I have taken notes. I have checked the fashions and the cars and the skin-tight T-shirts, the newsletters and the bumper stickers and the secret codes hidden within the rainbow flag.
It is time to come clean. It is time to reveal the truth. After all, the religious right has been hammering at it for years, the pseudo-Christians and the homophobes and the sexually terrified all fully and truly believing that there is a plot, a massive, deep-seated agenda among the gay community not only to decriminalize and demystify homosexuality but to actually coerce and cajole and actively lure the innocent white babies of America into the sordid and well-dressed "gay lifestyle," so much so that, much like aliens living in underground cities in Area 51, well, there must be something to it.
[...]
Do you want to know the real gay agenda, what 96.8 percent of all gay couples wish for every single day including Sunday? Here it is:
From what I can glean and above all else, the gay people of America seem to want this simply inexcusable level of boundless, unchecked normalcy. It's true. For some reason, they believe the utterly disgusting idea that they should be able to live their lives in peace and trust and health, with full support and assistance from their schools and hospitals and government, just like everyone else. I know. Shudder.
It is, in fact, remarkably similar to what heteros want. And women. And black people. And immigrants. And dwarves. That is, to be able to fall in love and maybe even get married (or at least have the option) and have decreasing amounts of sex and raise a family and hold down a good job and pay their taxes and argue with their lovers over who the hell spent 200 bucks on long distance to their mother, all while not having to worry about getting the living crap beaten out of them with tire chains by Arkansas and Alabama and most of Texas, or secretly loathed by small-minded pseudo-Christians who wouldn't know Jesus' true message if it bit them on the other cheek.
Ah, the deviousness of it all, the sheer nerve to desire the same sort of lives as everyone else. But do you want to know the kicker? The true aspect of the "gay agenda" that makes the religious right's skin really crawl? Here it is: When all of that normalcy is in place, when these repulsive gay beings who like to walk around in public and eat at restaurants and drink their lattes and laugh out loud and stick things into each other's bodies for sexual pleasure, well, they want the most appalling thing of all: They just want to be left alone.
I know. It's hideous. How dare they! How dare most gays ask not to be harassed and not really care to flaunt their sexuality or convince anyone that homosexuality is cool or righteous or the only way to be, beyond reassuring children that it's OK to be whatever religion or sexual orientation your mind and body and heart and soul guide you to be. Can you imagine? What horror. Ignorant, intolerant schoolteachers should protest that nasty idea right now. Oh wait.
This is, in fact, the most sinister gay agenda of all. Normalcy. Lack of fear. Happiness. The right to be miserably in love just like everyone else and have it recognized by the culture as, well, no big deal. Safe. Healthy. Beautiful, even. What nerve.
[...]
[G]ay people do not seem to care in the slightest for converting anyone to homosexuality, which of course would be the equivalent of converting a frying pan into a doorknob. It simply cannot be done. It's bitterly sad that this must be repeated so frequently in terms so simple that even [mindless dittoheads] can comprehend, but gayness is no more a lifestyle choice than is blond hair or blood type or that knowledge, deep down in your skin, that Bush is raping the soul of the nation. It just is.
-----
[Read more.]
27 January 2006
US army changes execution rules
I'm really late in reporting this story. (Sorry. Blame my day job.)
This story hit the news earlier this week. The implications are disturbing.
From BBC News:
-----
New rules covering the death penalty in military courts suggest the US army may be preparing for its first execution since 1961.
The new rules spell out the procedures for carrying out death sentences imposed at courts martial.
There are six men on death row, all held at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas.
[...]
The new rules are acknowledged by senior ranks as a major revision of the existing situation.
The revision also makes it possible for executions to take place at any military prison, not just Fort Leavenworth.
This, according to anti-death penalty protesters, means it would be technically legal for executions to take place at Guantanamo Bay.
-----
[Read more.]
This story hit the news earlier this week. The implications are disturbing.
From BBC News:
-----
New rules covering the death penalty in military courts suggest the US army may be preparing for its first execution since 1961.
The new rules spell out the procedures for carrying out death sentences imposed at courts martial.
There are six men on death row, all held at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas.
[...]
