January 18, 2009
Are you depressed about the last eight years? Of course! But now that it’s ALMOST over, we can start looking back on it.
This is Keith Olbermann’s retrospective from the other night.
I can’t find the transcript, but it will be here when it does come up! đŠ
September 18, 2007
D.C. Vote Bill Dies in Senate
Washington Post Staff Writer
Republican lawmakers yesterday blocked the Senate from taking up the D.C. vote bill, a potentially fatal setback for the Districtâs most promising effort in years to get a full member of Congress.
The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and the White House have strongly criticized the legislation. They maintain that, because the District is not a state, the bill violates the constitutional mandate that House members be chosen by the âPeople of the several States.â
âI opposed this bill because it is clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional,â McConnell said in a statement. âIf the residents of the District are to get a member for themselves, they have a remedy: amend the Constitution.â
In addition to voicing legal concerns, opponents were wary of the billâs potential political repercussions. Some Republicans feared that the measure could eventually lead to the addition of two full D.C. senators, who probably would be Democrats.
September 14, 2007
Gonzales leaves Justice Department
AP – Resigning Attorney General Alberto Gonzales left the scandal-scarred Justice Department on Friday, declaring himself hopeful about its mission of ferreting out crime and defending the truth. Gonzales quit after 2 1/2 years at the department amid investigations into whether he broke the law and lied to Congress. He has denied any wrongdoing.
August 17, 2007
Think Progress has a post up called
and in it they have a list of questions that they want the talk show hosts to ask Rove. Here’s the list:
In addition to those, I think they should also ask him about these things:
What else would you ask him?
August 16, 2007
Domestic Use of Spy Satellites To Widen
Law Enforcement Getting New Access To Secret Imagery
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 16, 2007; A01
The Bush administration has approved a plan to expand domestic access to some of the most powerful tools of 21st-century spycraft, giving law enforcement officials and others the ability to view data obtained from satellite and aircraft sensors that can see through cloud cover and even penetrate buildings and underground bunkers.
A program approved by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security will allow broader domestic use of secret overhead imagery beginning as
early as this fall, with the expectation that state and local law
enforcement officials will eventually be able to tap into technology once largely restricted to foreign surveillance.Administration officials say the program will give domestic security and emergency preparedness agencies new capabilities in dealing with a range of threats, from illegal immigration and terrorism to hurricanes and forest fires. But the program, described yesterday by the Wall Street Journal, quickly provoked opposition from civil liberties advocates, who said the government is crossing a well-established line against the use of military assets in domestic law enforcement.
Although the federal government has long permitted the use of spy-satellite imagery for certain scientific functions — such as creating topographic maps or monitoring volcanic activity — the administration’s decision would provide domestic authorities with unprecedented access to high-resolution, real-time satellite photos.
They could also have access to much more. A statement issued yesterday by the Department of Homeland Security said that officials envision “more robust access” not only to imagery but also to “the collection, analysis and production skills and capabilities of the intelligence community.”
July 26, 2007
This is Senator Schumer talking this morning about Attorney General Gonzales. I want to be a senate dem when I grow up.
July 20, 2007
This is from Democrats.com:
Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney
I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons: 1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal “War of Aggression” against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.
2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.
4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.
6. Violating the Constitution by using “signing statements” to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.
7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.
8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.
9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a “Unitary Executive Theory” giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.
Buzzflash is having a contest (with cash prizes!) to list the
“Top 10 Reasons to Impeach Bush and Cheney”.
And here is one from AfterDowningStreet:
Accountability Demands Impeachment
Marcel J. Harmon, Ph.D.Iâm outraged â again.
I recently finished reading Seymour Hershâs piece in the June 25th New Yorker on Army General Antonio Tagubaâs investigation and resulting report regarding the Abu Ghraib scandal. In the third to last paragraph, Hersh quotes Taguba as follows: ââThere was no doubt in my mind that this stuffâ â the explicit images â âwas gravitating upward. It was standard operating procedure to assume that this had to go higher. The President had to be aware of this.â He [Taguba] said that Rumsfeld, his senior aides, and the high-ranking generals and admirals who stood with him as he misrepresented what he knew about Abu Ghraib had failed the nation.â
As Iâve done so many times before, I wondered again how this administration has managed to leave its six-year wake of political, social, economic, and environmental damage, in such an arrogant and incompetent manner, without more of a demand for accountability. I turned to my wife and again asked how we could begin impeachment proceedings against a president who lied about having sex, yet let the George W. administration skate.
