Showing posts with label constitutional rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitutional rights. Show all posts
January 11, 2013
Piers Morgan debates Ben Shapiro on Gun Laws - Part 1 - Youtube 5 45 mins
January 10, 2013: CNN television host Piers Morgan 'debates' gun legislation
with Ben Shapiro, author of 'Bullies', Editor at Large at Breitbart.com.
Piers is condescendingly dismissive when Shapiro points out that tyranny has overrun and destroyed countries throughout history. This is a central point of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, in Shapiro's view. (The Second Amendment enshrines the lawful right of citizens to bear arms.)
Piers is so primed to destroy all comers who have a nuanced view with regard to the Second Amendment right to bear arms, that when Shapiro shares that his forebears were destroyed by the Nazis, in part, because they trusted that their government would never become tyrannical in nature, there is no pause whatsoever from Piers to acknowledge Shapiro's pain, let alone his point.
As for myself, I don't like guns. However, I would wish one could magically materialize in my hand should I be cornered by evil that is intent on taking my life or the life of somebody I love. Ergo, self-defense is a natural right.
Further, it is historically beyond question that peoples have had need from time to time in history to defend from attack from without, or from those who would oppress, abuse or destroy people from within a state's borders.
Excerpt from Part One (above): Ben Shapiro [at approximately the 4 minute mark]: "...fundamentally, the Right believes that the basis for the Second Amendment, and they believe in the Second Amendment, the basis for the Second Amendment is not really about self-defense and it's not about hunting, it is about resistance to government tyranny - that's what the Founders said and that's what the Right believes in this country."
Piers Morgan, CNN: "What tyranny are you fearing yourself?"
Shapiro: "I fear the possibility of a tyranny rising within this country in the next fifty to one-hundred years. Let me tell you something Piers, the fact that my grandparents and my great-grandparents in Europe didn't fear that is why they're now ashes in Europe. So this kind of Leftist revisionist history, where there is never any fear of democracy going usurpatious or tyrannical is just - " [cut off by Piers mid-sentence...]
Piers: "So just to clarify your position then, the answer to Sandy Hook, as it was to Aurora, as it was to Gabriel Giffords, as it was to Columbine and Virginia Tech, is you do nothing, is that your position?"
Shapiro: "That is not my position..."
Piers cuts Shapiro off: "What is your position?"
Shapiro: "My position is that we have to calibrate laws that are designed to get guns out of the hands of bad people and keep guns in the hands of good people who want to buy them. This whole idea that more guns versus less guns is -"
Piers cuts Shapiro off: "How do you do that? How do you do that?"
Shapiro: "Well, I think that one of the ways that you do that is by better screening for mental illness. I think that you do better background checks -"
Piers cuts Shapiro off: "Was Adam Lanza's mother a good person?"
Shapiro: "Um, I don't know whether she was a good person or a bad person I think she was irresponsible with her guns."
Piers: "Has there been any evidence to suggest that she was not a good person?"
Shapiro: "No," [through a series of interruptions from Piers about whether or not Lanza's mother was 'good' or 'bad'] - "she was an irresponsible person, she didn't keep her guns locked up and that should be against the law. She had a mentally ill person in her house. I mean, we are talking about laws we can both agree on, Piers, I don't know why you are disagreeing with me on this..."
Part 2
Piers ends this execrable excuse for an interview or debate, whatever he chooses to call it,
by saying people can judge for themselves who has the stronger argument. I could not agree more.
- Diane V. McLoughlin
July 05, 2012
July 01, 2012
June 14, 2012
May 25, 2012
May 22, 2012
April 06, 2012
February 28, 2012
January 05, 2012
April 15, 2011
August 30, 2010
To Bob on Empire
The following was prompted by a comment on my essay, 'Reactions to American Extremism'; by a guy named Bob.
Bob wrote, 'I just can't stand the message that America is to blame for all the faults that go around the world that is just not true we are the greatest nation in the WORLD, also read what she is saying, it almost seems to me that she is kinda taking sides with bin laden and she is quoting castro'.
by Diane V. McLoughlin, September 1, 2010
Bob. Hi. I hope everything is well with you. I have a toothache I can't fix. How I feel these days (beyond the immediate of the tooth and its broader implications) is this way: I see things in a particular way because I have been studying current affairs full-time now for several years; a luxury not open to most.
The spirit of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are embedded in my DNA. I believe these rights are the inalienable rights of every single person living on this planet. People have a right to be free - from discrimination, from fear, from want, from occupation, from oppression, from resource-hungry military-backed multinational corporations, and from remote-controlled U.S. drones dropping bombs on your village compound. That's me.
I believe most Americans feel the same way, too. But the government (or, more precisely, interests with a powerful influence on government) does not believe it. And the more I learn, the more I see that it almost never has. When it looked like the government might be led in a better direction by President John F. Kennedy, for example, he was assassinated; November 22, 1963.
His brother Robert Kennedy was bravely willing to take up the challenge to run for President, by 1968. 'Kennedy stood on a platform of racial and economic justice, non-aggression in foreign policy, decentralization of power and social improvement...He aroused rabid animosity in some quarters, with J. Edgar Hoover's Deputy Clyde Tolson reported as saying, 'I hope that someone shoots and kills the son of a bitch.'[]...It has been widely commented that Robert Kennedy's campaign for the American presidency far outstripped, in its vision of social improvement, that of President Kennedy...;'. (1)
Robert F. Kennedy was, like his brother, assassinated in cold blood; June 6, 1968. You know what I remember about Robert Kennedy? I remember hearing that he wanted to see what life was really like for Blacks in the Deep South. What I remember is that he came back stunned that Black kids weren't getting milk. Their families could not afford milk.
Patrick Buchanan gets a lot of flack from the left, and it may well be that it's fair criticism and that I just don't know much about him. But I picked up a book of his in a Salvation Army store a few years ago, and although it could have been edited better, the message rang true in the choice facing the United States: Republic - or Empire?
Bob, you spit out Fidel Castro's name as if he were a minion of the devil. He's a man. People have flaws. We make mistakes. But he was motivated in his younger years by the suffering of his people, to try to do something about it. He seems motivated now to stress the perils nuclear weapons pose to the people of the whole world. I see nothing but good in that.
As for my discussing the events of 9/11 and what motivated Osama bin Laden - that for one thing, we murdered over 500,000 Iraqi children during our siege of Iraq 1993-2003 - that is a discussion that is long overdue.
Empires are vicious, blood-thirsty, soulless entities, as my Mom put it to me in a chat earlier today; it doesn't matter which one, or which time in history we pick to talk about - they are all the same. Empires don't know when to stop trying to expand their centers of control, either, and that is one of the reasons they fall apart.
But another thing that empires do is lie to the people, Bob. You can't get people to occupy other countries or kill other people unless you have a damned good reason to do it - defense from imminent attack - or you lie to them because you don't have a good reason; you have evil, racist, greedy reasons. American companies such as Halliburton, now headquartered off-shore to avoid paying taxes; Kellogg, Brown and Root; Blackwater, and others - have profited beyond the dreams of Midas from the foreign adventures our government has conducted overseas. The profit motive motivates. Diversification of American industry away from war is going to be key to peace.
Image, right: Donald Rumsfeld, Special
Envoy of President Ronald Reagan, and his pal,
Saddam Hussein - 1983 - Getty Images (1a)
Now, it is my view that you have been lied to your whole life, Bob. Americans are daily inundated with lies. I view myself as a failure, because, so far at least, I have not found the right words to help. I'm only one person, I know. But who will save the people from self-destruction? I view it as self-destruction, if and when the enemies we have made for ourselves retaliate.
We have 1,000 - one-thousand - military bases and outposts; U.S. personnel is situated in 156 countries around the world.(2) That's an empire.
The take-over of the government is not complete. The people can change things. I would share that at 'War Is A Crime.org', - (link: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/caws ) - you can find a list of candidates who have signed a pledge to refuse to authorize any more war funding, if they are voted in.
There is another list, here - http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/whipwars - where you can check your current representative's voting record on war funding, too.
For anyone reading this (hello, how are you, hope all is well), the first question comes down to this: Are you prepared, as a citizen of whatever country you reside in, to countenance the possibility that those in power are abusing that power? If you are not prepared to even consider that as a possibility, then time may either be short - or it is already too late.
