Send Clear Message to RNC...

(www.shutitdownnyc.com). Check it out...New York, New York.

Julius Civitatus' Blog Shows Shameful Bush Manipulation...well done Julius!

Timeline of Terror Alerts
Biltud, from Salon.com's TableTalk, posted a few days ago a series of correlations between past terror alerts and political events unfavorable to the Bush administration. I compiled all these correlations and organized them chronologically into a timeline. I also added additional news items and other instances that I found out, detailing the terror alerts over the last few years, and located the original sources for many of these news articles. Soon, Biltud and I started to research together all these occurrences, and more interesting "coincidences" started to appear. We finally built this timeline of terror alerts and how they relate to the news headlines of the days immediately prior to that very alert. I think it's very easy to see a pattern recurring (Text in blue marks the original notes by Biltud. Text and sources in black are my additions):

January 10, 2002 - George W. Bush, answering reporters' questions in the Oval Office regarding his close relationship with Ken Lay, head of the controversial Enron, claims that he barely knew him: "I got to know Ken Lay when he was the head of the—what they call the Governor's Business Council in Texas. He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994 [italics Chatterbox's]. And she had named him the head of the Governor's Business Council. And I decided to leave him in place, just for the sake of continuity. And that's when I first got to know Ken. …" Source Many see Bush's answer as less than sincere. Source - SourceFebruary 5, 2002 - Angry lawmakers to subpoena Ken Lay over Enron scandal. Journalists inquire about Lay's close connections to the Bush administration Source
February 12, 2002 - Attorney General John Ashcroft on Tuesday called on "all Americans to be on the highest state of alert" after an FBI warning of a possible imminent terrorist attack. Source
May 22, 2002 -- Bush goes on the record as opposing the formation of an independent commission to look into why 9/11 happened.Mr. Bush's comments come after a two-day hearing on Capitol Hill with FBI director Robert Mueller and the agent who wrote the so-called "Phoenix memo" last summer warning about that Arab students training at U.S. aviation schools were linked to a militant Muslim group. Source - SourceSame day:The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee votes to issue subpoenas to the Bush administration for information on its contacts with bankrupt energy trader Enron Corp. Source May 24, 2002 - Railroad and other transit systems across the country received a Transportation Department warning based on "an unconfirmed, uncorroborated report", and were told to "remain in a heightened state of alert". Earlier this week, the government issued warnings about the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge, leading to tightened security at an around those New York City locations. Source
June 9, 2002 -- FBI Whistleblower Talks To CongressColeen Rowley testifies she had tried to notify her superiors about the suspicious flight students before 9/11. She compared the agency's bureaucracy to the "Little Shop Of Horrors," telling Congress the FBI could have done more to prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Source June 10, 2002 - Attorney General John Ashcroft conducts an unusual and urgent press conference from Russia. He announces that they had arrested Jose Padilla, the "dirty bomb" suspect had been captured, and transferred to the custody of the DOD from the Justice Department. SourceIn the same press conference Ashcroft revealed that the "dirty bomb" suspect had been captured on May 8th and held incognito before the announcement on June 10.
September 20, 2002 -- In the wake of damaging Congressional 9/11 inquiry revelations, President Bush reverses course and backs efforts by many lawmakers to form an independent commission to conduct a broader investigation than the current Congressional inquiry.The White House also refuses to turn over documents showing what Bush knew before 9/11.September 20, 2002 -- Relatives of 9/11 victims grill the Bush Administration over their reluctance to get to the bottom of it. SourceSeptember 21, 2002 -- The Pentagon completes and delivers to President Bush a highly detailed set of military options for attacking Iraq, said the New York Times, quoting Pentagon and White House officials on Saturday.The president has options now, and he has not made any decisions," states Ari Fleischer. SourceSeptember 23, 2002 -- Former Vice President Al Gore warns that President Bush's doctrine allowing for a "pre-emptive" strike against Iraq could create a global "reign of fear." SourceSeptember 23, 2002 -- Victory for German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his ruling coalition came after a campaign in which he emphasized his strong opposition to a US war with Iraq. Source September 10-24, 2002 - The attorney general elevates the terror alert. Later on, b Based on a review of intelligence and an assessment of threats by the intelligence community, as well as the passing of the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the disruption of potential terrorist operations in the United States and abroad, the Attorney General in consultation with the Homeland Security Council has made the decision to return the threat level to an elevated risk of terrorist attack, or "yellow" level. Source