The new rules are acknowledged by senior ranks as a major revision of the existing situation.
The revision also makes it possible for executions to take place at any military prison, not just Fort Leavenworth.
This, according to anti-death penalty protesters, means it would be technically legal for executions to take place at Guantanamo Bay.
-----
[Read more.]
The case against lethal injection goes to the Supreme Court
This past Tuesday, Florida death row inmate Clarence Hill was strapped to a gurney with the IV lines already inserted into his arms when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal.
This particular case is not a question of Hill's guilt or innocence, per se. It is much more complicated. Hill is allegedly mentally retarded. Also, his case has brought into question some technical concerns about lethal injection and the extreme pain it can cause in many cases, constituting cruel and unusual punishment.
I feel a long-winded rant coming on, so stay tuned.
Meantime, here's Hill's story via CNN:
-----
Hours after staying the execution of an inmate who was already strapped to a gurney, the Supreme Court said Wednesday it would hear arguments from the man who claims the drug cocktail used in lethal injections can cause excruciating pain.
Lethal injections are used in most states that have capital punishment, and there's been a growing dispute over the way they are carried out.
The Supreme Court has never found a specific form of execution to be cruel and unusual punishment, and the latest case from Florida does not give court members that opportunity. The justices will, however, spell out what options are available to inmates with last-minute challenges to the way they will be put to death.
Florida inmate Clarence Hill, who filed the appeal, had been strapped to a gurney with intravenous lines running into his arms Tuesday night when he won a temporary Supreme Court stay, Hill's lawyer said. The stay was signed by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
The full court announced Wednesday that the stay would be permanent until justices decide whether an appeals court was wrong to prevent Hill from challenging the lethal injection method.
The argument is expected April 26, with a ruling before July.
[...]
Hill argues that the doses of three chemicals used in Florida executions -- sodium pentothal, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride -- can cause pain. The first drug is a pain killer. The second one paralyzes the inmate and the third causes a fatal heart attack.
The final drug, potassium chloride, "burns intensely as it courses through the veins toward the heart," Doss wrote in the appeal. He said there is "a foreseeable risk of the gratuitous and unnecessary infliction of pain."
[...]
The case is Hill v. Florida, 05-8794.
-----
[Read more.]
This particular case is not a question of Hill's guilt or innocence, per se. It is much more complicated. Hill is allegedly mentally retarded. Also, his case has brought into question some technical concerns about lethal injection and the extreme pain it can cause in many cases, constituting cruel and unusual punishment.
I feel a long-winded rant coming on, so stay tuned.
Meantime, here's Hill's story via CNN:
-----
Hours after staying the execution of an inmate who was already strapped to a gurney, the Supreme Court said Wednesday it would hear arguments from the man who claims the drug cocktail used in lethal injections can cause excruciating pain.
Lethal injections are used in most states that have capital punishment, and there's been a growing dispute over the way they are carried out.
The Supreme Court has never found a specific form of execution to be cruel and unusual punishment, and the latest case from Florida does not give court members that opportunity. The justices will, however, spell out what options are available to inmates with last-minute challenges to the way they will be put to death.
Florida inmate Clarence Hill, who filed the appeal, had been strapped to a gurney with intravenous lines running into his arms Tuesday night when he won a temporary Supreme Court stay, Hill's lawyer said. The stay was signed by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
The full court announced Wednesday that the stay would be permanent until justices decide whether an appeals court was wrong to prevent Hill from challenging the lethal injection method.
The argument is expected April 26, with a ruling before July.
[...]
Hill argues that the doses of three chemicals used in Florida executions -- sodium pentothal, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride -- can cause pain. The first drug is a pain killer. The second one paralyzes the inmate and the third causes a fatal heart attack.
The final drug, potassium chloride, "burns intensely as it courses through the veins toward the heart," Doss wrote in the appeal. He said there is "a foreseeable risk of the gratuitous and unnecessary infliction of pain."
[...]
The case is Hill v. Florida, 05-8794.
-----
[Read more.]
Felix G. Rohatyn: "Dead to the world"
Yesterday's New York Times featured an op-ed column by Felix Rohatyn, a former U.S. ambassador to France, in which he talks about how our use of the death penalty affects how we're perceived by our European friends.