---------------------------------
Notes:
(1) Wikipedia, Robert F. Kennedy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy ;
(1a) 'Shaking Hands With Saddam Hussein; The U.S. Tilts Towards Iraq: 1980 - 1984'; National Security Archive Briefing Book No. 82; Edited by Joyce Battle; February 25, 2003;
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ ;
(2) 'The Worldwide Network of Military Bases; The Global Deployment of U.S. Military Personnel'; by Professor Jules Dufour; Global Research; July 1, 2007;
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564 ;
Main website: mcloughlinpost.com
(back, 'To Bob, on Empire' posted at main website.)
Bob wrote, 'I just can't stand the message that America is to blame for all the faults that go around the world that is just not true we are the greatest nation in the WORLD, also read what she is saying, it almost seems to me that she is kinda taking sides with bin laden and she is quoting castro'.
by Diane V. McLoughlin, September 1, 2010
Bob. Hi. I hope everything is well with you. I have a toothache I can't fix. How I feel these days (beyond the immediate of the tooth and its broader implications) is this way: I see things in a particular way because I have been studying current affairs full-time now for several years; a luxury not open to most.
The spirit of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are embedded in my DNA. I believe these rights are the inalienable rights of every single person living on this planet. People have a right to be free - from discrimination, from fear, from want, from occupation, from oppression, from resource-hungry military-backed multinational corporations, and from remote-controlled U.S. drones dropping bombs on your village compound. That's me.
I believe most Americans feel the same way, too. But the government (or, more precisely, interests with a powerful influence on government) does not believe it. And the more I learn, the more I see that it almost never has. When it looked like the government might be led in a better direction by President John F. Kennedy, for example, he was assassinated; November 22, 1963.
His brother Robert Kennedy was bravely willing to take up the challenge to run for President, by 1968. 'Kennedy stood on a platform of racial and economic justice, non-aggression in foreign policy, decentralization of power and social improvement...He aroused rabid animosity in some quarters, with J. Edgar Hoover's Deputy Clyde Tolson reported as saying, 'I hope that someone shoots and kills the son of a bitch.'[]...It has been widely commented that Robert Kennedy's campaign for the American presidency far outstripped, in its vision of social improvement, that of President Kennedy...;'. (1)
Robert F. Kennedy was, like his brother, assassinated in cold blood; June 6, 1968. You know what I remember about Robert Kennedy? I remember hearing that he wanted to see what life was really like for Blacks in the Deep South. What I remember is that he came back stunned that Black kids weren't getting milk. Their families could not afford milk.
Patrick Buchanan gets a lot of flack from the left, and it may well be that it's fair criticism and that I just don't know much about him. But I picked up a book of his in a Salvation Army store a few years ago, and although it could have been edited better, the message rang true in the choice facing the United States: Republic - or Empire?
Bob, you spit out Fidel Castro's name as if he were a minion of the devil. He's a man. People have flaws. We make mistakes. But he was motivated in his younger years by the suffering of his people, to try to do something about it. He seems motivated now to stress the perils nuclear weapons pose to the people of the whole world. I see nothing but good in that.
As for my discussing the events of 9/11 and what motivated Osama bin Laden - that for one thing, we murdered over 500,000 Iraqi children during our siege of Iraq 1993-2003 - that is a discussion that is long overdue.
Empires are vicious, blood-thirsty, soulless entities, as my Mom put it to me in a chat earlier today; it doesn't matter which one, or which time in history we pick to talk about - they are all the same. Empires don't know when to stop trying to expand their centers of control, either, and that is one of the reasons they fall apart.
But another thing that empires do is lie to the people, Bob. You can't get people to occupy other countries or kill other people unless you have a damned good reason to do it - defense from imminent attack - or you lie to them because you don't have a good reason; you have evil, racist, greedy reasons. American companies such as Halliburton, now headquartered off-shore to avoid paying taxes; Kellogg, Brown and Root; Blackwater, and others - have profited beyond the dreams of Midas from the foreign adventures our government has conducted overseas. The profit motive motivates. Diversification of American industry away from war is going to be key to peace.
Envoy of President Ronald Reagan, and his pal,
Saddam Hussein - 1983 - Getty Images (1a)
Now, it is my view that you have been lied to your whole life, Bob. Americans are daily inundated with lies. I view myself as a failure, because, so far at least, I have not found the right words to help. I'm only one person, I know. But who will save the people from self-destruction? I view it as self-destruction, if and when the enemies we have made for ourselves retaliate.
We have 1,000 - one-thousand - military bases and outposts; U.S. personnel is situated in 156 countries around the world.(2) That's an empire.
The take-over of the government is not complete. The people can change things. I would share that at 'War Is A Crime.org', - (link: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/caws ) - you can find a list of candidates who have signed a pledge to refuse to authorize any more war funding, if they are voted in.
There is another list, here - http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/whipwars - where you can check your current representative's voting record on war funding, too.
For anyone reading this (hello, how are you, hope all is well), the first question comes down to this: Are you prepared, as a citizen of whatever country you reside in, to countenance the possibility that those in power are abusing that power? If you are not prepared to even consider that as a possibility, then time may either be short - or it is already too late.
---------------------------------
Notes:
(1) Wikipedia, Robert F. Kennedy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy ;
(1a) 'Shaking Hands With Saddam Hussein; The U.S. Tilts Towards Iraq: 1980 - 1984'; National Security Archive Briefing Book No. 82; Edited by Joyce Battle; February 25, 2003;
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ ;
(2) 'The Worldwide Network of Military Bases; The Global Deployment of U.S. Military Personnel'; by Professor Jules Dufour; Global Research; July 1, 2007;
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564 ;
Main website: mcloughlinpost.com
(back, 'To Bob, on Empire' posted at main website.)
July 30, 2010
Choices - Universal Healthcare vs. Universal Destruction
by Diane V. McLoughlin, writer, peace activist
- main website mcloughlinpost.com
Although I am an agnostic, and consider myself to be an independent politically, one of the many newsletters I subscribe to is Chuck Baldwin's. Baldwin is an American politician. He ran for President under the Constitution Party banner in 2008. He is also founder-pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida (Wikipedia.)
On some things Mr. Baldwin and I agree. This is very interesting to me. For example, we both support the repeal of the Patriot Act.
But there are areas where we differ. I respectfully wish to address in particular the importance of political compromise, and, specifically, for perhaps surprising reasons, on the issue of universal health care.
I feel it is imminently worthwhile to engage. The Constitution Party opposes not only the Iraq war, but any war that is not officially declared by Congress, and any war that is not necessary for America's defense.
Mr. Baldwin writes that patriots:
Are 'strong proponents of the principles contained in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. [Me: check.]
'You also readily acknowledge that our rights come from God, not government.' [I believe rights do not come from government; they are natural rights that are an intrinsically inherent aspect of the nature of Man, whether you believe in God or not.]
Baldwin:
That patriots, 'believe in a limited federal government and would never aid and abet the burgeoning surveillance state that both the federal and some State and local governments are creating, meaning you would never allow your business to be used by the government to trample the personal and privacy rights of citizens. In other words, you oppose the so-called USA Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and any other act that abridges protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.' [double, triple check.]
Further, 'you are neither a neocon nor a liberal [check.]
'In other words, you support the principles of limited government; [me: honest, effective government];
'do not believe America should fight preemptive, undeclared wars; [CHECK!];
'oppose Obamacare (socialized medicine); ['Obamacare' is too flawed; hobbled by private, for-profit interests];
'resent the growing police state; [check];
'and refuse to vote for "the lesser of two evils" for the sake of party partisanship. [This is the coming-together problem, right here.]
The Constitution Party is anti-abortion [gray areas for me];
Anti-illegal immigration [squeamy on this. Reluctantly, the law is the law. Some hospitals and school districts are drowning in red ink because of illegals who don't pay taxes but eat up public services.]
They are pro right-to-bear-arms (and believe a patriot business owner would therefore, for example, 'never prevent lawfully armed citizens from entering your establishment.' [Yikes! For your interest, there is something like a hundred to one difference in gun mortality rates between the U.S. and gun-controlled Canada.]
The big shapes: I feel that the initiative is slipping away and time is running out. What is most important is two-fold: fostering peace and protecting constitutional rights - for all the world's citizens.
The Achilles Heel holding all of us back is our unwillingness to compromise even a little bit to get the job done. The malevolent exaggeration of differences between Americans should cease. This is no esoteric exercise in argument. People's lives are being destroyed - ours and our neighbors: American, Palestinian, Israeli, Pakistani, Iraqi, Afghani...
Which brings me to a point of compromise for the Constitution Party to consider:
'...the suicide rate for soldiers who first entered the Army in their late 20s was three times higher than for those in the younger group.