February 6, 2003 -- Powell pleads with the UN Security Council for a first strike against Iraq. Source February 9, 2003 - Citing credible threats that al Qaeda might be planning attacks on American targets, the U.S. government raised the national color-coded threat level Friday to orange, indicating a "high" risk of a terrorist attack. SourceNote: In what has become since an object of jokes and derision, the Department of Homeland Security urged citizens to stock up on plastic sheets and duct tape "in case of a chemical attack." SourceNote 2: Also keep in mind that they raised the alert level quickly after numerous anti-war organizations declared their intention to march against the plans to invade Iraq. In New York city, where nearly one million citizens voiced their opposition to the war plans, the level was placed in heightened orange alert just on time for the massive demonstrations of February 15, 2003. Source - Source - Later news reveal that some of the previous terror alerts may have been based in false information. Source
May 12, 2003 -- Jay Garner, the retired lieutenant general who was the top civil administrator in Iraq, left his post and other senior officials were also replaced. Source May 20, 2003 - The United States raises the nation's terror threat level Tuesday, saying the U.S. intelligence community believes al Qaeda has entered an "operational period worldwide" and might attack within the US. Source
July 25, 2003 -- After the Bush administration delayed its publication for months, Congress releases its 9/11 findings. The government also deletes 28 pages of the report believed to detail Saudi funding of members of Al Qaeda in the Untied States prior to Sept. 11. Source - SourceJuly 28, 2003 -- US troops charged with beating Iraqi POWs. SourceSame day - 15 US soldiers die over 8 days in Iraq. Source July 29 - Department of Homeland Security issues a warning about the possibility of suicide attacks on airplanes. Source
August 18, 2003 -- President Bush admits that major combat operations are continuing in Iraq. On May 1, Bush went on national TV to proclaim the end "major combat operations." SourceSeptember 4, 2003 -- Both The New York Times and Vanity Fair start investigating the very damaging allegations that Top White House officials personally approved the evacuation of dozens of influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, from the United States in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when most flights were still grounded, a former White House adviser said today. Source September 5, 2003 - A Department of Homeland Security advisory warns that al Qaeda is working on plans to hijack airliners flying between international points that pass near or over the continental United States. Source
December 18, 2003 -- 9/11 Chair Thomas Kean says the attacks were preventable. SourceDec. 19 2003 -- A federal appeals court ruled the government can not detain U.S. citizen Jose Padilla indefinitely without pressing charges against him or allowing him access to the courts. SourceSame day -- The Wall Street Journal reports that auditors at the Pentagon are accusing Halliburton of refusing to hand over internal documents related to allegations that the oil service company overcharged the U.S. government in Iraq. SourceSame day -- David Kay quits, having found no WMDs. Source Dec. 21, 2003 - Ridge raises the terror threat level just in time for the holidays. SourceFebruary 6, 2004 -- CIA Director George Tenet Thursday said Iraq never posed an imminent threat to the United States. Source February 7, 2004 - Tom Ridge raises the terror alert. Source - Source-->
March 15, 2004 -- Military families organize together to oppose the war. SourceMarch 16, 2004 -- Dems call for probe on Medicare cost cover-up. SourceMarch 17, 2004 -- Condoleeza opts of 9/11 Commission hearings. She repeats her refusal several times during the week, and later on appears on "60 Minutes" to explain her position. Source March 18, 2004 - News report that a "high target" Al Qaeda leader has been "sorrouded" in the border with Pakistan. Cnn suggests it may be Bin Laden or al-Zawahri. Source Reports of fierce fighting continue. Source After the fighting ends, it is reported that it wasn't any "high value" target in the battle after all. Source March 21, 2004 The State Department issues a terror alert. Source