But my wife simply replied, âIâm not going to waste my energy and time on this when nothing will get done â Iâm just not going to get outraged.â
How many times have I heard others express the same sentiment? How many times have I let my own outrage fizzle as the day-to-day issues of life take over? The all-encompassing daily grind, our culture of consumption, and mind-numbing 24/7 mass media â all act as a distraction to the benefit of those in power. And the growing divide between the have and have-nots only magnifies our day-to-day struggle, further distracting us from the bigger picture. The corporate sector implicitly and explicitly promotes this for itâs own benefit, via corporate lobbying and huge political donations to both Democratic and Republican candidates.
But if any administration has deserved to be held accountable, it is this one.
The Bush administration started a war of choice in Iraq due to dubious intelligence and poor reasoning at best, and at worst by outright lying to the American public and bullying its critics. Our resulting role as the aggressor and extreme mismanagement of the war has taken the lives of US and coalition soldiers, private contractors, and countless Iraqi civilians. It has cost us over $500 billion, greatly reduced out standing in the world, functioned as a prime recruiting device for terrorists across the globe, and arguably made the world a less safe place to be.
Where is your outrage?
And what about Osama Bin Laden? Why has this administration failed to bring the architect of 9/11 to justice? The fiasco in Iraq has distracted us from bringing in the man who brought down the twin towers.
Where is your outrage?
This administration, through its placement of woefully unqualified individuals in charge of FEMA, itâs failure to grasp prior warnings, and lack of a quick initial reaction, greatly bungled the federal governmentâs response to Hurricane Katrinaâs devastation of the Gulf region.
Where is your outrage?
This administrationâs misrepresentation of scientific data for its own agenda â its utter disregard for science â has delayed a proper US response to global warming. It has stymied stem-cell research, marginalized the position of Surgeon General, and may severely impact the recruitment of young people into the sciences for years to come.
Where is your outrage?
The administration was, at the very least, indirectly involved in the outing of a CIA agent, an act that when done knowingly is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The one bit of accountability that emerged from this scandal â the conviction and sentencing of Scooter Libby for lying to prosecutors â was muted after the president commuted his sentence.
And the list goes on. Yet Speaker Pelosi and other prominent democrats have said that impeachment is âoff the table.â Why? Because itâs a âwaste of time?â Or does it have more to do with political inconvenience?
Holding those in power accountable for their actions is critical for maintaining a functioning democracy. It can be messy. It can be painful. But it must be done â to remind our elected officials that they ultimately answer to the American public, and not to powerful corporate interests, not to the demands of their own egos, and certainly not to a personal ideology based on a narrow perception of God.
The outrage is growing. A July 6th pole by the American Research Group indicates that 45 percent of Americans favor initiating impeachment proceedings against the president, and 54 percent favor impeaching the vice president. Congress could very well act on this, but itâs unlikely unless we demand this of our elected officials.
Where is your outrage?
July 19, 2007
Yesterday I published a funny post about the reasons NOT to impeach, but I think it is more important to look at all the reasons why congress SHOULD impeach Cheney and Bush.
Here is one person’s opinion:
King George W.: James Madison’s Nightmareby Robert Scheer[posted online on July 18, 2007]
George W. Bush is the imperial president that James Madison and other founders of this great republic warned us about. He lied the nation into precisely the “foreign entanglements” that George Washington feared would destroy the experiment in representative government, and he has championed a spurious notion of security over individual liberty, thus eschewing the alarms of Thomas Jefferson as to the deprivation of the inalienable rights of free citizens. But most important, he has used the sledgehammer of war to obliterate the separation of powers that James Madison enshrined in the US Constitution.
With the “war on terror,” Bush has asserted the right of the president to wage war anywhere and for any length of time, at his whim, because the “terrorists” will always provide a convenient shadowy target. Just the “continual warfare” that Madison warned of in justifying the primary role of Congress in initiating and continuing to finance a war–the very issue now at stake in Bush’s battle with Congress.
In his Political Observations, written years before he served as fourth president of the United States, Madison went on to underscore the dangers of an imperial presidency bloated by war fever. “In war,” Madison wrote in 1795, at a time when the young republic still faced its share of dangerous enemies, “the discretionary power of the Executive is extended … and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.”