'General Chiarelli said he did not want to typecast, “but I think it’s fair to say in some instances it would be a soldier that’s possibly married, couple of kids, lost his job, no health care insurance, possibly a single parent.” Such a soldier, General Chiarelli said, “is coming in the Army to start all over again, and we see this high rate of suicide.” [From: 'Pentagon Report Places Blame for Suicides'; Elizabeth Bumiller; NYT; July 29, 2010.]
The above statistic is shocking. In order for men and women to provide for their families, they are enlisting in the government's wars to kill overseas so that their children don't starve or die for lack of jobs and accessible health care at home.
The Constitution Party does not believe in no government; it believes in limited government. As surely as a well-paved, publicly-paid-for road gets us safely from A to B, the issue of universal health care is a matter of conscience that no one of any religious creed or political persuasion would deny their neighbor.
Now, it would appear that in its denial to American families, lack of healthcare plays its part in the war machine's inexorable roll to universal destruction.
- main website mcloughlinpost.com
Although I am an agnostic, and consider myself to be an independent politically, one of the many newsletters I subscribe to is Chuck Baldwin's. Baldwin is an American politician. He ran for President under the Constitution Party banner in 2008. He is also founder-pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida (Wikipedia.)
On some things Mr. Baldwin and I agree. This is very interesting to me. For example, we both support the repeal of the Patriot Act.
But there are areas where we differ. I respectfully wish to address in particular the importance of political compromise, and, specifically, for perhaps surprising reasons, on the issue of universal health care.
I feel it is imminently worthwhile to engage. The Constitution Party opposes not only the Iraq war, but any war that is not officially declared by Congress, and any war that is not necessary for America's defense.
Mr. Baldwin writes that patriots:
Are 'strong proponents of the principles contained in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. [Me: check.]
'You also readily acknowledge that our rights come from God, not government.' [I believe rights do not come from government; they are natural rights that are an intrinsically inherent aspect of the nature of Man, whether you believe in God or not.]
Baldwin:
That patriots, 'believe in a limited federal government and would never aid and abet the burgeoning surveillance state that both the federal and some State and local governments are creating, meaning you would never allow your business to be used by the government to trample the personal and privacy rights of citizens. In other words, you oppose the so-called USA Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and any other act that abridges protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.' [double, triple check.]
Further, 'you are neither a neocon nor a liberal [check.]
'In other words, you support the principles of limited government; [me: honest, effective government];
'do not believe America should fight preemptive, undeclared wars; [CHECK!];
'oppose Obamacare (socialized medicine); ['Obamacare' is too flawed; hobbled by private, for-profit interests];
'resent the growing police state; [check];
'and refuse to vote for "the lesser of two evils" for the sake of party partisanship. [This is the coming-together problem, right here.]
The Constitution Party is anti-abortion [gray areas for me];
Anti-illegal immigration [squeamy on this. Reluctantly, the law is the law. Some hospitals and school districts are drowning in red ink because of illegals who don't pay taxes but eat up public services.]
They are pro right-to-bear-arms (and believe a patriot business owner would therefore, for example, 'never prevent lawfully armed citizens from entering your establishment.' [Yikes! For your interest, there is something like a hundred to one difference in gun mortality rates between the U.S. and gun-controlled Canada.]
The big shapes: I feel that the initiative is slipping away and time is running out. What is most important is two-fold: fostering peace and protecting constitutional rights - for all the world's citizens.
The Achilles Heel holding all of us back is our unwillingness to compromise even a little bit to get the job done. The malevolent exaggeration of differences between Americans should cease. This is no esoteric exercise in argument. People's lives are being destroyed - ours and our neighbors: American, Palestinian, Israeli, Pakistani, Iraqi, Afghani...
Which brings me to a point of compromise for the Constitution Party to consider:
'...the suicide rate for soldiers who first entered the Army in their late 20s was three times higher than for those in the younger group.
'General Chiarelli said he did not want to typecast, “but I think it’s fair to say in some instances it would be a soldier that’s possibly married, couple of kids, lost his job, no health care insurance, possibly a single parent.” Such a soldier, General Chiarelli said, “is coming in the Army to start all over again, and we see this high rate of suicide.” [From: 'Pentagon Report Places Blame for Suicides'; Elizabeth Bumiller; NYT; July 29, 2010.]
The above statistic is shocking. In order for men and women to provide for their families, they are enlisting in the government's wars to kill overseas so that their children don't starve or die for lack of jobs and accessible health care at home.
The Constitution Party does not believe in no government; it believes in limited government. As surely as a well-paved, publicly-paid-for road gets us safely from A to B, the issue of universal health care is a matter of conscience that no one of any religious creed or political persuasion would deny their neighbor.
Now, it would appear that in its denial to American families, lack of healthcare plays its part in the war machine's inexorable roll to universal destruction.
June 29, 2010
G20 Summit - When They Came For Them I Did Nothing...
by Diane V. McLoughlin
June 22, 2010: The Ottawa Citizen editorial smears anyone with a criticism of the current state of Western Democracy (in essence) - claiming that at the G20 summit protesters were 'incompetent' at getting their messages across - rather than protesters' claims that all alternative views were repressed. (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Empty+protest/3213722/story.html#comments)
The Ottawa Citizen, along with the rest of Canadian mainstream media (MSM), succeeded spectacularly in keeping every single protest message out. No one interviewed; no inconvenient pictures of the consequences of police brutality; no pictures of protest signs; no nothing. The Ottawa Citizen, CBC News, CTV et al - all an abomination and a disgrace.
We might have found that majorities of Canadians would not have agreed with this point of view or that one. But what should profoundly worry all Canadians far more is that they were denied the opportunity to hear these views to weigh and judge each one for themselves. It was a complete media blackout worthy of any totalitarian regime.
As for broken windows and the three burned police cars - interesting indeed to note that the police, numbered in the thousands, were absent entirely from the scene when these events took place, yet peaceful protesters numbering in the hundreds along with accredited journalists were rounded up, in some cases beaten, heads kicked in, bones broken, strip searched, threatened with rape, and even digitally penetrated; McGuinty's cabinet passes vastly expanded police powers that directly contravene our constitutional rights and protections, and he is allowed to refuse to discuss it, by you, the MSM, without even a whimper of journalistic protest.
Where is the cautionary reminder that Canadian security forces were caught red-handed planting agents provocateurs within protest marches at a past meeting held at Montebello, stopped by protesters from throwing rocks which were to be used to smear them all as just violent, no-mind anarchists? Nowhere.
The same allegations are surfacing, again.
Either you have sold your souls to the devil or you are being coerced by the state against your will. If the latter you should commit the ultimate in brave service to the state and its citizens by publicly saying so. The choice is as grim as it is absolute.
What you fail to realize is that you are not part of the inner circle. As it was so sadly and eloquently put in another time and place, when they came for them I did nothing. When they came for me it was too late.
June 22, 2010: The Ottawa Citizen editorial smears anyone with a criticism of the current state of Western Democracy (in essence) - claiming that at the G20 summit protesters were 'incompetent' at getting their messages across - rather than protesters' claims that all alternative views were repressed. (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Empty+protest/3213722/story.html#comments)
The Ottawa Citizen, along with the rest of Canadian mainstream media (MSM), succeeded spectacularly in keeping every single protest message out. No one interviewed; no inconvenient pictures of the consequences of police brutality; no pictures of protest signs; no nothing. The Ottawa Citizen, CBC News, CTV et al - all an abomination and a disgrace.
We might have found that majorities of Canadians would not have agreed with this point of view or that one. But what should profoundly worry all Canadians far more is that they were denied the opportunity to hear these views to weigh and judge each one for themselves. It was a complete media blackout worthy of any totalitarian regime.
As for broken windows and the three burned police cars - interesting indeed to note that the police, numbered in the thousands, were absent entirely from the scene when these events took place, yet peaceful protesters numbering in the hundreds along with accredited journalists were rounded up, in some cases beaten, heads kicked in, bones broken, strip searched, threatened with rape, and even digitally penetrated; McGuinty's cabinet passes vastly expanded police powers that directly contravene our constitutional rights and protections, and he is allowed to refuse to discuss it, by you, the MSM, without even a whimper of journalistic protest.
Where is the cautionary reminder that Canadian security forces were caught red-handed planting agents provocateurs within protest marches at a past meeting held at Montebello, stopped by protesters from throwing rocks which were to be used to smear them all as just violent, no-mind anarchists? Nowhere.
The same allegations are surfacing, again.
Either you have sold your souls to the devil or you are being coerced by the state against your will. If the latter you should commit the ultimate in brave service to the state and its citizens by publicly saying so. The choice is as grim as it is absolute.