March 21, 2004 -- Richard Clarke gives an exclusive to 60 Minutes about his book “Against All Enemies” just days before he is due to testify before the 9/11 Commission."In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one. The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes." SourceMarch 30, 2004 -- Rice continues to refuse to testify publicly in front of 9/11 Commission. SourceApril 1, 2004 -- US contractors killed and mutilated in Iraq. SourceSame Day – The Pentagon issues a report that medical evacuations in Iraq hit 18,000. SourceSame day. Bush refuses to release Clinton papers to 9/11 Commission. SourceAlso same day, Richard Clarke is all over the news. Source April 2, 2004 - A bulletin sent from the FBI & Homeland Security warn of terrorists that may try to bomb buses and rail lines in major U.S. cities this summer. Source
May 10, 2004 -- Bush approval rating hits lowest point (46%) - SourceMay 18, 2004 -- Colin Powell tells Meet the Press that he was deliberately mislead about WMD information. Powell's aide tries to cut him off mid-air. SourceMay 18, 2004 – Former Abu Ghraib Intel Staffer Says Army Concealed Involvement in Abu Ghraib Abuse Scandal. Source May 19, 2004 -- Newsweek reports that President Bush's top lawyer warned two years ago that Bush could be prosecuted for war crimes as a result of how his administration was fighting the war on terror. Source Same day – White House stonewalls UN on papers about Halliburton’s contracts in Iraq. Source Same day – Tom Ridge testifies before 9/11 Commission on this second day of hearings in NYC. Source Same day - The 9/11 Commission begins another round of hearings in NYC. SourceMay 19, 2004 -- Nothing but bad news about prisoner abuse in Iraq, including breaking news that the Pentagon was told about the abuses back in November. SourceSenate Armed Forces Committee holds hearings on Abu Ghraib abuses. Source May 25, 2004 - Homeland Security issues a terror alert: Major terror attack possible this summer. Source
June 7, 2004 -- The Wall Street Journal publishes exclusive report demonstrating that the Pentagon provided legal rationales and loopholes in 2003 to use torture and methods of near-torture, and how to avoid various international treaties and US laws. Furthermore, the leaked memos suggest that they circumvent US and international laws, the US president should change the rules as they may see fit. All media outlets pick up on this explosive report. Source - SourceJune 14, 2004 - VP Dick Cheney is caught lying about the alleged ties of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. Cheney is unable to provide any evidence to his assertions after journalists inquire. On June 15 Bush Bush defends Cheney's unsourced assertions but does not provide any evidence either that there was a "link" between Iraq and al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks. Source June 15, 2004 - The Justice Department announces to the press they have thwarted an imminent terror plot to bomb malls in Ohio. Somali immigrant arrested and charged on the case.SourceLater on it is revealed that the Somali immigrant had been arrested one year earlier for his connections to terrorism, but there was nothing "imminent" in that case. The suspect was arrested in Nov. 28, 2003, and the Court papers filed by the government allege that a plot dated to March 2000. His indictment wasn't announced until June 15, 2004. Source - Source
July 6, 2004 -- Kerry names Edwards as his running mate. Source July 8, 2004 - Tom Ridge holds a press conference on terror alerts over the summer and during the conventions. SourceJuly 11, 2004 -- Senior White House officials discuss the possibility of delaying the elections in case of a terrorist attack. Source
July 22, 2004 -- The 9/11 Commission releases their findings. While many criticize the commission for not going far enough, their report includes many examples of inaction and lack of leadership from the Bush administration. SourceJuly 26-29 -- Democratic Convention shows party unity and strong leadership. Kerry/Edwards provide electrifying acceptance speeches. John Kerry's acceptance speech is praised even by some conservative analysts. Campaign appearances immediately following the convention draw larger-than-expected crowds.August 1, 2004 -- White House Projects Highest Deficit Ever. Source August 2, 2004 - The Department of Homeland Security raises the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the New York City and Washington areas. SourceLater it is revealed that much of the information that led the authorities to raise the terror alert was three or four years old. Source Same day - Bush's daughters, Jenna and Barbara, visit the Citicorp Building in New York City. This is one of the buildings that Tom Ridge implied was under a dire and imminent threat from terrorists. It seems odd that the President's daughters would be allowed to visit a building supposedly about to be attacked by terrorists. Source Can you connect the dots?UPDATE (8/05/04 - 11:30am): Over the last 24 hours, Biltud and I have been working like crazy locating resources, adding new instances, and researching additional "coincidences" related to the use of "terror alerts." It's been quite a collaborative effort. Some readers have sent us news articles that we have missed. Please send us additional items that we may have overlooked. Thanks.
# Posted by Julius Civitatus @ 4:00 PM
postCount('109156476570482138');
Comments (63)
postCountTB('109156476570482138');
Trackbacks (9)