An excerpt:
-----
During my four years as the American ambassador to France, I discovered that no single issue was viewed with as much hostility as our support for the death penalty. Outlawed by every member of the European Union, the death penalty was, and is, viewed in Europe as a throwback to the Middle Ages. When we require European support on security issues — Iran's nuclear program; the war in Iraq; North Korea's bomb; relations with China and Russia; the Middle East peace process — our job is made more difficult by the intensity of popular opposition in Europe to our policy.
Several years ago, Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke to the senior staff of our embassy in Paris on this issue to help them explain our position to a very hostile French audience. I was agreeably surprised when he indicated his belief that sooner or later, we would have to take into account the views of Europeans in determining what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment."
Last March, the Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, abolished capital punishment for juvenile offenders, concluding that the death penalty for minors is indeed cruel and unusual punishment. "Our determination," Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority decision, "finds confirmation in the stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty."
While, unsurprisingly, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, it is notable that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed with Justice Kennedy that international trends affect the meaning of "cruel and unusual punishment." Justices Scalia and Thomas, on the other hand, took the majority to task for taking "guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislators."
This attitude, reflecting a narrow and parochial view of the issue, is also found in Judge Samuel Alito's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his nomination to the Supreme Court: "I don't think it appropriate or useful to look to foreign law in interpreting the provisions of our Constitution. I think the framers would be stunned by the idea that the Bill of Rights is to be interpreted by taking a poll of countries of the world."
To the contrary, globalization has made it not only "appropriate or useful" but vital to look at foreign laws. It is in our interest to be aware of their impact whether they concern antitrust, food safety or the death penalty. Contempt for the laws of our allies is a major factor in our increasing isolation in the world; our present posture in Iraq reflects that reality. That is why is it is deeply troubling that the next member of the Supreme Court will most likely share Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas's point of view.
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt:
-----
During my four years as the American ambassador to France, I discovered that no single issue was viewed with as much hostility as our support for the death penalty. Outlawed by every member of the European Union, the death penalty was, and is, viewed in Europe as a throwback to the Middle Ages. When we require European support on security issues — Iran's nuclear program; the war in Iraq; North Korea's bomb; relations with China and Russia; the Middle East peace process — our job is made more difficult by the intensity of popular opposition in Europe to our policy.
Several years ago, Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke to the senior staff of our embassy in Paris on this issue to help them explain our position to a very hostile French audience. I was agreeably surprised when he indicated his belief that sooner or later, we would have to take into account the views of Europeans in determining what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment."
Last March, the Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, abolished capital punishment for juvenile offenders, concluding that the death penalty for minors is indeed cruel and unusual punishment. "Our determination," Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority decision, "finds confirmation in the stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty."
While, unsurprisingly, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, it is notable that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed with Justice Kennedy that international trends affect the meaning of "cruel and unusual punishment." Justices Scalia and Thomas, on the other hand, took the majority to task for taking "guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislators."
This attitude, reflecting a narrow and parochial view of the issue, is also found in Judge Samuel Alito's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his nomination to the Supreme Court: "I don't think it appropriate or useful to look to foreign law in interpreting the provisions of our Constitution. I think the framers would be stunned by the idea that the Bill of Rights is to be interpreted by taking a poll of countries of the world."
To the contrary, globalization has made it not only "appropriate or useful" but vital to look at foreign laws. It is in our interest to be aware of their impact whether they concern antitrust, food safety or the death penalty. Contempt for the laws of our allies is a major factor in our increasing isolation in the world; our present posture in Iraq reflects that reality. That is why is it is deeply troubling that the next member of the Supreme Court will most likely share Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas's point of view.
-----
[Read more.]
26 January 2006
United Nations: U.S. aligned with Iran in anti-gay vote
Hey, wait a minute! Didn't Bush count Iran among his so-called "Axis of Evil"? Yeah, I thought so.
But Bush, Bolton, etc., will side with Iran when it's convenient. They will side with Iran when it comes to denigrating people like Dick Cheney's daughter Mary and advancing their homophobic agenda. They will join with Iran in describing LGBT persons as "worse than dogs and pigs".