What you fail to realize is that you are not part of the inner circle. As it was so sadly and eloquently put in another time and place, when they came for them I did nothing. When they came for me it was too late.
June 07, 2010
Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan - Interesting Political Times
A feature-length magazine article
by Diane V. McLoughlin
June, 2010:
Seasoned politico and writer Pat Buchanan has been taken to task for pointing out that, should Elena
Kagan be confirmed, the Supreme Court would consist of three Jews, six Catholics, and not a
Protestant in the lot of them. [1]
Sounds a bit like an opener to a bad joke, doesn't it? 'So, three Jews, six Catholics and zero
Protestants walk into a bar...' blah, blah, blah and punch-line. For the record I'm an agnostic,
cognizant and supremely tolerant of the fact that most other people are not.
Anyway, I infer from Buchanan's parsing of the numbers that he believes that religion influences the
ways in which a Supreme Court justice might weigh-in on the law, and, by extension, that religious
belief might have a profound effect on the ways in which a Supreme Court justice might leave their
imprint on civil liberties as well as the social fabric of the nation. After all, that is what the justices
are there for - to interpret how legal cases ought to be settled based on the guiding principles of the
Constitution.
I really don't have a problem with Mr. Buchanan's reasoning, but Huffington Post's Keli Goff goes
way out there to smear Buchanan's thoughts as 'dangerous' antisemitism. [2]
Why is it racist to suggest that color, class, social groupings and/or religion might shape one's views
to varying degrees, and that one would hope to have reasonable proportional representation - or,
inversely - not an unreasonably disproportionate over-representation of any identifiable group? Is it
really fair to say that efforts at inclusion are discriminatory?
Power of one group over other groups is sometimes abusive and tyrannical, such as the tyranny of
majority-rule. Sometimes tyranny might take the form of a small elite over the unwitting majority,
instead.
The Founders tried to take into account such threats to the liberty of the individual. They wanted to
maximally protect civil liberties for All. President Barack Obama's successful nomination of Ms.
Kagan would mean that thirty percent of the Supreme Court justices would be Jewish, versus less
than two percent of America's general population. As I say, Ms. Goff seems to feel it is racist even
to bring it up.
The above merely hints at the controversy swirling around this story.
Who is Elena Kagan? What are her qualifications?
For starters, Ms. Kagan does not have a legal record to review from time spent on the bench.
I repeat, because it is so stunning as to be disbelieved - Ms. Kagan has been nominated to serve as
one of only nine individuals who are to determine, judge and personally influence the highest laws
and their philosophical underpinnings, while never having been a judge - not for one day, anywhere,
ever.
Frankly, it boggles the mind. Out of a population of three-hundred and ten-million - how many
talented, brilliant, experienced judges might there be? From that pool, how many did U.S. President
Barack Obama find worthy of interest? Apparently, none.
This raises some rather obvious questions. Why Elena Kagan? Who brought her to Obama's
attention? What overriding considerations were given to nominating her? Why is an inexperienced
judge preferable to an experienced judge? What does it say about Elena Kagan that she would even
agree to be considered, given this lack of experience? What is hoped to be achieved by her
nomination? What are her goals in accepting the invitation to serve?
Elena Kagan held the prestigious post of Dean of Harvard Law School. But the accepted criteria in
qualifications are performance as well as time spent on the bench, along with scholarly legal
publication.
In the view of writer James Petras, Obama's nomination of Ms. Kagan, based on her academic
publication record, 'might give her a fighting chance for tenure at a first rate correspondence law
school in the Texas Panhandle.' [2a]
What really recommended her, in his opinion?
'The evidence points to a purely political appointment based, in part, on social networks...Kagan’s
approval of indefinite detention of suspects squares with the extremist restrictions on constitutional
freedoms first articulated during the Bush Administration and subsequently upheld by President
Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder. It is no coincidence that Kagan appointed a notorious Bush
torture advocate, the genial Jack Goldsmith, to the Harvard Law faculty.
'...Elena Kagan got tenure at the august halls of the University of Chicago in 1995 on the basis of
one substantive article and one brief piece, neither outstanding. With this underwhelming record of
legal scholarship, she became visiting professorship at the Harvard Law School, published only two
more articles (one in Harvard Law Review) and received tenure. Prima facie evidence strongly
suggests that Kagan’s ties to the staunchly Zionist faculty at both Chicago and Harvard Law Schools
(and not her intellectual prowess) account for her meteoric promotions to tenure, deanship and now
the US Supreme Court, over the heads of hundreds of other highly qualified candidates with far
superior academic publication records and broader practical judicial experience.' [ibid]
--------
9/11 and the Constitution
Much of the legal public square has been taken up, after the catastrophic experiences of 9/11, with
questions that go to the heart of human rights and civil liberties.
Are we entitled...to presumption of innocence? Habeas Corpus? Is it still our right to be Mirandized -
that is, to be advised of our right to an attorney and to our right to remain silent? Are we entitled to
any trial at all? A speedy trial? Are we entitled to see the evidence against us? To challenge witnesses
and evidence in an open court? Do we have the right not to be coerced into incriminating ourselves
through torture or threats, and not to have such tainted evidence used against us? Do we still retain
the right not to be locked up indefinitely?
The fact that these questions in law have been torn open to situational interpretation - laws which
were heretofore considered long settled and carved in stone - is a loud alarm sounding for us all.
The recent would-be Times Square bomber was not advised of his rights. He was encouraged to
talk, first. Then he was told he had a right to remain silent. The outline of fascism is there when
some demand we rescind his American citizenship; assume he is guilty; deny him the right to his day
in court or to see the evidence against him. They would encouragingly approve his torture to extract
useless information he thinks they want to hear so that the pain will stop - causing us to drag others
who are innocent into the evil vortex as well.
Let's take the direction of the above to its logical conclusion. Let's bring back the test once used on
unfortunate people accused, by religious idiots and enemies, of being witches. Tie him up in a chair
and throw him in a pond of water. If he sinks and drowns he's human - oh! Too bad! If he manages
to float, he's a witch and we burn him.
Conversely, keep him alive but deprive the suspected terrorist (meaning, the otherwise innocent
person) of their liberty by locking them up indefinitely - a living death.
---------------------
Israel
Israel factors into American politics in a big way. Israel has gotten away with the on-going ethnic
cleansing of the Palestinian people largely through the Israel right-or-wrong political support of the
U.S.
Israel's oppression of the Palestinians was cited as one of the top reasons, by Osama bin Laden, for
the attacks on 9/11. That, and the murderous ten-year military blockade of Iraq which inflicted such
devastating suffering and death amongst the Iraqi people.
The New York Times, in a city with the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, seemingly
refused to report the Israel angle as they followed the unfolding events of 9/11. Many other
American media outlets reported on 9/11 in the same way, helping to create in the American publics'
mind a false and dangerously misleading case for why 9/11 occurred, and, it follows, in what ways
the country ought to respond.
Israel and 9/11 both became factors in our ongoing war against much of the Middle East. That, and
corporate competition for scarce oil resources. Thousands of young Americans in the prime of their
youth are coming home damaged or dead from these wars never having been told the truth of why
they were sent.
Speaking of Israel and the truth, there is a big push behind the scenes in western countries, Canada
and Great Britain being two notable examples, the United States being another, to make the following
statements thought or hate-speech crimes:
One, to suggest that Israel is an apartheid state; two, to suggest that Israel should be one democratic
state with equal rights for both Palestinians and Jews. [3] [3i]
Surely other states will line up for similar legalized blinkers. Is it not possible that hate speech laws
could be enacted against Americans who criticize American policy itself, if we start down that road?
I believe that it is.
Because American society is so polarized and divided, I think any Supreme Court nominee would, in
fact, come in for the same intense scrutiny as Ms. Kagan should.
One of the most important constitutional protections in troubled political times is freedom of speech.
How do Elena Kagan's views hold up on free speech rights? From the New York Times:
'As a scholar, Ms. Kagan’s interests were narrow, somewhat technical, and steered clear of ideology.
She was interested in questions like when the government could limit free speech. “This is not a
subject about which there is any ideological slant,” Mr. Stone said. “It’s an intellectual puzzle.” ' [4]
From Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason magazine:
'Kagan's understanding of First Amendment law, described most fully in a 1996 University of
Chicago Law Review article, suggests a tolerance for censorship when it is appropriately disguised by
euphemisms. In Kagan's view, the main goal of First Amendment doctrine is not to maximize
freedom or promote robust debate, but to ferret out impermissible motives for speech restrictions.