Playing Politics With Terror Alerts
Yesterday they brought Tom Ridge to raise the alert color system, scare the bejeesus out of all New Yorkers:
The quality of this intelligence, based on multiple reporting streams in multiple locations, is rarely seen, and it is alarming in both the amount and specificity of the information. Now, while we are providing you with this immediate information, we will also continue to update you as the situation unfolds. As of now, this is what we know: Reports indicate that al-Qaida is targeting several specific buildings, including the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in the District of Columbia, Prudential Financial in northern New Jersey, and Citigroup buildings and the New York Stock Exchange in New York.Today the NY Times and the Washington Post report the following:
Much of the information that led the authorities to raise the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the New York City and Washington areas was three or four years old, intelligence and law enforcement officials said on Monday. They reported that they had not yet found concrete evidence that a terrorist plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way.So the whole thing was a political ploy. This sentence in Ridge's press conference should have given it away:
But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror, the reports that have led to this alert are the result of offensive intelligence and military operations overseas, as well as strong partnerships with our allies around the world, such as Pakistan. Shameless!

Live from my Room with C-Span TV

Live with Dick Parsons, Chairman/CEO of Time Warner, multicomgomerate especial. He's addressing the journalists at the Diversity [in] Media conference, a multinational, multicultural, and quite socially civil, audience of very informed individuals, who thought their commingling would be of benefit. Seems more like a free-mind lecture in some class at U or State, or if lucky, community college.
Parsons considers journalists as teachers with a noble responsibility to be diverse, open-minded, objective and fair. He is a high-power broker, former lawyer for Gov. Rockefeller (NY) and an African American. Much of the discussion is about any perceived notions of discrimination both culturally and personally. He is certainly someone who expresses himself in a humanistic way. He speaks frank and when faced with a question about being a token (my word, not his) he approaches it in both pragmatically and in historic perspective. He does tout his favorite mass media outlet, and baby of Time Warner/AOL, CNN, former creation of yes, Jane Fonda's ex. Weird. (Something in me always knew ol' barberella" was a creation of something else, entirely...not Ted Turner). Parsons has an enthusiastic audience who quickly engages in comfortable verbal inquiry and answer. This guy comes across as though he actually realizes what American people, believe,think,feel at least culturally, and also knows that change is a process that may take many generations. He encourages diversity, respects dialog but he is also of the elite,by virtue of the purchasing power he represents. When asked by an attendee in an open forum (immediately proceeding what I thought was a personal revelation of the man), who talked of "stupid", (my word not his) racism wherein the cultural collective respective has been fed for many years. Here is an extremely powerful head of one of the corporate power brokers, probably representing a seat in the secret cartel that conspiracy theorists go on about. Wow, Jesse Jackson has now taken the microphone and asked about stupid racism vs. deliberate bigotry. Dr. J says the media construes the facts "to set the agenda" so that what is important to them, (the mass media) becomes important to their audience. Rant/rage on Dr. Jesse. He knows a sermon-opportunity when he sees one. He's a superstar, maybe not quite expressing all his passion altruistically (my impression only).
Jesse obviously likes the guy...I hope it's not just because he is a man of color, who grew up simply...but he did go to College. Best Line of the night equivocated his party years in College with acceptable CV for President. The "dialog" goes on between this articulate man who leads one of the Big 5 in Corporate complexity, and the rest of us po' folk.

and the Spin goes on... 

from the Center of Defense Information...

