Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Cenk Uygur: It's Not Security vs. Liberty. The mainstream media has - once again - bought into a Republican talking point, hook, line and sinker. The issue in the NSA warrantless spying scandal isn't the choice between security and liberty. The warrantless spying only takes away our liberty and privacy without adding any additional security. Just about everyone in the administration, including the president, has said that they are only spying in on Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda affiliates. If that's the case, why do they need to bypass the courts? Any court in the country would give you a warrant to spy on a person talking to Al Qaeda or an Al Qaeda affiliate. So, if they need a warrant, they can easily get one. Plus, they have 72 hours to get it AFTER they listen in on the conversation. That completely destroys the need for speed argument. That only leaves one argument - they're too lazy to get a warrant. At least, I'd believe that argument because these are the people who couldn't figure out how to send rescue teams into New Orleans for five days. But no one in the media should buy into the idea that we wouldn't be safe if we had to get warrants to track terrorist suspects. If warrants expose us to so much danger with Al Qaeda, wouldn't they do the same for criminals inside America? Isn't it too dangerous to get warrants for mob investigations? We need security! How about drug gangs and serial killers? We need security - we can't risk getting warrants for any of these people. This is a nonsense argument. The people who make this argument simply do not believe in the American system of justice. They also flat out don't believe in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution that clearly states you need to get a warrant for investigations like these. Senator Pat Roberts summarized the Republican demagoguery best when he opened General Hayden's confirmation hearing by saying, "You have no civil liberties if you are dead." He actually said that. That's a direct quote. In other words, if you don't let us take away your liberties, you will die. Classy. What happened to, "Give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry must be rolling over in his grave. Think of all the brave men who died to give us these precious freedoms that Senator Roberts wants to give away so cheaply now. Though Henry's quote proves what a coward Senator Roberts is, it is also not the right either-or here. We can give you plenty of security and plenty of liberty - it's called a warrant. It's a simple check that allows one branch of the government to make sure that another branch is in fact protecting our security instead of doing something else. I can't think of an executive branch that needs that check more than the current one. The constitution isn't just for the good times. It is designed for even the tough times, times the country is tested. It is built to last. It provided plenty of security as we fought the Soviet Union, the Nazis and just about every other enemy you can imagine. But now we should fold it up because of a couple of guys hiding in a cave in Afghanistan? We can have security and we can have liberty - if we care to do it right, as we have throughout all of American history. Let's not let these incompetents pretend otherwise. The Young Turks [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed] 7:52:27 AM    comment []

Israel claims Iran fired missile test. Israel claims Iran fired missile test [The Raw Story | A rational voice - Alternative news] 7:47:44 AM    comment []

Iran wants direct US talks over nukes. Iran wants direct US talks over nukes [The Raw Story | A rational voice - Alternative news] 7:47:12 AM    comment []

Robert Scheer: Wow! Iraqi Leader Takes Bush's Calls. Originally posted at Truthdig.com. George W. Bush received a standing ovation Monday from the National Restaurant Association convention, which might have been expected had he promised to guarantee their right to exploit immigrant cooks and dishwashers through a guest-worker program. But that wasn't the president's topic, and the applause came after Mr. "Mission Accomplished" bragged about the latest "incremental" progress in Iraq. "[W]e have now reached a turning point in the struggle between freedom and terror," Bush claimed of the partial formation of a new Iraqi government under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. If you search for this quote on Google, though, be careful not to confuse it with the many other similar moments in Iraq's recent history. For example, two years ago Bush said that "the rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology, and give momentum to reformers across the region," after the U.S. officially turned over sovereignty. And then there was the "important milestone" Bush celebrated when a temporary governing council was formed in July 2003; the "turning point in the history of Iraq, the history of the Middle East and the history of freedom" two months later when Iraqis elected a parliament; and the selection of a prime minister last month which was "an important milestone toward our victory in Iraq" and "a turning point for the Iraqi citizens." With all these turns, it's no wonder Americans are a little "unsettled" about this quagmire, to use the commander in chief's own delicate description of the public's deep and bitter frustration with this war. Despite the public's nausea over the war, hope springs eternal for a White House panicked by the prospect of a Democratic-controlled branch of Congress with the power to investigate its mendacity. And so Bush was back in form Monday, proclaiming that the latest head honcho in Iraq has got the right stuff and that the terrorists are quaking in their sandals. Problem is, like everything about his Iraq policy since he lied to us about Saddam Hussein being connected with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the president refuses to allow reality into his picture. Because when a government is formed that has no power over a slew of murderous sectarian militias and will govern from behind the walls of a "Green Zone" protected by an occupying army, it still lacks the legitimacy of a wooden dinar. "Iraqis are becoming foreigners in their own country," said the new prime minister, acknowledging, unlike our president, that things have been getting worse, not better. Bush, on the other hand, is so desperate for positive signs that he is happy just to get a callback from Iraqi leaders. "He wouldn't have taken my phone call a year ago," Bush said Monday of the new Iraqi parliament speaker. "He's now taken it twice." Wow, and it only cost $200 billion and thousands of maimed and dead American soldiers to get the president's call returned. Bush might want to save space on his speed-dial list, though, as Iraq is probably the most dangerous place on earth to be a politician. Iraq is a failed state and has been since Bush's neocon advisers led him by the nose to not only take the country by force but to then demolish every governmental and military structure in place that might have been used to support some semblance of post-invasion stability. For his part, the new prime minister, himself a militant Shiite, seems to know where the real power lies: Even as he pledged to stop the murderous "sectarian cleansing" most eagerly undertaken by Shiite militias, he promised to "honor" and "make use" of those same forces. The "turning point" Bush is actually concerned about is the U.S. midterm elections, coming up fast in his windshield. Because Iraq isn't going to be fixed anytime soon and the troops are not coming home, the president is once again trying to sell the lie of Iraqi progress in an attempt to keep his opposition from taking control of Congress and using its subpoena power to ask the right questions about how we found ourselves in such a mess. Questions, such as the one Bush pointedly ignored, about the missing WMDs raised by at least one sober delegate to the restaurateurs' convention. Or about how come al Qaeda was only able to operate in Iraq after the U.S. invasion and not before. The pressing test for the ideal of democracy lies not with the Iraqis, who must make their own history, but rather with an awakened U.S. citizenry finally holding their imperial president accountable. [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed] 7:45:38 AM    comment []

Bill Scher: CNN Cites White Supremacist Group as Source. Yesterday, on "Lou Dobbs Tonight," CNN ran a graphic sourced to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group deemed to have a "white supremacy" ideology according to the Anti-Defamation League. During a piece about illegal immigrants in Utah, reporter Casey Wian said, "Utah is also part of the territory some militant Latino activists refer to as Aztlan, the portion of the southwest United States they claim rightfully belongs to Mexico." As he said that, CNN ran the following map graphic: As you can see in the right hand corner, the source of the map is the Council of Conservative Citizens. For more background on the CCC outside of the ADL report, check out this 1999 W. Post piece and this from The Nation's John Nichols about Sen. Trent Lott's CCC ties. Furthermore, the whole Aztlan boogeyman, that there's a conspiracy afoot to reclaim the Southwest for Mexico, has been debunked by David Neiwert of Orcinus, here and here. He weighs in on the above graphic here, as does Digby at Hullabaloo, John Amato at Crooks and Liars and Matt at The Great Society. CNN should apologize to its viewers and reprimand those involved in the report. You can contact CNN at this link. An earlier version of this post was published yesterday at LiberalOasis [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed] 7:43:56 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2006 Patricia Thurston.