'While the government may constitutionally restrict speech based on "neutrally conceived harms,"
Kagan says, it may not restrict speech based on "hostility toward ideas." But as she herself more or
less acknowledges, this distinction ultimately collapses because people are hostile to ideas they
consider harmful.' [5]
From Marjorie Cohn, past president of the National Lawyer's Guild:
'In one of her few law review articles, Kagan advocated expansive executive power consistent with a
formulation from the Reagan administration. This is reminiscent of the “unitary executive” theory
that George W. Bush used to justify grabbing unbridled executive power in his “war on terror.”
'As solicitor general, Kagan asserted in a brief that the “state secrets privilege” is grounded in the
Constitution. The Obama White House, like the Bush administration, is asserting this privilege to
prevent people who the CIA sent to other countries to be tortured and people challenging Bush’s
secret spying program from litigating their cases in court.' [6]
In order to continue the rapacious war for Empire - in order for the military-industrial-Congressional-
religious complex to continue unimpeded - laws to suppress dissent should be anticipated.
It may seem like these disparate things do not go together. But what I would argue is that there is an
overlap of aims, desires and purposes at work. The one thing shared in common is that goals will be
reached far easier if they could whack off chunks of the Constitution.
Zealots never seem to consider what risks there might be to themselves in destroying the legal
protections of others.
We depend on the Supreme Court to be a Constitutional voice of conscience. All the most
fundamental protections of the individual from the tyranny of king or state or privileged group are on
life support. Which rights, that Americans hold most sacrosanct, are left? The answer: few.
Through the quiet machinations of American politicians such as John McCain and Joseph
Lieberman, who, in senate bill S.3081 propose to lock up indefinitely anyone, including American
citizens, merely accused of terrorism, without charge or trial - soon the answer may be that we have
no rights left at all:
S.3081, Sec. 5 Detention Without Trial of Unprivileged Enemy Belligerents:
'An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy
belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention
Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without
trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the
individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent
with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress
pertaining to such hostilities.' [6a] (It is heartening to note that on the website Open Congress, the
split of readers who voted their judgement of this bill so far is 29 in favor, 433 against, for a mere
6% in support.)
It doesn't matter to me whether Elena Kagan is Jewish. What matters is her philosophy on the fundamentals of constitutional justice.
It matters what a Supreme Court nominee believes. It matters what his or her record is and what
they have stood for. All Supreme Court candidates go through a vetting process where ideas and
beliefs that could profoundly affect decisions in law are hopefully weighed and debated as to the
candidate's suitability.
If there is no record, there is no way to judge a would-be judge. One of the most important jobs of a
Supreme Court justice is the job of telling the state one word - that word is no. No you can't lock up
a person indefinitely without evidence or trial. No you can't torture. No you can't brand a human
being 'terrorist' to deny them the right to be presumed innocent. No you can't be President of the
United States without counting every vote cast. No you can't spy on Americans without real cause
and a warrant. No.
Telling the state no, or any particular power configuration operating within the state no, takes balls.
---------------------------------------
Judicial Independence
To risk being ostracized or shunned from one's group when making pronouncements on issues of
right and wrong takes tremendous moral courage, too. The group might include your friends, family,
neighbors, colleagues, religious community or even most of your whole tribe.
The threat of being shunned is a powerful disincentive to swim against the current of your group's
opinion - regardless of whether or not you are on the side of justice and truth. Studies have
determined that to be ostracized or shunned can have tremendously negative effects on the
individual, both psychologically and physically.
A very recent example of shunning:
South African judge Richard Goldstone is internationally renowned and highly respected in the field
of law. He agreed to conduct an independent review, for the United Nations, of Israel's late 2008 to
early 2009 military assault on Gaza, for evidence of war crimes by both sides.
Goldstone is Jewish. No doubt he had at least an idea of what he would be in for, but he chose to
serve and accepted the assignment, anyway. The Goldstone Report concluded that serious war
crimes were committed by both sides and that these required further investigation.
Israel came in for unaccustomed direct, harsh criticism, weighted in fact:
Paragraph: '1883. The Gaza military operations were, according to the Israeli Government,
thoroughly and extensively planned. While the Israeli Government has sought to portray its operations
as essentially a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right to self-defence, the
Mission considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: the
people of Gaza as a whole.' [6b]
Subsequently, the South African Jewish community threatened to picket Judge Goldstone's
grandson's bar matzvah. Goldstone put out a statement that he wouldn't be attending so that his
grandson's day could proceed unspoiled.
The S.A. Jewish leaders put out word that they would call off their planned picket if Goldstone
agreed to a meeting, which he did.
They used his grandson, and in effect held his family hostage, in order to try to manipulate this judge.
In fact, Judge Goldstone has been smeared, vilified and portrayed as a traitor and a self-hating Jew.
These kinds of attacks by the group against the individual applies an unbelievable amount of
pressure, and it can be extremely effective - which is, of course, why it's done; not everyone is stout
enough of heart, nor independent enough of mind and spirit to withstand it.
----------------------
The Palestinian Equation
Palestinians suffer arbitrary arrest, torture and indefinite detention without trial. They suffer
property and home confiscation as well as home demolition, with little notice or legal recourse.
Twenty-three year-old American peace activist Rachel Corrie was crushed to death in 2003, by an
Israeli military Caterpillar bulldozer. She put stood in the path of the Cat to block it from destroying
a Palestinian physician's home. She was at eye level to the driver, standing on a mound of earth;
daylight visibility was good. The Cat drove forward over her and backed up over her again.
Of the Spring 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla, the last boat prevented by Israel from carrying relief
supplies to the people in Gaza - people who continue to endure a life of want and despair under
Israel's continuing military siege - was named after her: the MV Rachel Corrie.
In the Occupied Palestinian Territories, otherwise known as the West Bank, Palestinians suffer life
under military occupation, surrounded by hostile Jewish extremists who believe God gave them the
right to steal Palestinian land and to kill them, if necessary, to take it. There are Jews-only roads and
Palestinian villages surrounded by troops, barbed wire and locked gates that are opened by Israeli
troops for only fifteen minutes, three times per day.
Palestinians live under the constant threat of Jewish violence. Yet Palestinians are not permitted to
defend themselves. The Israeli military passively looks on while Palestinians are brutalized and does
nothing - when, that is - the Israeli military isn't brutalizing Palestinians itself.
Part of what makes the entire situation so bitterly unpalatable is the fact that Jews themselves should
know all too well from their own history how abhorrent and morally wrong it is to be treated this way.
As noted earlier, there is a quiet but powerful push to criminalize criticism of Israel. That requires
fundamental shifts in civil rights law. Bringing us back to Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination
and the questions outlined above.
------------------------
Vet them; protect them
In vetting a Supreme Court nominee, these days it might be prudent to ask whether or not they are
impervious to threats and intimidation in an increasingly polarized society.
From former American Vice President Al Gore's New York Times bestselling book, 'The Assault on
Reason', (Penguin, 2007):
'One of the coalition's "constitutional scholars," Edwin Vieira, echoed [Ann] Coulter's hateful rant at
a conference on the so-called Judicial War on Faith by explaining how he would recommend
handling the Supreme Court. He actually quoted Joseph Stalin, saying that Stalin "had a slogan and it
worked pretty well for him whenever he ran into difficulty: 'No man no problem.'
"The only way to explain an American constitutional scholar endorsing ad hominem attacks on Supreme Court justices is to assume that he has abandoned reason and surrendered to dogma. Moreover, by quoting Stalin - a homicidal dictator whose only peers are Mao and Hitler - he had to realize that people might
interpret this as a vague threat of physical violence against justices whose opinions violated right-wing orthodoxy.' [7]
Obviously, a society based on laws must have a legal community that is able to conduct itself free
from fear and intimidation.
Conclusion
In spite of the tremendous importance to the country that a nomination to the Supreme Court entails,
we are supposed to support the inexplicable nomination of an individual who has no judicial record
of any kind, in an increasingly shaky and unstable democratic environment.
These are some of my concerns with regard to any Supreme Court nominee, and the direction of the
Supreme Court: Restoration and protection of civil liberties; judicial independence from influence, or
prejudice, or religious parochialism; putting the interests of the country and the constitution ahead of
any other consideration of any kind whatsoever.
If a nominee is able to demonstrate that they can foot this bill? Hire them. Then please make sure
the Supreme Court justices are secure.