IT'S THE GUNS, STUPID

by Wendy Cukier, Rebecca Peters and Rachel Stohl
As the threat of weapons of mass destruction spurs our government to action, a far more insidious threat endangers citizens around the world. The massive proliferation of guns! Gun trafficking has always been President Bush's blind spot in the war on terror. The inherent danger from the 4,000 gun shows a year in the United States, where terrorists and criminals can load their vans with countless weapons -- no questions asked -- may actually grow worse in the coming months.
Without leadership from the President, the federal ban on assault weapons will expire on September 13th and a new generation of assault weapons will enter the civilian market - and be readily available to terrorists. During the 2000 presidential campaign, then- Candidate Bush pledged to renew the ban. On November 10, 2001, President Bush addressed the United Nations. In his speech he stated, "We have a responsibility to deny weapons to terrorists and to actively prevent private citizens from providing them."
Unfortunately, since taking office, the Bush administration has stood in the way of efforts to renew the ban and close the gun show loophole - a loophole which allows criminals and terrorists an easy opportunity to evade background checks. Moreover, in many instances, the administration has actually turned back the clock on public safety. Attorney General John Ashcroft led the effort to destroy background check records after 24 hours of a gun purchase from a federally licensed dealer. His records destruction recommendation was included in gun industry backed legislation that also eroded law enforcement's ability to target crooked gun dealers.
While the Bush administration may be interested in allowing free access to guns for responsible American citizens, these policies have worldwide effects. Like pollution, guns know no borders. Whether it's Washington DC, Toronto, Port-au-Prince or Beirut, the permissive gun laws in the United States offer the world's criminal market easy access to an extraordinary range of lethal weapons. In fact, 50% of handguns recovered in crime in Toronto come from the United States. 80% of guns used in crimes in Mexico come from the U.S.
In addition, U.S. domestic policy is also helping arm terrorists abroad. On September 10, 2001 -- just one day before 9/11 -- Ali Boumelhem was convicted on a variety of weapons violations plus conspiracy to ship weapons to the terrorist organization Hezbollah in Lebanon. He and his brother Mohamed had purchased an arsenal of shotguns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, flash suppressers and assault weapon parts from Michigan gun shows.
Just as worrying, found among the mounds of rubble in Kabul after the U.S. led assault there, was the manual entitled, "How Can I Train Myself for Jihad" containing an entire section on "Firearms Training." The manual singles out the United States for its easy availability of firearms and stipulates that al-Qaeda members living in the United States "obtain an assault weapon legally, preferably AK-47 or variations." Criminals in the U.S. and abroad have long known what has become doctrine to al-Qaeda: The United States is the Great Gun Bazaar.
Moderate gun control offers enormous dividends in public safety that will pay out for generations. A recent report by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence notes that if the federal ban on assault weapons had not passed, "approximately 60,000 additional assault weapons would have been traced to crime in the last 10 years -- an average of 6,000 additional assault weapons traced to crime each year." Assault weapons are designed to spray bullets on a battlefield, not in Mexico City or Toronto or Washington, DC neighborhoods.
While the world community has experienced the realities of terrorism too often in the last several years, too many of our neighborhoods already know what it means to live with terror. They've been surviving widespread gun violence for decades. Closing the gun show loophole and continuing the ban on assault weapons, can provide dramatic leaps forward in the safety of communities in the United States as well as those around the world. Failing to act condemns thousands of families around the globe to years of suffering.
The President can't remain silent on the pending expiration of the assault weapon ban and remain true to his UN statement or campaign pledges. It's a question not only of public safety, but also of national security.
--
Wendy Cukier is President of the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control, Rebecca Peters is Director of the International Action Network on Small Arms, and Rachel Stohl is Senior Analyst at the Center for Defense Information. CDI is dedicated to strengthening security through: international cooperation; reduced reliance on unilateral military power to resolve conflict; reduced reliance on nuclear weapons; a transformed and reformed military establishment; and, prudent oversight of, and spending on, defense programs.

Author(s): Rachel Stohl

no need for comment... 

http://www.waxbush2004.com just returned from this link. Good documentary trailer on the largest march on Washington D.C. that was not widely reported in the media.

BUSCISM

"The Liberty of a Democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their Democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of Government by a group or any controling private power."
President Franklin D. Roosevelt