But they'll give special favors to Jeff Gannon, won't they?!
Why are they so repressed? And what are they so afraid of?
From a news release from the Human Rights Campaign, et al:
-----
News from the Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
For Immediate Release - Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2006
United Nations: U.S. Aligned With Iran in Anti-Gay Vote
Rice Must Explain Repressive UN Ban on LGBT Rights Groups
(Washington, D.C., January 25, 2006) - In a reversal of policy, the United States on Monday backed an Iranian initiative to deny United Nations consultative status to organizations working to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, a coalition of 40 organizations, led by the Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called for an explanation of the vote which aligned the United States with governments that have long repressed the rights of sexual minorities.
"This vote is an aggressive assault by the U.S. government on the right of sexual minorities to be heard," said Scott Long, director of the LGBT rights program at Human Rights Watch. "It is astonishing that the Bush administration would align itself with Sudan, China, Iran and Zimbabwe in a coalition of the homophobic."
In May 2005, the International Lesbian and Gay Association, which is based in Brussels, and the Danish gay rights group Landsforeningen for Bosser og Lesbiske (LBL) applied for consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council. Consultative status is the only official means by which non-governmental organizations (NGOs) around the world can influence and participate in discussions among member states at the United Nations. Nearly 3,000 groups enjoy this status.
States opposed to the two groups' applications moved to have them summarily dismissed, an almost unprecedented move at the UN, where organizations are ordinarily allowed to state their cases. The U.S. abstained on a vote which would have allowed the debate to continue and the groups to be heard. It then voted to reject the applications.
"The United States recklessly ignored its own reporting proving the need for international support for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "The State Department's 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices' show severe human rights violations based on gender identity and sexual orientation occur around the world."
As the U.S. government acknowledged in its 2004 country report on Iran, Iranian law punishes homosexual conduct between men with the death penalty. Human Rights Watch has documented four cases of arrests, flogging, or execution of gay men in Iran since 2003. In its 2004 country report on Zimbabwe, the U.S. government noted President Robert Mugabe's public denouncement of homosexuals, blaming them for "Africa's ills." In the past, Mugabe has called gays and lesbians "people without rights" and "worse than dogs and pigs."
The U.S. has reversed position since 2002, when it voted to support the International Lesbian and Gay Association's request to have its status reviewed. Officials gave no explanation for the change.
"It is deeply disturbing that, at the UN, the United States has shifted gears toward an aggressive stance against human rights for LGBT people," said Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. "Unfortunately, denying LGBT groups a voice and a presence within the United Nations - the world's most important human rights institution - is fully in keeping with the U.S.'s assault on basic human rights principles worldwide."
In voting against the applications to the NGO committee, the U.S. was joined by Cameroon, China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. Votes in favor of consultative status came from Chile, France, Germany, Peru, and Romania. Colombia, India, and Turkey abstained, while Cote d'Ivoire was absent.
"It is an absolute outrage that the United States has chosen to align itself with oppressive governments - all in an effort to smother the voices of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people around the world," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "It is deeply disturbing that the self-proclaimed 'leader of the free world' will ally with bigots at the drop of a hat to advance the right wing's anti-gay agenda."
In addition to the Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the organizations signing the letter are:
Advocates for Youth
Al-Fatiha Foundation for LGBT Muslims
Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, Yale Law School
Amnesty International USA
Catholics for a Free Choice
Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)
Center for Women's Global Leadership
Colombian Lesbian and Gay Association (COLEGA)
Congregation Beth Simchat Torah
Equality Now
Family Care International
Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
Gay Men's Health Crisis
Global Rights
Immigration Equality
International Women's Human Rights Clinic, City University of New York School of Law
Ipas
Jan Hus Church
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
Latino Commission on AIDS
L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center
Legal Momentum
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center (New York City)
MADRE
Mano a Mano
Metropolitan Community Churches
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Coalition Building Institute Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender Caucus
National Center for Lesbian Rights
New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition
Open Society Institute
Queer Progressive Agenda
Queers for Economic Justice
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S.
