Thursday, January 12, 2006

When a U.S. general invoked his right not to incriminate himself in a court-martial of two soldiers who maintain that they were ordered to use dogs on prisoners at Abu Ghraib, a military defense specialist saw "more fire than smoke." [Cursor.org] 2:44:52 PM    comment []

The U.S. attempts to exploit tensions between "local insurgents" and "Al Qaeda forces" in Iraq, and after a senior British officer called the 'U.S. Army its own worst enemy,' the Guardian reports that "what is startling is the severity of his comments -- and the decision by Military Review, a U.S. army magazine, to publish them." (pdf) [Cursor.org] 2:44:22 PM    comment []

As 'The scandal unfolds,' a Washington Post report on the relationship between Congress and lobbyists quotes one lobbyist as saying that "The border has broken down. Not only has it broken down, it's sort of 'barbarians at the gate.'" [Cursor.org] 2:01:35 PM    comment []

Mark Kleiman: The CAP flap. Back when open bigotry against women and racial minorities was fashionable, Samuel Alito joined a group that wanted to keep women and minorities out of Princeton. Ten years later, he used that membership to show the paleoconservatives then running the Reagan Administration he was one of them so they'd hire him. Now he'd like to forget it, and the Democrats on the Judiciary committee won't let him. McCarthyism? I don't think so. [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed] 1:59:08 PM    comment []

Bill Scher: What We Have Learned About Alito. After four days of hearings on the Alito nomination, these are the three main things we have learned: 1. You cannot take him at his word For example, he said about the case he heard involving Vanguard, the mutual fund company he substantial money in: "I did recuse myself, and ... I asked that the original decision ... be vacated." But the Boston Globe reported otherwise: "After Alito ruled in Vanguard's favor in the Maharaj case, he complained about her efforts to vacate his decision and remove him from the case, writing to the chief administrative judge of the federal appeals court on which he sat in 2003: 'I do not believe that I am required to disqualify myself based on my ownership of the mutual fund shares.'" He said in 1988 that defeated right-wing Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork was "one of the most outstanding nominees of this century ... a man of unequalled intellectual ability, understanding of constitutional history, someone who had thought deeply throughout his entire life about constitutional issues...". Yet in this week's hearing, he claimed he was not even aware of Bork's widely known view rejecting the importance of respecting past precedents. It is impossible to believe that an accomplished attorney, who worked in the Reagan Justice Department and who also had a deep interest in constitutional law, would not know such a basic view of a man he praised so highly and so thoroughly. 2. He does not believe the Constitution protects a woman's right to an abortion We already knew that he said exactly that in 1985. But in the hearing, while he tried to disingenuously signal his attitude would be different as a judge, he steadfastly refused to say Roe is settled law. When he says he wil have an "open mind" on abortion (the same phrase Clarence Thomas used, before he got on the court and sought to overturn Roe), Alito cannot be taken at his word. 3. He will not provide a check on presidential power grabs We already knew Alito was a strong backer of the "unitary executive" theory, that presidents hold certain powers that cannot be checked and balanced by other branches of government -- a theory antithetical to our Founders. But a fine point was put on that in the hearing. Alito was asked where he stood on the recent Hamdi case, where the Bush Administration jailed a US citizen without giving him an opportunity to contest his imprisonment in court. The Supreme Court said Bush was wrong, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote: "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens." Thomas dissented, writing: "This detention falls squarely within the Federal Government's war powers, and we lack the expertise and capacity to second-guess that decision...I do not think that the Federal Government's war powers can be balanced away by this Court..." Alito was asked which opinion he supported. He said, "Well, I'm not coming down" on either side. He claimed to believe the president is not above the law. But since he could not bring himself to reject an opinion that said the President can make his own law, once again, Alito cannot be taken at his word. This man cannot be allowed to occupy the swing seat of the Court. By filibuster if necessary. [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed] 12:52:33 PM    comment []

Morris: America shifts to the left. Morris: America shifts to the left [The Raw Story | A rational voice - Alternative news] 12:49:23 PM    comment []

"We are one, you are us" A Washington Post report on the relationship between Congress and lobbyists quotes one lobbyist as saying that "The border has broken down. Not only has it broken down, it's sort of 'barbarians at the gate.'" Plus: A scandal unfolds. [Cursor.org] 11:03:34 AM    comment []

