Monday, December 6, 2010

Ten Steps Toward a "Fascist Shift"

UPDATE BELOW
From The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot by Naomi Wolf
  • Invoke an external and internal threat
  • Establish secret prisons
  • Develop a paramilitary force
  • Surveil ordinary citizens
  • Infiltrate citizens’ groups
  • Arbitrarily detain and release citizens
  • Target key individuals
  • Restrict the press
  • Cast criticism as “espionage” and dissent as “treason”
  • Subvert the rule of law
Which of these things have we not yet seen in the good ole US of A?
(I couldn't find one either)

The End of America Documentary

UPDATE--December 10, 2010
Naomi Wolf posts this article in today's Huffington Post:
Espionage Act: How to Engage in Serious Aggression Against the People of the United States

So, Why Is Wikileaks a Good Thing Again?

Why, indeed!

Thursday, December 2, 2010

I Know You Are, But What Am I?

When I was in kindergarten, I was taught that I should be careful when pointing accusingly at others as there were always four fingers pointing back at me.

That playground adage keeps coming to mind this week as I read the flood of histrionic, Henny Penny reactions to WikiLeaks’ latest document release. “How could he?!” “TRAITOR!!!!” “Crucify Him!” Of course, those screaming the loudest and with the most vitriol are the very ones who should be most worried about the four fingers pointing back at them. Those who served in the G.W. Bush Administration ought to be worried about further impetus for world leaders to pursue prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Obama Administration—particularly the Holder “Justice” Department—should be worried about their complicity in covering up those crimes, not to mention being called into account for crimes of their own. The Crime Bosses of the world financial institutions should be running scared lest their engineering of—and handsomely profiting from—the collapsed economy be brought into the light of day.

Congressmen and women have reason to be worried about having to answer to their constituents (I’m talking about the ones who cast the votes, not the ones who fund their campaigns) for their utter abdication of their duties over the past decade. And, perhaps most of all, the Mavens of the Mainstream Media and the Political Pontificators, Pundits, and Pretenders ought to be thoroughly humiliated (and remorseful) that almost everything they’ve said so far in this century has been profoundly wrong—urging us into disastrous debacles—and that it took a foreigner to do what they were too cowardly (or lacked the moral or mental capacity) to do.

So the next time you see someone waving his flag while railing against the evils of transparency and accountability in government and hurling accusations at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, you might think about tracing the path of those other four fingers.

Monday, June 28, 2010

The Death of Senator Byrd

Senator Robert Carlyle Byrd (D-West Virginia), longest-serving member of the U.S. Senate, died this morning at the age of 92. Senator Byrd leaves behind a long legacy in American political life, much of it controversial, some of it lamentable. In spite of his shortcomings, however, I will always remember him for being one of the few voices of reason during a dark period of this nation’s history—when very few dared question the Bush Administration. This speech—given on the floor of the Senate in 2003—exemplifies that courage. Because it is every bit as relevant and needed today as it was then, I reprint it here in its entirety. Bold emphasis is mine.

U.S. Senator Robert Byrd, May 21, 2003

Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again, The eternal years of God are hers; But Error, wounded, writhes in pain, And dies among his worshippers.
Truth has a way of asserting itself despite all attempts to obscure it. Distortion only serves to derail it for a time. No matter to what lengths we humans may go to obfuscate facts or delude our fellows, truth has a way of squeezing out through the cracks, eventually.

But the danger is that at some point it may no longer matter. The danger is that damage is done before the truth is widely realized. The reality is that, sometimes, it is easier to ignore uncomfortable facts and go along with whatever distortion is currently in vogue. We see a lot of this today in politics. I see a lot of it—more than I would ever have believed—right on this Senate Floor.

Regarding the situation in Iraq, it appears to this Senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing International law, under false premises. There is ample evidence that the horrific events of September 11 have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda who masterminded the September 11th attacks, to Saddam Hussein who did not. The run up to our invasion of Iraq featured the President and members of his cabinet invoking every frightening image they could conjure, from mushroom clouds, to buried caches of germ warfare, to drones poised to deliver germ laden death in our major cities. We were treated to a heavy dose of overstatement concerning Saddam Hussein's direct threat to our freedoms. The tactic was guaranteed to provoke a sure reaction from a nation still suffering from a combination of post traumatic stress and justifiable anger after the attacks of 9/11. It was the exploitation of fear. It was a placebo for the anger.

Since the war's end, every subsequent revelation which has seemed to refute the previous dire claims of the Bush Administration has been brushed aside. Instead of addressing the contradictory evidence, the White House deftly changes the subject. No weapons of mass destruction have yet turned up, but we are told that they will in time. Perhaps they yet will. But, our costly and destructive bunker busting attack on Iraq seems to have proven, in the main, precisely the opposite of what we were told was the urgent reason to go in. It seems also to have, for the present, verified the assertions of Hans Blix and the inspection team he led, which President Bush and company so derided. As Blix always said, a lot of time will be needed to find such weapons, if they do, indeed, exist. Meanwhile Bin Laden is still on the loose and Saddam Hussein has come up missing.