From Grist Magazine- This Land is Your Land...for now anyway

Bush Administration Proposal Would Give BLM More Incentive to Sell off Public Lands
by Amanda Griscom, Muckraker
The old Woody Guthrie ballad "This Land Is Your Land" has been reinterpreted in more ways than one recently. There was the hilarious campaign parody cartoon that exploded virally throughout the Internet last month, in which the "liberal wiener" (John Kerry) and "right-wing nut job" (George W. Bush) duke it out to an adulterated "This Land" soundtrack.Then, this week at the Department of Interior, there was a far subtler reinterpretation of the Guthrie anthem -- a reminder that while there are some 261 million acres of public land in America (not counting parks and wildlife refuges), which technically belong to "you and me," those who control them are not always motivated by Guthrie's populist ideals.The Bureau of Land Management has long had the authority to lease this land to industry for resource extraction and sell select parcels if such sales "serve the national interest." But soon, at the behest of the Bush administration, the agency may be given added incentive to sell lands -- and then be permitted to use the proceeds for projects that critics argue won't necessarily benefit the American people. On Monday, Lynn Scarlett, an assistant secretary at the Department of Interior, which encompasses the BLM, sent a letter [PDF] to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) urging Congress to adopt legislation that would change the way the government can use the money generated by selling BLM land.Historically, Congress has required the DOI to put all earnings from federal land sales directly into the U.S. Treasury -- which Scarlett says discouraged the BLM from selling off public lands for such worthwhile uses as urban and community development.
Lynn Scarlett.Photo: DOI."There has long been a concern that BLM really didn't have any incentive to sell [portions of its holdings] that are unmanageable and not germane to its mission," Scarlett told Muckraker. "There's a lot of work involved in doing the surveys and appraisals and so forth that are necessary to sell land, and as long as the revenues from the sale go straight off to the Treasury, it's all cost to BLM and not necessarily much benefit." The point of this new proposal, she said, "is to provide sufficient motivation for the BLM to be able to sell the land parcels that are designated as suitable for sale."Environmentalists bristle at such logic. "Why on earth should there be an incentive?" asked Johanna Wald, director of the lands program at Natural Resources Defense Council. "All decisions to sell land owned by the public should be made without external incentives or pressures driving them in one direction or another. That process should be completely neutral."Wald and other environmentalists acknowledge that a number of parcels of BLM land scattered within or near towns, cities, and ranches don't harbor substantial natural resources of national interest -- say, wildlife or energy resources -- and therefore would be reasonable to sell off to private interests. In 2000, President Clinton signed into law a measure sponsored by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) that allowed the BLM to hold on to any proceeds it made from the sale of the more than 3 million acres of public land that had already been earmarked for sale, much of it with little ecological value. A maximum of 20 percent of the profits could go to the agency to help cover administrative expenses for land sales, and a minimum of 80 percent had to be used to buy inholdings (privately owned tracts inside wilderness areas, national monuments, or other federally designated lands).
Your canyons, in Colorado.Photo: BLM."The initial program wasn't very controversial," said David Alberswerth, director of the Wilderness Society's BLM program. "The idea was to free up the BLM to sell some of these isolated parcels that had already been identified for sale and use the proceeds to buy inholdings and tracts adjacent to existing BLM lands that are more ecologically sensitive." But to determine whether the system would work as well in practice as in principle, a 10-year sunset clause was built into the program so analysts could have a chance to assess it -- how much new land the bureau would buy, how much it would sell, and what agency officials would do with the proceeds on an administrative level. "The BLM was supposed to put out annual reports on the program, but we haven't seen any," said Alberswerth. "And now the Bush administration is proposing to extend the program another five years and give it much broader authority, opening up the program to land sales in new, potentially sensitive areas." Indeed, as Scarlett writes to Hastert, "The BLM is currently undergoing a major effort in land use plan revisions and updates" and is identifying new lands to be sold. The Salt Lake Tribune reports that the administration's proposal could result in up to 10 million acres being put on the auction block.

Get an email alert each time a new Muckraker column is published.

The proposal also adds a critical new incentive to the 2000 statute: Only 60 percent of land-sales profits would have to be spent on acquiring new land parcels. Twenty percent would continue to go toward administrative expenses, and the remaining 20 percent could go to fund projects that would "enhance the conservation of federal lands."Critics wonder exactly what such projects would entail. "There's no telling what they mean by 'conservation-enhancing projects,'" said Wald. "Do they mean projects of the 'Healthy Forest' variety, for instance, that would strip old-growth trees from public lands in the name of conservation? Or grazing projects that would allow ranchers free range over public lands?" Scarlett insists that the money would be channeled to eco-sensitive causes. "The funds will go to local BLM managers for modest projects, like seeding lands with native grasses," she told Muckraker, "or removing invasive weeds, or reducing erosion along a stream bank, or grooming trails." The funds "would be very, very modest compared to the overall BLM budget," Scarlett said, "they will just add a little extra oomph." She said the revenues generated from the 2000 act have been "in the handfuls of millions," which is negligible compared to the agency's average annual budget of roughly $1.9 billion. Environmentalists, though, fear that the program won't be small for long. "I guarantee you that if this legislation is passed and Bush comes into office for a second term, instructions will go out to the field to step up efforts to identify disposable parcels," said Alberswerth. Also, Alberswerth said he's heard from people inside the DOI that the 2006 budget proposed by the Bush administration includes a 2.3 percent cut to the government's land-management programs. "You can see what's going on here: The Bush administration is readying big budget cuts in conservation and environmental programs, and the Interior Department is trying to figure out how it can finance conservation and acquisition programs from public land sale proceeds," he said.
Your tree, in Utah.Photo: BLM.Enviros also note that the proposal was submitted at the 11th hour of the 108th Congress -- before a potential shakeup brought about by the November election. "I think the plan was to try and sneak it through below the radar screen, maybe have it added to another piece of legislation, and get it enacted before anyone realized it was controversial," said Wald.Scarlett insists, however, that there is nothing controversial about the proposal. "The notion that somehow vast swaths of additional land could somehow come on the auction block fails to take into account the disciplined decision process behind identifying land that is identified for potential sale," she said. "There are stringent limitations and restrictions on what kind of parcels can be sold. It's a very public, very transparent process with a NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] review and comment period and very clear rules of engagement."Critics aren't reassured. They say that the guidelines for sales are not rigorous at all but rather subject to a broad range of interpretations, and that under the Bush administration the BLM has notoriously turned a deaf ear to public comments. "The criteria for determining what can be sold is a very subjective process that essentially comes down to what the BLM considers better for the so-called 'national interest,'" said Wald. "Needless to say, this administration has made very clear that it believes producing oil and gas everywhere is better for the national interest than producing wildlife from the public lands."
Not your drill, in Wyoming.Photo: BLM.Indeed, the process governing BLM land sales is no stricter than the process for selling oil and gas leases on public land. "Take a look at the extraordinary increase in sales of leases in spectacular and sensitive regions like Utah's red rock canyon country," said Wald. "That shows you how strict and rigorous the existing approval process is. By no means will it prevent them from selling off our national treasures."Over the past few months, in fact, the BLM has issued land-use plans to open an additional 5.4 million acres of federal land in Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming to possible oil and gas drilling, even though the bureau itself has acknowledged that portions of these lands fit the legal description of wilderness established by Congress. Right now, the question of what land really does belong to you and me feels uncomfortably ambiguous.