Theme Parked? Forward quotes a spokesman for the Israeli Tourism Ministry as saying of the Rev. Pat Robertson, "We cannot do business with him after these words." But a rabbi tells the paper that "The plan never had legs to begin with. There was never a commitment by Pat to buy into this and put it together." [Cursor.org] 11:02:29 AM    comment []

LAT: Alito testimony you won't hear. LAT: Alito testimony you won't hear [The Raw Story | A rational voice - Alternative news] 10:29:06 AM    comment []

Rep. Ney linked to Ohio's voting woes. Rep. Ney linked to Ohio's voting woes [The Raw Story | A rational voice - Alternative news] 10:25:56 AM    comment []

Okay ... allow me my indulgences. Frankly, I am a fan of Jolie, always have been even during those weird Billy Bob vials of blood days. But this is pretty funny. BRAD AND ANGELINA'S BABY NAMED SEXIEST FETUS ALIVE - Early Ultrasound Reveals Uber-hot Tot. Hours after actors Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie announced that Ms. Jolie was pregnant with the couple's first child, People Magazine took the unprecedented step of naming the Pitt-Jolie offspring "Sexiest Fetus Alive." By Andy Borowitz . [Borowitz Report] 10:24:54 AM    comment []

Syria In Their Sights : The neocons plan their next [base "]cakewalk. [Information Clearing House - News you won't find on CNN] 10:22:14 AM    comment []

Katrina vanden Heuvel: Elizabeth Holtzman--from Nixon to Bush & the Case for Impeachment. A few days before the New Year, soon after the New York Times reported that Bush had authorized the warrantless wiretapping of thousands of Americans, I called Elizabeth Holtzman. I remembered that Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons. And memories of Holtzman as a young leader on the House Judiciary Committee, during Watergate, made me sure she'd be a rigorous, thoughtful voice on this gravest of issues. I reached Holtzman at her New York city law office. Anyone who knows Holtzman respects her level-headed, no-nonsense manner. That afternoon, however, her voice rose as she expressed outrage about the recent revelations of Bush's wiretapping, and she was quick to drew parallels to Watergate-era abuses. But Holtzman hesitated before agreeing to take on this assignment, asking for a few days to pull together her material and arguments. A few days later, she sent me an e-mail saying I'd have it a few days after the new year. As promised, Holtzman got us the piece. Over the course of a week, and working with senior editor Betsy Reed, Holtzman revised the article--adding more facts, reviewing arguments with legal colleagues, and updating (for example,the Pentagon study disclosing that proper bulletproof vests would have saved hundreds of lives came out just days before press date). So, today, some thirty years after Watergate, a leader in the impeachment of Richard Nixon--former member of the House Judiciary Committee Elizabeth Holtzman--returns to the national stage, with her cover story in this week's Nation, to make the case for impeachment again: this time against President George W. Bush. The article is especially powerful because of its sober tone, its rigorous argumentation and fastidious documentation. It is also moving because it is informed by Holtzman's personal experience and political history. "I can still remember the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach," Holtzman writes, "during those [Watergate] proceedings, when it became clear that the President had so systematically abused the powers of the Presidency and so threatened the rule of law that he had to be removed from office." Holtzman understood then, and understands now, that impeachment is a "tortuous process"-- the most extreme Constitutional act in a democracy, a "last resort." Voting for impeachment, she remembers, was "one of the most sobering and unpleasant tasks I ever had to undertake...[And] At the time, I hoped that our committee's work would send a strong signal to future Presidents that they had to obey the rule of law." "I was wrong," Holtzman admits. And "now that President Bush has thrown down the gauntlet and virtually dared Congress to stop him from violating the law, nothing less [than impeachment] is necessary to protect our constitutional system and preserve our democracy." This is not a partisan argument. As Holtzman argues eloquently, appealing to all citizens who care about our democracy: "A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law---and repeatedly violates the law--thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal from office." For all Americans who want to preserve and protect our democracy, please read and circulate Elizabeth Holtzman's Nation article. Use it to spearhead letter-writing campaigns to newspapers, to organize petition drives, and send it to your Representatives demanding that they support hearings and investigations into Presidential deceptions and abuses. And, as we head into this crucial 2006 election year, remember, as Holtzman points out, " If a Republican Congress is unwilling to investigate and take appropriate action against a Republican President, then a Democratic Congress should replace it." [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed] 9:31:45 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2006 Patricia Thurston.