The Administration assured the U.S. public and the world, over and over again, that an attack was necessary to protect our people and the world from terrorism. It assiduously worked to alarm the public and blur the faces of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden until they virtually became one.

What has become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S. Ravaged by years of sanctions, Iraq did not even lift an airplane against us. Iraq's threatening death-dealing fleet of unmanned drones about which we heard so much morphed into one prototype made of plywood and string. Their missiles proved to be outdated and of limited range. Their army was quickly overwhelmed by our technology and our well-trained troops.

Presently our loyal military personnel continue their mission of diligently searching for WMD. They have so far turned up only fertilizer, vacuum cleaners, conventional weapons, and the occasional buried swimming pool. They are misused on such a mission and they continue to be at grave risk. But, the Bush team's extensive hype of WMD in Iraq as justification for a preemptive invasion has become more than embarrassing. It has raised serious questions about prevarication and the reckless use of power. Were our troops needlessly put at risk? Were countless Iraqi civilians killed and maimed when war was not really necessary? Was the American public deliberately misled? Was the world?

What makes me cringe even more is the continued claim that we are "liberators." The facts don't seem to support the label we have so euphemistically attached to ourselves. True, we have unseated a brutal, despicable despot, but "liberation" implies the follow up of freedom, self-determination and a better life for the common people. In fact, if the situation in Iraq is the result of "liberation," we may have set the cause of freedom back 200 years.

Despite our high-blown claims of a better life for the Iraqi people, water is scarce, and often foul, electricity is a sometime thing, food is in short supply, hospitals are stacked with the wounded and maimed, historic treasures of the region and of the Iraqi people have been looted, and nuclear material may have been disseminated to heaven knows where, while U.S. troops, on orders, looked on and guarded the oil supply.

Meanwhile, lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and refurbish its oil industry are awarded to Administration cronies, without benefit of competitive bidding, and the U.S. steadfastly resists offers of U.N. assistance to participate. Is there any wonder that the real motives of the U.S. government are the subject of worldwide speculation and mistrust?

And in what may be the most damaging development, the U.S. appears to be pushing off Iraq's clamor for self-government. Jay Garner has been summarily replaced, and it is becoming all too clear that the smiling face of the U.S. as liberator is quickly assuming the scowl of an occupier. The image of the boot on the throat has replaced the beckoning hand of freedom. Chaos and rioting only exacerbate that image, as U.S. soldiers try to sustain order in a land ravaged by poverty and disease. "Regime change" in Iraq has so far meant anarchy, curbed only by an occupying military force and a U.S. administrative presence that is evasive about if and when it intends to depart.

Democracy and Freedom cannot be force fed at the point of an occupier's gun. To think otherwise is folly. One has to stop and ponder. How could we have been so impossibly naive? How could we expect to easily plant a clone of U.S. culture, values, and government in a country so riven with religious, territorial, and tribal rivalries, so suspicious of U.S. motives, and so at odds with the galloping materialism which drives the western-style economies?

As so many warned this Administration before it launched its misguided war on Iraq, there is evidence that our crack down in Iraq is likely to convince 1,000 new Bin Ladens to plan other horrors of the type we have seen in the past several days. Instead of damaging the terrorists, we have given them new fuel for their fury. We did not complete our mission in Afghanistan because we were so eager to attack Iraq. Now it appears that Al Queda is back with a vengeance. We have returned to orange alert in the U.S., and we may well have destabilized the Mideast region, a region we have never fully understood. We have alienated friends around the globe with our dissembling and our haughty insistence on punishing former friends who may not see things quite our way.

The path of diplomacy and reason have gone out the window to be replaced by force, unilateralism, and punishment for transgressions. I read most recently with amazement our harsh castigation of Turkey, our longtime friend and strategic ally. It is astonishing that our government is berating the new Turkish government for conducting its affairs in accordance with its own Constitution and its democratic institutions.

Indeed, we may have sparked a new international arms race as countries move ahead to develop WMD as a last ditch attempt to ward off a possible preemptive strike from a newly belligerent U.S. which claims the right to hit where it wants. In fact, there is little to constrain this President. Congress, in what will go down in history as its most unfortunate act, handed away its power to declare war for the foreseeable future and empowered this President to wage war at will.

As if that were not bad enough, members of Congress are reluctant to ask questions which are begging to be asked. How long will we occupy Iraq? We have already heard disputes on the numbers of troops which will be needed to retain order. What is the truth? How costly will the occupation and rebuilding be? No one has given a straight answer. How will we afford this long-term massive commitment, fight terrorism at home, address a serious crisis in domestic healthcare, afford behemoth military spending and give away billions in tax cuts amidst a deficit which has climbed to over $340 billion for this year alone? If the President's tax cut passes it will be $400 billion. We cower in the shadows while false statements proliferate. We accept soft answers and shaky explanations because to demand the truth is hard, or unpopular, or may be politically costly.