Women's Environment and Development Organization
-----
For further information, please contact:
In Washington, D.C., Jay Smith Brown (Human Rights Campaign):
+1-202-216-1580, or +1-202-716-1650 (cell)
In New York, Scott Long (Human Rights Watch): +1-212-216-1297, or
+1-646-641-5655 (cell)
In New York, Geoffrey Knox (International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission): +1-212-229-0540, or +1-917-414-1749 (cell)
In New York, Roberta Sklar (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force):
+1-646-358-1465
-----
-LETTER FOLLOWS-
January 25, 2006
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Secretary Rice,
On behalf of forty U.S.-based organizations advocating for human rights, including the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, we write to express deep disappointment at the United States' actions this week in the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Committee of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
As you may be aware, both the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), and the Danish national gay and lesbian organization Landsforeningen for Bosser og Lesbiske (LBL) had applied for consultative status with ECOSOC. The United States abstained on a virtually unprecedented motion to deny these organizations a fair hearing on their application. Still more disturbingly, the United States supported a separate motion to summarily dismiss their applications. The motion to dismiss passed by a vote of 10 to 5 with three abstentions.
Monday's vote represents a reversal of U.S. policy. When ECOSOC voted on ILGA's previous application for consultative status in 2002, the United States joined sixteen other nations in supporting ILGA's application for consultative status.
We hope you will provide the reasons for this reversal. Is it now the policy of the U.S. government to oppose consultative status for all organizations working to promote the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people?
As the State Department's own reporting demonstrates, severe human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression take place in many countries around the world. Arbitrary arrest, torture, and extrajudicial killing are common. We are grateful for the State Department's effort to include these incidents in its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. We find it incomprehensible that the U.S. government would recognize these human rights abuses-while denying the people subject to them the right to make their case, alongside other respected human rights organizations, before the U.N. It is, moreover, widely recognized that persecution based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression drives populations vulnerable to HIV/AIDS underground, and contributes substantially to the spread of HIV/AIDS.
As long as human rights abuses against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people occur, it is vital that NGOs working on their behalf are given a place and voice at the United Nations. Applications of three other such organizations are pending before ECOSOC: the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA-Europe), Coalition Gaie et Lesbienne du Quebec (CGLQ) from Canada, and Lesben-und Schwulenverband in Deutschland (LSVD) from Germany. We urge you to support these applications. In this week's vote, the U.S. ranged itself on the side of severely repressive governments. As U.S.-based organizations working in the fields of human rights and sexual rights, we are dismayed-and we expect better.
Please reply to Scott Long, Director, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program, Human Rights Watch, 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor, New York, NY 10018-3299 (tel: 212-216-1297).
Sincerely,
Advocates for Youth
Al-Fatiha Foundation for LGBT Muslims
Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, Yale Law School
Amnesty International USA
Catholics for a Free Choice
Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)
Center for Women's Global Leadership
Colombian Lesbian and Gay Association (COLEGA)
Congregation Beth Simchat Torah
Equality Now
Family Care International
Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
Gay Men's Health Crisis
Global Rights
Human Rights Campaign
Human Rights Watch
Immigration Equality
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission
International Women's Human Rights Clinic, City University of New York School of Law
Ipas
Jan Hus Church
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
Latino Commission on AIDS
L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center
Legal Momentum
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center (New York City)
MADRE
Mano a Mano
Metropolitan Community Churches
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Coalition Building Institute Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender Caucus
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Center for Lesbian Rights
New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition
Open Society Institute
Queer Progressive Agenda
Queers for Economic Justice
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S.
Women's Environment and Development Organization
Cc: The Honorable John Bolton, United Nations Ambassador for the United States
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar, Chair, United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Ranking Member, United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, Chair, United States House of Representatives International Relations Committee
The Honorable Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, United States House of Representatives International Relations Committee
The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Chair, United States Senate Appropriations Committee
The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, United States Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs
The Honorable Frank Wolf, Chair, United States House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice and Commerce and Related Agencies
The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan, Ranking Member, United States House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice and Commerce and Related Agencies
But Bush, Bolton, etc., will side with Iran when it's convenient. They will side with Iran when it comes to denigrating people like Dick Cheney's daughter Mary and advancing their homophobic agenda. They will join with Iran in describing LGBT persons as "worse than dogs and pigs".