Muck it up: We welcome rumors, whistleblowing, classified documents, or other useful tips on environmental policies, Beltway shenanigans, and the people behind them. Please send 'em to muckraker@gristmagazine.com
Grist columnist Amanda Griscom writes Muckraker and Powers That Be. Her articles on energy, technology, and the environment have appeared in publications ranging from Rolling Stone to The New York Times Magazine.

WHAT IS FAIR TRADE?

(Quoted from www.FairTradeFederation.com)
Fair Trade means an equitable and fair partnership between marketers in North America and producers in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and other parts of the world. A fair trade partnership works to provide low-income artisans and farmers with a living wage for their work. Fair Trade Federation (FTF) criteria are:
Paying a fair wage in the local context.
Offering employees opportunities for advancement.
Providing equal employment opportunities for all people, particularly the most disadvantaged.
Engaging in environmentally sustainable practices.
Being open to public accountability.
Building long-term trade relationships.
Providing healthy and safe working conditions within the local context.
Providing financial and technical assistance to producers whenever possible. FAIR WAGESProducers are paid fairly for their products, which means that workers are paid at least that country's minimum wage. Since the minimum wage is often not enough for basic survival, whenever feasible, workers are paid a living wage, which enables them to cover basic needs, including food, shelter, education and health care for their families. Paying fair wages does not necessarily mean that products cost the consumer more. Since Fair Trade Organizations bypass exploitative middlemen and work directly with producers, they are able to cut costs and return a greater percentage of the retail price to the producers.
COOPERATIVE WORKPLACESCooperatives and producer associations provide a healthy alternative to large-scale manufacturing and sweatshops conditions, where unprotected workers earn below minimum wage and most of the profits flow to foreign investors and local elites who have little interest in ensuring the long term health of the communities in which they work. Fair Trade Organizations work primarily with small businesses, worker owned and democratically run cooperatives and associations which bring significant benefits to workers and their communities. By banding together, workers are able to access credit, reduce raw material costs and establish higher and more just prices for their products. Workers earn a greater return on their labor, and profits are distributed more equitably and often reinvested in community projects such as health clinics, child care, education and literacy training. Workers learn important leadership and organizing skills, enabling self-reliant grassroots-driven development. Safe and healthy working conditions are maintained and producers gain greater control and decision making power over the use of their local resources.
CONSUMER EDUCATIONFair Trade Organizations educate consumers about the importance of purchasing fairly traded products which support living wages and healthy working conditions. By defining fair trade and conducting business in a manner that respects workers' rights and the environment, the fair trade movement strives to educate consumers about the often hidden human costs of their "bargains." By providing information about producers' history, culture and living conditions, Fair Trade Organizations enhance cross-cultural understanding and respect between consumers and communities in the developing world. They also educate consumers and policy makers about inequities in the global trading system.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYFair Trade Organizations encourage producers to engage in environmentally friendly practices which manage and use local resources sustainably. Many organizations work directly with producers in regions of high biodiversity to develop products based on sustainable use of their natural resources, giving communities an incentive to preserve their natural environments for future generations.
FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL SUPPORTSmall-scale farmers and artisans in the developing world lack access to affordable financing, impeding their profitability. Fair Trade Organizations that buy products directly from producers often provide financial assistance either through direct loans, prepayment or by linking producers with sources of financing. Unlike many commercial importers who often wait 60-90 days before paying producers, Many FTOs ensure prepayment so that producers have sufficient funds to cover raw materials and basic needs during production time. They also often provide other critical technical assistance and support such as market information, product feedback and training in financial management. Unlike commercial importers, FTOs establish long term relationships with their producers and help them adapt production for changing trends.
RESPECT FOR CULTURAL IDENTITYFair Trade Organizations encourage the production and development of products based on producers' cultural traditions adapted for Western markets. They seek to promote producers' artistic talents in a way that preserves cultural identity.