But, I contend that, through it all, the people know. The American people unfortunately are used to political shading, spin, and the usual chicanery they hear from public officials. They patiently tolerate it up to a point. But there is a line. It may seem to be drawn in invisible ink for a time, but eventually it will appear in dark colors, tinged with anger. When it comes to shedding American blood—when it comes to wreaking havoc on civilians, on innocent men, women, and children, callous dissembling is not acceptable. Nothing is worth that kind of lie—not oil, not revenge, not reelection, not somebody's grand pipedream of a democratic domino theory.

And mark my words, the calculated intimidation which we see so often of late by the "powers that be" will only keep the loyal opposition quiet for just so long. Because eventually, like it always does, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Presidential Humor and The Press

I’ve read a number of commentaries about President Obama’s drone strike “joke” at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on May 1, some comparing it with President Bush’s shtick looking for the elusive WMDs in front of that audience in 2006. Such comparisons are fitting, but I have yet to see one which really hits at the heart of the matter and highlights the enormity of the “faux pas.”

While there is no questioning (or shouldn’t be—at least among rational adults) the fact that joking about death, war, war crimes, and murder is never appropriate, there are two particularly disturbing things about these attempts at humor. The first is what they reveal about the attitudes of our leaders—the purported “Leaders of the Free World” (and what they reveal is not flattering). The second is what they say about this particular audience.

With President Bush, at least, we all knew his attitude about The Enemy, The Terrorists, the dark-skinned “others.” His “cowboy diplomacy” (coming from a man who is neither a cowboy nor a diplomat) made apparent his utter disregard for the lives of “The Enemy”—civilian or not. What was especially illustrative about Bush’s “joke” was the way in which he brazenly and unabashedly flaunted his lawlessness and fraud. By the time of this dinner, it was well known—even if mostly ignored by the media—that the administration was fully aware that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no ties to Al Qaida or 9/11; these were lies told repeatedly and intentionally to manipulate Congress and a fearful populace into supporting a war which had been decided upon long before.

President Obama has on numerous occasions given speeches, made appearances on Arabic-language television, and otherwise overtly tried to change the tone of America’s international dialogue (or even to acknowledge the need for having a dialogue) and win over the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. A polar opposite of Dubya in matters of diplomacy, President Barack “Nobel Peace Prize” Obama has gone out of his way to give the impression of empathy with the rest of the world. How can he possibly expect such overtures to be taken seriously any longer after making jokes about America’s criminal drone assassination program—a program which has resulted in the murder and maiming of arguably as many civilians as “Terrorists”?

In my opinion, vastly more consequential than demonstrating how disgustingly craven our political leaders are is the fact that those leaders (and their speech writers) would think such subject matter appropriate for this audience. After all, these journalists who cover the White House for the major media outlets are the very people whose job it should be to keep our elected leaders in check, tirelessly and dutifully reporting to the electorate when those leaders fall short and betray our trust. Instead, the Pres. and the Press snicker knowingly to themselves and seem to say, “Screw you, America; this is a private party, and you weren’t invited!”

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

The "Christian" Right

From an interesting article in The Raw Story:

Larisa Alexandrovna: What is it that is driving the Christian right to such extremes? Is it fear? If so, fear of what? Is it something else?

Frank Schaeffer: It is fear of facts. Look, if you believe in the earth being 6000 years old, that gays chose to be gay and can "change," that Jesus will come back soon, that war in the Middle East is good... what you fear is the real world, the reality-based Americans who know you are dumb, crazy or both. It is resentment that drives the right.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

John Conyers Responds to David Broder

UPDATED WITH EXCERPTS
UPDATE II

I'm grateful to see this response by Representative John Conyers to David Broder's shameful column, Why Holder is Wrong, appearing in today's Washington Post. Rep. Conyers makes some very good points. Yes, it's too little, too late--but at least a start. Thank you, Congressman Conyers. Please turn up the heat!

UPDATE
Here are a few of the highlights of Mr. Conyers' article. These show how people who care about upholding the Constitution and the Rule of Law should have been controlling the "debate" all along.

…the decision whether to investigate possible crimes connected to our interrogation programs is simply not a political one.

I do not know if Mr. Cheney broke the law, but I do know that, in my America, the law applies to him as it does to everyone else.

As the acknowledged "dean" of the Washington Press corps, David Broder is no mere observer of these events. He is an actor in the national debate, whose pronouncements help define what views are considered "reasonable." If he believes, as he claims, that accountability "should apply to the policymakers and not just to the underlings," he should reject those who would turn a fundamental issue of law into a "major, bitter partisan battle," not validate them as a fixed and appropriate part of the political landscape.

UPDATE II--Senator Sheldon Whitehouse on Investigations
In this article in The National Law Journal, Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI) clearly lays out the legal rationale and logic behind investigations from the perspective of a former U.S. Attorney.
The only exceptional thing is the parties involved: the former vice president of the United States, his counsel David Addington, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) lawyer John Yoo and their private contractors Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell, psychologists who designed the torture program. But in America, high office does not put one outside the law. Indeed, it borders on unethical for a prosecutor to refuse to investigate the corpus delicti of a crime because of concern as to where the evidence may lead.