But they'll give special favors to Jeff Gannon, won't they?!
Why are they so repressed? And what are they so afraid of?
From a news release from the Human Rights Campaign, et al:
-----
News from the Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
For Immediate Release - Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2006
United Nations: U.S. Aligned With Iran in Anti-Gay Vote
Rice Must Explain Repressive UN Ban on LGBT Rights Groups
(Washington, D.C., January 25, 2006) - In a reversal of policy, the United States on Monday backed an Iranian initiative to deny United Nations consultative status to organizations working to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, a coalition of 40 organizations, led by the Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called for an explanation of the vote which aligned the United States with governments that have long repressed the rights of sexual minorities.
"This vote is an aggressive assault by the U.S. government on the right of sexual minorities to be heard," said Scott Long, director of the LGBT rights program at Human Rights Watch. "It is astonishing that the Bush administration would align itself with Sudan, China, Iran and Zimbabwe in a coalition of the homophobic."
In May 2005, the International Lesbian and Gay Association, which is based in Brussels, and the Danish gay rights group Landsforeningen for Bosser og Lesbiske (LBL) applied for consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council. Consultative status is the only official means by which non-governmental organizations (NGOs) around the world can influence and participate in discussions among member states at the United Nations. Nearly 3,000 groups enjoy this status.
States opposed to the two groups' applications moved to have them summarily dismissed, an almost unprecedented move at the UN, where organizations are ordinarily allowed to state their cases. The U.S. abstained on a vote which would have allowed the debate to continue and the groups to be heard. It then voted to reject the applications.
"The United States recklessly ignored its own reporting proving the need for international support for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "The State Department's 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices' show severe human rights violations based on gender identity and sexual orientation occur around the world."
As the U.S. government acknowledged in its 2004 country report on Iran, Iranian law punishes homosexual conduct between men with the death penalty. Human Rights Watch has documented four cases of arrests, flogging, or execution of gay men in Iran since 2003. In its 2004 country report on Zimbabwe, the U.S. government noted President Robert Mugabe's public denouncement of homosexuals, blaming them for "Africa's ills." In the past, Mugabe has called gays and lesbians "people without rights" and "worse than dogs and pigs."
The U.S. has reversed position since 2002, when it voted to support the International Lesbian and Gay Association's request to have its status reviewed. Officials gave no explanation for the change.
"It is deeply disturbing that, at the UN, the United States has shifted gears toward an aggressive stance against human rights for LGBT people," said Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. "Unfortunately, denying LGBT groups a voice and a presence within the United Nations - the world's most important human rights institution - is fully in keeping with the U.S.'s assault on basic human rights principles worldwide."
In voting against the applications to the NGO committee, the U.S. was joined by Cameroon, China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. Votes in favor of consultative status came from Chile, France, Germany, Peru, and Romania. Colombia, India, and Turkey abstained, while Cote d'Ivoire was absent.
"It is an absolute outrage that the United States has chosen to align itself with oppressive governments - all in an effort to smother the voices of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people around the world," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "It is deeply disturbing that the self-proclaimed 'leader of the free world' will ally with bigots at the drop of a hat to advance the right wing's anti-gay agenda."
In addition to the Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the organizations signing the letter are:
Advocates for Youth
Al-Fatiha Foundation for LGBT Muslims
Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, Yale Law School
Amnesty International USA
Catholics for a Free Choice
Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)
Center for Women's Global Leadership
Colombian Lesbian and Gay Association (COLEGA)
Congregation Beth Simchat Torah
Equality Now
Family Care International
Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
Gay Men's Health Crisis
Global Rights
Immigration Equality
International Women's Human Rights Clinic, City University of New York School of Law
Ipas
Jan Hus Church
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
Latino Commission on AIDS
L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center
Legal Momentum
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center (New York City)
MADRE
Mano a Mano
Metropolitan Community Churches
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Coalition Building Institute Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender Caucus
National Center for Lesbian Rights
New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition
Open Society Institute
Queer Progressive Agenda
Queers for Economic Justice
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S.