It's a tough job in tough times. It shouldn't be made any tougher having to worry about wing-nuts
making veiled threats quoting Stalin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Diane V. McLoughlin is a writer and peace activist particularly focused on the Israel-Palestine
region. Ms. McLoughlin posts editorials of her own along with excellent links to articles and video
she discovers on the web on her website, mcloughlinpost.com and on her blog at mcloughlinpost.
blogspot.com. Follow on Twitter: McLoughlinPost ; Friend on Facebook: Diane McLoughlin;
contact at mcloughlinpost.com'
References:
[1] 'Are liberals anti-WASP?'; Patrick J. Buchanan; worldNet Daily; May 13, 2010;
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=153417
[2] 'Elena Kagan, Pat Buchanan, MSNBC and Me'; Keli Goff; Huffington Post; May 17, 2010;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff/elena-kagan-pat-buchanan_b_579623.html
[2a] 'Elena Kagan and the Supreme Court: A Barnyard Smell in Harvard, Chicago and Washington';
James Petras; Information Clearing House; May 13, 2010
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25438.htm#close=1
[3] CPCCA - Canadian Parliamentary Coalition Combating Antisemitism Frequently Asked
Questions; http://www.cpcca.ca/faqs.htm ;
[3i] 'Criminalizing Criticism of Israel'; Paul Craig Roberts; Counterpunch; May 7, 2009 ;
http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts05072009.html ;
[4]'A Climb Marked by Confidence and Canniness'; by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Katharine Q. Seelye
and Lisa w. Foderaro; May 10, 2010; The New York Times;
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10kagan.html?pagewanted=1&ref=politics
[5] 'Bounds of Silence: Obama's Court Pick Looks Wobbly on Freedom of Speech'; Jacob Sullum;
Creators.com; May 18, 2010;
http://www.creators.com/opinion/jacob-sullum/bounds-of-silence-obama-s-court-pick-looks-wobbly-
on-freedom-of-speech.html
[6] 'Kagan's Dubious Stand on Civil Rights'; Marjorie Cohn; Consortium News; May 15, 2010;
http://consortiumnews.com/2010/051510b.html
[6a] S.3081 Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3081/text#
[6b] HUMAN RIGHTS IN PALESTINE AND OTHER OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES
Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict; Part Five Conclusions and
Recommendations; September 25, 2009; Pg. 406
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf
[7] 'The Assault on Reason'; Al Gore; Penguin Books; Copyright Al Gore, 2007; pgs. 66-7.
Copyright 2010; Diane V. McLoughlin, All Rights Reserved
by Diane V. McLoughlin
June, 2010:
Seasoned politico and writer Pat Buchanan has been taken to task for pointing out that, should Elena
Kagan be confirmed, the Supreme Court would consist of three Jews, six Catholics, and not a
Protestant in the lot of them. [1]
Sounds a bit like an opener to a bad joke, doesn't it? 'So, three Jews, six Catholics and zero
Protestants walk into a bar...' blah, blah, blah and punch-line. For the record I'm an agnostic,
cognizant and supremely tolerant of the fact that most other people are not.
Anyway, I infer from Buchanan's parsing of the numbers that he believes that religion influences the
ways in which a Supreme Court justice might weigh-in on the law, and, by extension, that religious
belief might have a profound effect on the ways in which a Supreme Court justice might leave their
imprint on civil liberties as well as the social fabric of the nation. After all, that is what the justices
are there for - to interpret how legal cases ought to be settled based on the guiding principles of the
Constitution.
I really don't have a problem with Mr. Buchanan's reasoning, but Huffington Post's Keli Goff goes
way out there to smear Buchanan's thoughts as 'dangerous' antisemitism. [2]
Why is it racist to suggest that color, class, social groupings and/or religion might shape one's views
to varying degrees, and that one would hope to have reasonable proportional representation - or,
inversely - not an unreasonably disproportionate over-representation of any identifiable group? Is it
really fair to say that efforts at inclusion are discriminatory?
Power of one group over other groups is sometimes abusive and tyrannical, such as the tyranny of
majority-rule. Sometimes tyranny might take the form of a small elite over the unwitting majority,
instead.
The Founders tried to take into account such threats to the liberty of the individual. They wanted to
maximally protect civil liberties for All. President Barack Obama's successful nomination of Ms.
Kagan would mean that thirty percent of the Supreme Court justices would be Jewish, versus less
than two percent of America's general population. As I say, Ms. Goff seems to feel it is racist even
to bring it up.
The above merely hints at the controversy swirling around this story.
Who is Elena Kagan? What are her qualifications?
For starters, Ms. Kagan does not have a legal record to review from time spent on the bench.
I repeat, because it is so stunning as to be disbelieved - Ms. Kagan has been nominated to serve as
one of only nine individuals who are to determine, judge and personally influence the highest laws
and their philosophical underpinnings, while never having been a judge - not for one day, anywhere,
ever.
Frankly, it boggles the mind. Out of a population of three-hundred and ten-million - how many
talented, brilliant, experienced judges might there be? From that pool, how many did U.S. President
Barack Obama find worthy of interest? Apparently, none.
This raises some rather obvious questions. Why Elena Kagan? Who brought her to Obama's
attention? What overriding considerations were given to nominating her? Why is an inexperienced
judge preferable to an experienced judge? What does it say about Elena Kagan that she would even
agree to be considered, given this lack of experience? What is hoped to be achieved by her
nomination? What are her goals in accepting the invitation to serve?
Elena Kagan held the prestigious post of Dean of Harvard Law School. But the accepted criteria in
qualifications are performance as well as time spent on the bench, along with scholarly legal
publication.
In the view of writer James Petras, Obama's nomination of Ms. Kagan, based on her academic
publication record, 'might give her a fighting chance for tenure at a first rate correspondence law
school in the Texas Panhandle.' [2a]
What really recommended her, in his opinion?
'The evidence points to a purely political appointment based, in part, on social networks...Kagan’s
approval of indefinite detention of suspects squares with the extremist restrictions on constitutional
freedoms first articulated during the Bush Administration and subsequently upheld by President
Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder. It is no coincidence that Kagan appointed a notorious Bush
torture advocate, the genial Jack Goldsmith, to the Harvard Law faculty.
'...Elena Kagan got tenure at the august halls of the University of Chicago in 1995 on the basis of
one substantive article and one brief piece, neither outstanding. With this underwhelming record of
legal scholarship, she became visiting professorship at the Harvard Law School, published only two
more articles (one in Harvard Law Review) and received tenure. Prima facie evidence strongly
suggests that Kagan’s ties to the staunchly Zionist faculty at both Chicago and Harvard Law Schools
(and not her intellectual prowess) account for her meteoric promotions to tenure, deanship and now
the US Supreme Court, over the heads of hundreds of other highly qualified candidates with far
superior academic publication records and broader practical judicial experience.' [ibid]
--------
9/11 and the Constitution
Much of the legal public square has been taken up, after the catastrophic experiences of 9/11, with
questions that go to the heart of human rights and civil liberties.
Are we entitled...to presumption of innocence? Habeas Corpus? Is it still our right to be Mirandized -
that is, to be advised of our right to an attorney and to our right to remain silent? Are we entitled to
any trial at all? A speedy trial? Are we entitled to see the evidence against us? To challenge witnesses
and evidence in an open court? Do we have the right not to be coerced into incriminating ourselves
through torture or threats, and not to have such tainted evidence used against us? Do we still retain
the right not to be locked up indefinitely?
The fact that these questions in law have been torn open to situational interpretation - laws which
were heretofore considered long settled and carved in stone - is a loud alarm sounding for us all.
The recent would-be Times Square bomber was not advised of his rights. He was encouraged to
talk, first. Then he was told he had a right to remain silent. The outline of fascism is there when
some demand we rescind his American citizenship; assume he is guilty; deny him the right to his day
in court or to see the evidence against him. They would encouragingly approve his torture to extract
useless information he thinks they want to hear so that the pain will stop - causing us to drag others
who are innocent into the evil vortex as well.
Let's take the direction of the above to its logical conclusion. Let's bring back the test once used on
unfortunate people accused, by religious idiots and enemies, of being witches. Tie him up in a chair
and throw him in a pond of water. If he sinks and drowns he's human - oh! Too bad! If he manages
to float, he's a witch and we burn him.
Conversely, keep him alive but deprive the suspected terrorist (meaning, the otherwise innocent
person) of their liberty by locking them up indefinitely - a living death.
---------------------
Israel
Israel factors into American politics in a big way. Israel has gotten away with the on-going ethnic
cleansing of the Palestinian people largely through the Israel right-or-wrong political support of the
U.S.
Israel's oppression of the Palestinians was cited as one of the top reasons, by Osama bin Laden, for
the attacks on 9/11. That, and the murderous ten-year military blockade of Iraq which inflicted such
devastating suffering and death amongst the Iraqi people.