How remarkably prescient of Madison to anticipate the specter of our current King George imperiously undermining Congress’ attempts to end the Iraq war. When the prime author of the US Constitution explained why that document grants Congress–not the president–the exclusive power to declare and fund wars, Madison wrote, “A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments.”
Because “[n]o nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare,” Madison urged that the constitutional separation of powers he had codified be respected. “The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war…the power of raising armies,” he wrote. “The separation of the power of raising armies from the power of commanding them is intended to prevent the raising of armies for the sake of commanding them.”
That last sentence perfectly describes the threat of what President Dwight Eisenhower, 165 years later, would describe as the “military-industrial complex,” a permanent war economy feeding off a permanent state of insecurity. The collapse of the Soviet Union deprived the military profiteers and their handsomely rewarded cheerleaders in the government of a raison d’ĂȘtre for the massive war economy supposedly created in response to it. Fortunately for them, Bush found in the 9/11 attack an excuse to make war even more profitable and longer lasting. The Iraq war, which the president’s
9/11 Commission concluded never had anything to do with the terrorist
assault, nonetheless has transferred many hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars into the military economy. And when Congress seeks to exercise its power to control the budget, this president asserts that this will not govern his conduct of the war.There never was a congressional declaration of war to cover the invasion of Iraq. Instead, President Bush acted under his claimed power as commander in chief, which the Supreme Court has held does allow him to respond to a “state of war” against the United States. That proviso was clearly a reference to surprise attacks or sudden emergencies.
The problem is that the “state of war” in question here was an Al-Qaida attack on the US that had nothing whatsoever to do with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Perhaps to spare Congress the embarrassment of formally declaring war against a nation that had not attacked America, Bush settled for a loosely worded resolution supporting his use of military power if Iraq failed to comply with UN mandates. This was justified by the White House as a means of strengthening the United Nations in holding Iraq accountable for its WMD arsenal, but as most of the world looked on in dismay, Bush invaded Iraq after U.N. inspectors on the ground discovered that Iraq had no WMD.
Bush betrayed Congress, which in turn betrayed the American people–just
as Madison feared when he wrote: “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it compromises and develops the germ of every other.”
July 4, 2007
Olbermann is right. They should resign. But they don’t have the decency even for that.
July 3, 2007
June 25, 2007
A former high school student has lost his case in what is the US Supreme Court’s first major ruling on students’ free speech rights in almost 20 years.
Please leave a comment.
6/26, 5:45 pm
UPDATE: some suggestions from my Facebook Friends:
Is there a larger issue you can tie into? I get that this isn’t about Joseph Frederick’s silly sign but a much deeper issue – how do you get at that? Or do you need to tie it in to larger issues about speech, privacy, human rights, the bill of rights, etc.?
I think if you tie it together, you have a better shot of mobilizing, IMHO.
Petrocelli
Freedom of speech cases have had some extraordinary rulings, although probably not in this SCOTUS.
I would encourage you to dig – ask the many legal minds at FDL or your librarian – for guidance on this and write to show how more perverse cases have been ruled on differently.
When you run for office, I’m coming down to America to help your campaign !!!
Christina
Cassie … keep an eye on anything the ACLU might plan – when my son was in high school and the Communications Decency Act was in play, the ACLU sued and won … and they needed a few under 18’s to represent the people affected and Kit was one http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15499prs19960318.html
I’d contact them and see if they are doing anything similar – of course, it is difficult to do anything once SCOTUS has decided.
Suzanne
Cassie
What is the larger issue? Perhaps reading Talk Left (link: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/6/25/132410/220) post on the issue will help ya find the way. The comments in the thread are interesting đ
Rayne
Hey Cassie…I think you start small while you do research. Make black armbands with the number 1 stenciled in white but crossed out with international symbol for no in red over the top (mourning the death of the First Amendment for youth). Find folks who think like you do about this SCOTUS decision and ask them to wear armbands in solidarity.
I’d like to recommend a book, The Tipping Point, by Malcolm Gladwell; it will help you understand how to get an idea to catch on like wildfire. For instance you’ll need to identify the “connectors” in your school who think like you, along with “mavens” or early adopters. Once they are on board, you need to have enough armbands or whatever else you decide on short notice.
Go for it. I know I’d help my kids if they decided to do this.