Women's Environment and Development Organization
-----
For further information, please contact:
In Washington, D.C., Jay Smith Brown (Human Rights Campaign):
+1-202-216-1580, or +1-202-716-1650 (cell)
In New York, Scott Long (Human Rights Watch): +1-212-216-1297, or
+1-646-641-5655 (cell)
In New York, Geoffrey Knox (International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission): +1-212-229-0540, or +1-917-414-1749 (cell)
In New York, Roberta Sklar (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force):
+1-646-358-1465
-----
-LETTER FOLLOWS-
January 25, 2006
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Secretary Rice,
On behalf of forty U.S.-based organizations advocating for human rights, including the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, we write to express deep disappointment at the United States' actions this week in the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Committee of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
As you may be aware, both the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), and the Danish national gay and lesbian organization Landsforeningen for Bosser og Lesbiske (LBL) had applied for consultative status with ECOSOC. The United States abstained on a virtually unprecedented motion to deny these organizations a fair hearing on their application. Still more disturbingly, the United States supported a separate motion to summarily dismiss their applications. The motion to dismiss passed by a vote of 10 to 5 with three abstentions.
Monday's vote represents a reversal of U.S. policy. When ECOSOC voted on ILGA's previous application for consultative status in 2002, the United States joined sixteen other nations in supporting ILGA's application for consultative status.
We hope you will provide the reasons for this reversal. Is it now the policy of the U.S. government to oppose consultative status for all organizations working to promote the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people?
As the State Department's own reporting demonstrates, severe human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression take place in many countries around the world. Arbitrary arrest, torture, and extrajudicial killing are common. We are grateful for the State Department's effort to include these incidents in its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. We find it incomprehensible that the U.S. government would recognize these human rights abuses-while denying the people subject to them the right to make their case, alongside other respected human rights organizations, before the U.N. It is, moreover, widely recognized that persecution based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression drives populations vulnerable to HIV/AIDS underground, and contributes substantially to the spread of HIV/AIDS.
As long as human rights abuses against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people occur, it is vital that NGOs working on their behalf are given a place and voice at the United Nations. Applications of three other such organizations are pending before ECOSOC: the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA-Europe), Coalition Gaie et Lesbienne du Quebec (CGLQ) from Canada, and Lesben-und Schwulenverband in Deutschland (LSVD) from Germany. We urge you to support these applications. In this week's vote, the U.S. ranged itself on the side of severely repressive governments. As U.S.-based organizations working in the fields of human rights and sexual rights, we are dismayed-and we expect better.
Please reply to Scott Long, Director, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program, Human Rights Watch, 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor, New York, NY 10018-3299 (tel: 212-216-1297).
Sincerely,
Advocates for Youth
Al-Fatiha Foundation for LGBT Muslims
Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, Yale Law School
Amnesty International USA
Catholics for a Free Choice
Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)
Center for Women's Global Leadership
Colombian Lesbian and Gay Association (COLEGA)
Congregation Beth Simchat Torah
Equality Now
Family Care International
Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
Gay Men's Health Crisis
Global Rights
Human Rights Campaign
Human Rights Watch
Immigration Equality
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission
International Women's Human Rights Clinic, City University of New York School of Law
Ipas
Jan Hus Church
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
Latino Commission on AIDS
L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center
Legal Momentum
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center (New York City)
MADRE
Mano a Mano
Metropolitan Community Churches
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Coalition Building Institute Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender Caucus
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Center for Lesbian Rights
New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition
Open Society Institute
Queer Progressive Agenda
Queers for Economic Justice
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S.
Women's Environment and Development Organization
Cc: The Honorable John Bolton, United Nations Ambassador for the United States
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar, Chair, United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Ranking Member, United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, Chair, United States House of Representatives International Relations Committee
The Honorable Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, United States House of Representatives International Relations Committee
The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Chair, United States Senate Appropriations Committee
The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, United States Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs
The Honorable Frank Wolf, Chair, United States House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice and Commerce and Related Agencies
The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan, Ranking Member, United States House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice and Commerce and Related Agencies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)