The New York Times, in a city with the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, seemingly
refused to report the Israel angle as they followed the unfolding events of 9/11. Many other
American media outlets reported on 9/11 in the same way, helping to create in the American publics'
mind a false and dangerously misleading case for why 9/11 occurred, and, it follows, in what ways
the country ought to respond.
Israel and 9/11 both became factors in our ongoing war against much of the Middle East. That, and
corporate competition for scarce oil resources. Thousands of young Americans in the prime of their
youth are coming home damaged or dead from these wars never having been told the truth of why
they were sent.
Speaking of Israel and the truth, there is a big push behind the scenes in western countries, Canada
and Great Britain being two notable examples, the United States being another, to make the following
statements thought or hate-speech crimes:
One, to suggest that Israel is an apartheid state; two, to suggest that Israel should be one democratic
state with equal rights for both Palestinians and Jews. [3] [3i]
Surely other states will line up for similar legalized blinkers. Is it not possible that hate speech laws
could be enacted against Americans who criticize American policy itself, if we start down that road?
I believe that it is.
Because American society is so polarized and divided, I think any Supreme Court nominee would, in
fact, come in for the same intense scrutiny as Ms. Kagan should.
One of the most important constitutional protections in troubled political times is freedom of speech.
How do Elena Kagan's views hold up on free speech rights? From the New York Times:
'As a scholar, Ms. Kagan’s interests were narrow, somewhat technical, and steered clear of ideology.
She was interested in questions like when the government could limit free speech. “This is not a
subject about which there is any ideological slant,” Mr. Stone said. “It’s an intellectual puzzle.” ' [4]
From Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason magazine:
'Kagan's understanding of First Amendment law, described most fully in a 1996 University of
Chicago Law Review article, suggests a tolerance for censorship when it is appropriately disguised by
euphemisms. In Kagan's view, the main goal of First Amendment doctrine is not to maximize
freedom or promote robust debate, but to ferret out impermissible motives for speech restrictions.
'While the government may constitutionally restrict speech based on "neutrally conceived harms,"
Kagan says, it may not restrict speech based on "hostility toward ideas." But as she herself more or
less acknowledges, this distinction ultimately collapses because people are hostile to ideas they
consider harmful.' [5]
From Marjorie Cohn, past president of the National Lawyer's Guild:
'In one of her few law review articles, Kagan advocated expansive executive power consistent with a
formulation from the Reagan administration. This is reminiscent of the “unitary executive” theory
that George W. Bush used to justify grabbing unbridled executive power in his “war on terror.”
'As solicitor general, Kagan asserted in a brief that the “state secrets privilege” is grounded in the
Constitution. The Obama White House, like the Bush administration, is asserting this privilege to
prevent people who the CIA sent to other countries to be tortured and people challenging Bush’s
secret spying program from litigating their cases in court.' [6]
In order to continue the rapacious war for Empire - in order for the military-industrial-Congressional-
religious complex to continue unimpeded - laws to suppress dissent should be anticipated.
It may seem like these disparate things do not go together. But what I would argue is that there is an
overlap of aims, desires and purposes at work. The one thing shared in common is that goals will be
reached far easier if they could whack off chunks of the Constitution.
Zealots never seem to consider what risks there might be to themselves in destroying the legal
protections of others.
We depend on the Supreme Court to be a Constitutional voice of conscience. All the most
fundamental protections of the individual from the tyranny of king or state or privileged group are on
life support. Which rights, that Americans hold most sacrosanct, are left? The answer: few.
Through the quiet machinations of American politicians such as John McCain and Joseph
Lieberman, who, in senate bill S.3081 propose to lock up indefinitely anyone, including American
citizens, merely accused of terrorism, without charge or trial - soon the answer may be that we have
no rights left at all:
S.3081, Sec. 5 Detention Without Trial of Unprivileged Enemy Belligerents:
'An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy
belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention
Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without
trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the
individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent
with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress
pertaining to such hostilities.' [6a] (It is heartening to note that on the website Open Congress, the
split of readers who voted their judgement of this bill so far is 29 in favor, 433 against, for a mere
6% in support.)
It doesn't matter to me whether Elena Kagan is Jewish. What matters is her philosophy on the fundamentals of constitutional justice.
It matters what a Supreme Court nominee believes. It matters what his or her record is and what
they have stood for. All Supreme Court candidates go through a vetting process where ideas and
beliefs that could profoundly affect decisions in law are hopefully weighed and debated as to the
candidate's suitability.
If there is no record, there is no way to judge a would-be judge. One of the most important jobs of a
Supreme Court justice is the job of telling the state one word - that word is no. No you can't lock up
a person indefinitely without evidence or trial. No you can't torture. No you can't brand a human
being 'terrorist' to deny them the right to be presumed innocent. No you can't be President of the
United States without counting every vote cast. No you can't spy on Americans without real cause
and a warrant. No.
Telling the state no, or any particular power configuration operating within the state no, takes balls.
---------------------------------------
Judicial Independence
To risk being ostracized or shunned from one's group when making pronouncements on issues of
right and wrong takes tremendous moral courage, too. The group might include your friends, family,
neighbors, colleagues, religious community or even most of your whole tribe.
The threat of being shunned is a powerful disincentive to swim against the current of your group's
opinion - regardless of whether or not you are on the side of justice and truth. Studies have
determined that to be ostracized or shunned can have tremendously negative effects on the
individual, both psychologically and physically.
A very recent example of shunning:
South African judge Richard Goldstone is internationally renowned and highly respected in the field
of law. He agreed to conduct an independent review, for the United Nations, of Israel's late 2008 to
early 2009 military assault on Gaza, for evidence of war crimes by both sides.
Goldstone is Jewish. No doubt he had at least an idea of what he would be in for, but he chose to
serve and accepted the assignment, anyway. The Goldstone Report concluded that serious war
crimes were committed by both sides and that these required further investigation.
Israel came in for unaccustomed direct, harsh criticism, weighted in fact:
Paragraph: '1883. The Gaza military operations were, according to the Israeli Government,
thoroughly and extensively planned. While the Israeli Government has sought to portray its operations
as essentially a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right to self-defence, the
Mission considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: the
people of Gaza as a whole.' [6b]
Subsequently, the South African Jewish community threatened to picket Judge Goldstone's
grandson's bar matzvah. Goldstone put out a statement that he wouldn't be attending so that his
grandson's day could proceed unspoiled.
The S.A. Jewish leaders put out word that they would call off their planned picket if Goldstone
agreed to a meeting, which he did.
They used his grandson, and in effect held his family hostage, in order to try to manipulate this judge.
In fact, Judge Goldstone has been smeared, vilified and portrayed as a traitor and a self-hating Jew.
These kinds of attacks by the group against the individual applies an unbelievable amount of
pressure, and it can be extremely effective - which is, of course, why it's done; not everyone is stout
enough of heart, nor independent enough of mind and spirit to withstand it.
----------------------
The Palestinian Equation
Palestinians suffer arbitrary arrest, torture and indefinite detention without trial. They suffer
property and home confiscation as well as home demolition, with little notice or legal recourse.
Twenty-three year-old American peace activist Rachel Corrie was crushed to death in 2003, by an
Israeli military Caterpillar bulldozer. She put stood in the path of the Cat to block it from destroying
a Palestinian physician's home. She was at eye level to the driver, standing on a mound of earth;
daylight visibility was good. The Cat drove forward over her and backed up over her again.
Of the Spring 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla, the last boat prevented by Israel from carrying relief
supplies to the people in Gaza - people who continue to endure a life of want and despair under
Israel's continuing military siege - was named after her: the MV Rachel Corrie.
In the Occupied Palestinian Territories, otherwise known as the West Bank, Palestinians suffer life
under military occupation, surrounded by hostile Jewish extremists who believe God gave them the
right to steal Palestinian land and to kill them, if necessary, to take it. There are Jews-only roads and
Palestinian villages surrounded by troops, barbed wire and locked gates that are opened by Israeli
troops for only fifteen minutes, three times per day.
Palestinians live under the constant threat of Jewish violence. Yet Palestinians are not permitted to
defend themselves. The Israeli military passively looks on while Palestinians are brutalized and does
nothing - when, that is - the Israeli military isn't brutalizing Palestinians itself.
Part of what makes the entire situation so bitterly unpalatable is the fact that Jews themselves should
know all too well from their own history how abhorrent and morally wrong it is to be treated this way.