Bob S
Cassie,
Excellent project! First Amendment issues are always good to examine and dramatize. Are any of your friends into street theater? What’s jumping into my mind right now is *Mime* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mime_artist). Maybe two teens talking to each other and the mime prancing around them providing “commentary”?
But also, maybe turn it into a class project. Ask your social science teacher (You have one, don’t you?) or maybe the Speech coach on your debate team (does your school have one?) about your interest in First Amendment issues. Emphasize this as an educational issue, and you can probably get a sympathetic hearing. You can get the focus on things that your friends care about, exploring the boundaries of what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable.
Keep us informed about whatever you come up with!
Mime artist – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M…
A mime artist is someone who uses mime as a theatrical medium or as a performance art. In earlier times, in English, such a performer was referred to as a mummer. Miming is to be distinguished from silent comedy, in which the artist is a seamless character in a film or sketch.
Giovanni
Cassie, In addition to Raynes “connectors” suggestion. May I ask if you know a few friends in your school who cross the lines of friendship… with jocks or preppies or drama /artist types etc…
Any of those folks who are interested in taking action would be who you could rally for support first and they will bring more into the fold quickly.. don’t be afraid to ask, remember its really not about you…but the ideas.. so don’t get stuck on new ideas you don’t like.. if they arent good they will most likely fall flat soon enough.. BTW I ran for office at the ripe old age of 19… so no more of that 2032 malarkey! đ
Also.. select one two or three causes at first and narrow it down for clearer focus as soon as your first few friends join your motivation…jmho I have watched groups spread thin quickly… marathon not a sprint etc etc
You go girl!
Terry
How about GNOB hits for Jesusa?
Bob S
Maybe I should elaborate on my suggestion of Mime and street theater. Here’s an idea for a 2-person show:
*One person wears a banner saying “First Amendment”
*Second person is a mime wearing a banner saying either Supreme Court or SCOTUS or maybe “School Official”.
The First Amendment person starts off talking (making a speech) normally, while the Mime stands nearby, looking relaxed and unconcerned. But then the First Amendment student starts to say things that are a bit edgy but not over the line. At each edgy comment, the Mime perks up, listens carefully (exaggerated poses leaning an ear towards the speaker, open hand near ear to hear better, face perked up in wide-eyed attention), and then as speaker starts crossing the line, the Mime gets increasingly agitated, wagging a”no, no, no!” finger silently at the speaker. This climaxes with the First Amendment student holding up a “Boxx Hits for Jesus” sign, at which the mime throws a conniption, racing around,jumping up and down, trying to cover up the sign or trying (silently, of course) to get the First Amendment student to put his sign away.
Of course this can be dramatised further at the climax (when the sign “Boxx hits for Jesus” is held up, 1-2 people with suits come charging in, take the sign away and throw it face down on the ground, or tear it up.
It can be a lot of fun to stage this kind of street theater, and the “plot” can be ad libbed, stretched, or cycled, depending on the audience. “Stretched” means you flirt with confrontation multiple times to engage people’s interest before springing the climax.
This provides the students with an opportunity to explore the idea of “what can I actually say, or what kinds of signs can I display, in public?”
June 21, 2007
The Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility and move terror suspects from there to military prisons on U.S. soil, The Associated Press has learned.
But White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in a statement today that no decisions on Gitmo are imminent.
“The President has long expressed a desire to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and to do so in a responsible way,” said Johndroe.
“A number of steps need to take place before that can happen such as setting up military commissions and the repatriation to their home countries of detainees who have been cleared for released.”
June 11, 2007
There was a very important ruling today in a federal appeals court that is known for being conservative. According to the AP, the court “delivered a harsh rebuke to the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism strategy Monday, ruling that U.S. residents cannot be locked up indefinitely as “enemy combatants” without being charged.“ In this case, the man was a legal resident and not like one of the Guantanamo detainees who was picked up in a foreign country without being a US resident, but it is still a good sign that the courts are starting to restore our rights.
Also from the same AP article,
“Put simply, the Constitution does not allow the President to orderthe military to seize civilians residing within the United States and then detain them indefinitely without criminal process, and this is so even if he calls them ‘enemy combatants,'” the court said.