As noted earlier, there is a quiet but powerful push to criminalize criticism of Israel. That requires
fundamental shifts in civil rights law. Bringing us back to Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination
and the questions outlined above.
------------------------
Vet them; protect them
In vetting a Supreme Court nominee, these days it might be prudent to ask whether or not they are
impervious to threats and intimidation in an increasingly polarized society.
From former American Vice President Al Gore's New York Times bestselling book, 'The Assault on
Reason', (Penguin, 2007):
'One of the coalition's "constitutional scholars," Edwin Vieira, echoed [Ann] Coulter's hateful rant at
a conference on the so-called Judicial War on Faith by explaining how he would recommend
handling the Supreme Court. He actually quoted Joseph Stalin, saying that Stalin "had a slogan and it
worked pretty well for him whenever he ran into difficulty: 'No man no problem.'
"The only way to explain an American constitutional scholar endorsing ad hominem attacks on Supreme Court justices is to assume that he has abandoned reason and surrendered to dogma. Moreover, by quoting Stalin - a homicidal dictator whose only peers are Mao and Hitler - he had to realize that people might
interpret this as a vague threat of physical violence against justices whose opinions violated right-wing orthodoxy.' [7]
Obviously, a society based on laws must have a legal community that is able to conduct itself free
from fear and intimidation.
Conclusion
In spite of the tremendous importance to the country that a nomination to the Supreme Court entails,
we are supposed to support the inexplicable nomination of an individual who has no judicial record
of any kind, in an increasingly shaky and unstable democratic environment.
These are some of my concerns with regard to any Supreme Court nominee, and the direction of the
Supreme Court: Restoration and protection of civil liberties; judicial independence from influence, or
prejudice, or religious parochialism; putting the interests of the country and the constitution ahead of
any other consideration of any kind whatsoever.
If a nominee is able to demonstrate that they can foot this bill? Hire them. Then please make sure
the Supreme Court justices are secure.
It's a tough job in tough times. It shouldn't be made any tougher having to worry about wing-nuts
making veiled threats quoting Stalin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Diane V. McLoughlin is a writer and peace activist particularly focused on the Israel-Palestine
region. Ms. McLoughlin posts editorials of her own along with excellent links to articles and video
she discovers on the web on her website, mcloughlinpost.com and on her blog at mcloughlinpost.
blogspot.com. Follow on Twitter: McLoughlinPost ; Friend on Facebook: Diane McLoughlin;
contact at mcloughlinpost.com'
References:
[1] 'Are liberals anti-WASP?'; Patrick J. Buchanan; worldNet Daily; May 13, 2010;
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=153417
[2] 'Elena Kagan, Pat Buchanan, MSNBC and Me'; Keli Goff; Huffington Post; May 17, 2010;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff/elena-kagan-pat-buchanan_b_579623.html
[2a] 'Elena Kagan and the Supreme Court: A Barnyard Smell in Harvard, Chicago and Washington';
James Petras; Information Clearing House; May 13, 2010
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25438.htm#close=1
[3] CPCCA - Canadian Parliamentary Coalition Combating Antisemitism Frequently Asked
Questions; http://www.cpcca.ca/faqs.htm ;
[3i] 'Criminalizing Criticism of Israel'; Paul Craig Roberts; Counterpunch; May 7, 2009 ;
http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts05072009.html ;
[4]'A Climb Marked by Confidence and Canniness'; by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Katharine Q. Seelye
and Lisa w. Foderaro; May 10, 2010; The New York Times;
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10kagan.html?pagewanted=1&ref=politics
[5] 'Bounds of Silence: Obama's Court Pick Looks Wobbly on Freedom of Speech'; Jacob Sullum;
Creators.com; May 18, 2010;
http://www.creators.com/opinion/jacob-sullum/bounds-of-silence-obama-s-court-pick-looks-wobbly-
on-freedom-of-speech.html
[6] 'Kagan's Dubious Stand on Civil Rights'; Marjorie Cohn; Consortium News; May 15, 2010;
http://consortiumnews.com/2010/051510b.html
[6a] S.3081 Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3081/text#
[6b] HUMAN RIGHTS IN PALESTINE AND OTHER OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES
Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict; Part Five Conclusions and
Recommendations; September 25, 2009; Pg. 406
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf
[7] 'The Assault on Reason'; Al Gore; Penguin Books; Copyright Al Gore, 2007; pgs. 66-7.
Copyright 2010; Diane V. McLoughlin, All Rights Reserved
June 06, 2010
In God We Trust Mr. President - All Others Pay Cash
Diane V. McLoughlin, comment No. 1 to, 'Don't Get Mad, Mr. President. Get Even.'; Frank Rich, NYT; June 6, 2010
Hoping Obama reads today's Frank Rich - spot on. (Bob Herbert's on fire these days, too.)
~
Faith, trust, deference - in business or government?! Nuts. As Rich adroitly lays out, in BP's case also unnecessary; there is all kinds of evidence pointing to what kind of animal Obama is dealing with.
Otherwise, as my mother's second husband would sagely impart to me - rather interesting superior country tone - should he find me wailing about this slight or that betrayal, that everyone's an A-hole until they prove otherwise - eyebrow lift - few ever will. Made me feel better, actually.
Time to hang up the basketball shorts. President has the letter 'I' in it; team don't.
I found it most disturbing in his Larry King interview that Obama believes that it is his role not to 'interfere' in the workings of the Department of Justice. Really? You really want to let them get on with shredding what's left of the Constitution, Mr. President? Really? Want to give the faceless levers of the state the perpetual power to lock up anyone, including Americans, indefinitely without charge or trial? That's what's cooking now, in that black box. Hardly worth mentioning I suppose, that the right to assassinate Americans without charge or trial is cooking, too; have to say that I do not support this Presidential hand-washing of such critical Constitutional crimes.
Found this in a 'shredding the constitution' Google image search, on a site I am unfamiliar with called 'SodaHead' - there was no attribution - brutal editorial cartoon.
As for the BP oil spill, sorry again, shades of Tony Hayward for the President to claim lots is being done. Russell Honore has it right: The U.S. must declare nothing less than war on this - in fact, by his astute assessment, he should immediately be put in charge.
McNamee, Getty Images
War means at least temporary receivership of BP. War cranks up industry to crank out weapons - in this case, materiel such as Kevin Costner's donated centrifuge inventions that are capable of doing the job of separating oil out of sea water on massive scale to something like 97% water purity.
Or the polymers that turn oil into a floating solid mat.
War mobilization. I would add the powers of no and yes, appropriately applied. Oh and thinking for yourself, too. That's a good one.
Don't trust. Expect. Get. Or else.
Hoping Obama reads today's Frank Rich - spot on. (Bob Herbert's on fire these days, too.)
~
Faith, trust, deference - in business or government?! Nuts. As Rich adroitly lays out, in BP's case also unnecessary; there is all kinds of evidence pointing to what kind of animal Obama is dealing with.
Otherwise, as my mother's second husband would sagely impart to me - rather interesting superior country tone - should he find me wailing about this slight or that betrayal, that everyone's an A-hole until they prove otherwise - eyebrow lift - few ever will. Made me feel better, actually.
Time to hang up the basketball shorts. President has the letter 'I' in it; team don't.
I found it most disturbing in his Larry King interview that Obama believes that it is his role not to 'interfere' in the workings of the Department of Justice. Really? You really want to let them get on with shredding what's left of the Constitution, Mr. President? Really? Want to give the faceless levers of the state the perpetual power to lock up anyone, including Americans, indefinitely without charge or trial? That's what's cooking now, in that black box. Hardly worth mentioning I suppose, that the right to assassinate Americans without charge or trial is cooking, too; have to say that I do not support this Presidential hand-washing of such critical Constitutional crimes.
Found this in a 'shredding the constitution' Google image search, on a site I am unfamiliar with called 'SodaHead' - there was no attribution - brutal editorial cartoon.
As for the BP oil spill, sorry again, shades of Tony Hayward for the President to claim lots is being done. Russell Honore has it right: The U.S. must declare nothing less than war on this - in fact, by his astute assessment, he should immediately be put in charge.
McNamee, Getty ImagesWar means at least temporary receivership of BP. War cranks up industry to crank out weapons - in this case, materiel such as Kevin Costner's donated centrifuge inventions that are capable of doing the job of separating oil out of sea water on massive scale to something like 97% water purity.
Or the polymers that turn oil into a floating solid mat.
War mobilization. I would add the powers of no and yes, appropriately applied. Oh and thinking for yourself, too. That's a good one.
Don't trust. Expect. Get. Or else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)