Such detention “would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution â and the country,”
These are some previous YouthInkLeft posts about Habeas Corpus, which is defined as “ the right of a citizen to obtain a writ of habeas corpus as a protection against illegal imprisonment” (from Merriam Webster) :
“Detainees” in Gitmo May be Getting the Help they Need, by Aryeh
“About Habeas Corpus” by Freckles Cassie
June 7, 2007
Have you seen this story anywhere? If the media in the United States don’t publish and insist on talking about stories like this, how will the rest of us even know that our freedom is under attack? Where are the defenders of the Constitution? I read a LOT of news and listen to political talk radio, and I never heard about this incident until I read it on someone else’s blog. Video here.
Reporter Arrested on Orders of Giuliani Press Secretary Charged with Criminal Trespass Despite Protest of CNN Staff and Official Event Press Credentials at GOP Debate in New Hampshire
Aaron Dykes & Alex Jones / Jones Report | June 5, 2007
Manchester, NH – Freelance reporter Matt Lepacek, reporting for Infowars.com, was arrested for asking a question to one of Giuliani’s staff members in a press conference. The press secretary identified the New York based reporter as having previously asked Giuliani about his prior knowledge of WTC building collapses and ordered New Hampshire state police to arrest him.
Jason Bermas, reporting for America: Freedom to Fascism, confirmed Lepacek had official CNN press credentials for the Republican debate. However, his camera was seized by staff members who shut off the camera, according to Luke Rudkowski, also a freelance Infowars reporter on the scene. He said police physically assaulted both reporters after Rudkowski objected that they were official members of the press and that nothing illegal had taken place. Police reportedly damaged the Infowars-owned camera in the process.
Reporters were questioning Giuliani staff members on a variety of issues, including his apparent ignorance of the 9/11 Commission Report, according to Bermas. The staff members accused the reporters of Ron Paul partisanship, which press denied. It was at this point that Lepacek, who was streaming a live report, asked a staff member about Giuliani’s statement to Peter Jennings that he was told beforehand that the WTC buildings would collapse.
Giuliani’s press secretary then called over New Hampshire state police, fingering Lepacek.
June 6, 2007
The Republicans SAY that they stand for smaller government, strong defense, family values, fiscal responsibility, and law and order. The last four years show that is not really the case any more. The reality is that they have increased the government’s size with the homeland security department, practically broken the military with the war and occupation in Iraq, run up huge debts and bills to China, and now they’re showing how they really feel about law and order (the concept, not the TV show).
The Los Angeles Times explains their dilemma like this:
The fate of convicted former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby has thrown a twist into the race for the Republican presidential nomination, forcing candidates to make an awkward choice between loyalty to a party stalwart and reverence for the rule of law.The issue erupted during Tuesday night’s GOP debate in New Hampshire, hours after Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison for perjury and obstruction of justice — reflecting an intensifying debate in Republican circles over whether President Bush should pardon Libby before he would have to report to prison.
The Republican candidates (and the talk show hosts) all make it sound like there is nothing wrong with obstruction of justice or lying to the FBI or perjury. WHAT ABOUT LAW & ORDER? Do they only want to throw the book at people that are likely to vote democratic?
Also from the same LA Times article:
“If the public believes there’s one law for a certain group of people in high places and another law for regular people, then you will destroy the law and destroy the system,” Gilmore, a former Virginia attorney general and ex-Republican National Committee chairman, said Wednesday.
Listen up GOP: If you don’t start playing fair and at least showing some of the actions consistent with what you say, no one will ever take you seriously. The constitution and the legal system and the country should be more important to you than your party. If they’re not, you have no business being in charge of anything.
Political Teen Tidbits 
January 17, 2008
Huckabee, the Constitution and the News
Posted by Cassie Frequelz under censorship, Commentary, constitution, current events, Election 2008, first amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, Huckabee, News, Political, Politics, presidential election, primaries, republicans, theocracy, vote, voting[7] Comments
Update below!
Would someone please tell me why the story about Huckabee wanting to change the Constitution and start a theocracy here is NOT in regular newspapers? I am not allowed to use AlterNet or TPM or the blogs as sources for weekly “current events in politics” assignments. And if it isn’t even news for a high school history class, then it’s really not news for the American public!
Here’s what Google News Search had for the search terms huckabee “god’s standards” constitution:
Why not the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune or a newspaper my teacher accepts as real?!?!? Here’s what Huckabee ACTUALLY said:
He’s a FFFFing candidate for President who has already won a state! Tell me why that this shouldn’t be front page news on all the newspapers this week.
Update: It IS in a real newspaper! Just not in the United States. The UK Guardian has the story.