...and countless human lives. 

The Ten Commandments--Republican Style
Rebecca Lauer
I. Thou shalt talk about Christian principles, but not live by them
II. Thou shalt attack opponents personally when you can't win on policies
III. Thou shalt call yourself pro-life, but be in favor of the death penalty
IV. Thou shalt call yourself pro-life, and put guns in the hands of school children
V. Thou shalt give lip service to democracy while taking away civil liberties
VI. Profit is the Lord Thy God, thou shalt not put the people's interest above those of your corporate contributors
VII. Thou shalt make sure fetuses have health coverage, but leave children and babies behind
VIII Thou shalt bear false witness against your opponents and liberals, and demonize them
IX. Thou shalt run on a moderate platform, then enact right-wing policies as soon as possible
X. Thou shalt call the media liberal, so that people forget that the media is owned by corporations with a conservative fiscal agenda

Dialog not Debate, Unity not Division

I just got back from lunch with my progressive libertarian friends. Both activists in the WTO protests of several years back, they sound resigned to the state of political affairs today. But as parents of school-aged kids their active demonstration in matters of global trade, diversity, indigineous rights, corporate corruption and fair trade is limited. Now, the warrior retreats to tend to matters of domestic priority, leaving the fight to others not so resigned or constricted by the responsibilities of parenting young children. I, on the other hand, awoke from the slumber of reconciled apathy and menopausal myopia, to encourage the ideals of unity, respect, compassion and social responsibility.
I long for the day when progess is carved out of the progressive movement. I need to believe that we humans have a greater potential to unite for the common good. I need to believe that when the smoke has cleared there is a place for dialog among competing interests. I need to believe that the greater good will prevail, and concepts that now divide us, will eventually form the base of collective cooperation, humility and grace. The time is now. We can do better.

MOBILIZING THE MIDDLE CLASS

Middle-Class Voters Grasp that Bush is not Representing Their Interests. But they don't act on that perception. They might -- but it's up to Democrats to motivate them.
By Ruy Teixeira
Isue Date: 05.04.04

It's getting harder and harder to be middle class. As a result of the Bush administration's relentless tax-cutting agenda -- designed to limit the ability of government to deliver services -- the lives of middle-class Americans are becoming more difficult and less secure, in areas from health care to pensions to public schools. But, in the immortal words of Bob Dole, "Where's the outrage?" Why have these attacks not provoked a greater political reaction? And what chance is there for a progressive middle-class response to these attacks in the future?
This lack of outrage seems particularly odd because the middle class is aware of the attacks upon it. People in general, and the middle class in particular, believe that Bush-administration policies have favored the interests of large corporations and the rich over those of ordinary people and the middle class. An early January CBS News poll found that, by huge margins, the public thought that Bush administration policies favor the rich (57 percent) rather than the middle class (11 percent), the poor (1 percent), or all groups the same (25 percent). By a nearly 2-to-1 margin (58 percent to 30 percent), the public said that George W. Bush is more interested in protecting the interests of large corporations than those of ordinary Americans. And by almost 3 to 1 (64 percent to 23 percent), the public thought big business has too much influence, rather than the right amount, on the Bush administration.
Research repeatedly shows that middle-class views track those of the general public very closely, both because of the middle class' large size and its political positioning (between the poor and the rich). But we don't have to merely assume that the middle class shares these jaundiced views of the Bush administration's policy bias. Where available, data for middle-class subgroups within surveys confirm this. In an April 2003 ABC News/Washington Post poll, 57 percent overall said that Bush's proposals on cutting taxes favored the rich, while 11 percent said that they favored the middle class. These figures are almost exactly the average of the two income breaks that best capture the middle class ($30,000 to $50,000 and $50,000 to $75,000). In the same poll, 61 percent thought that large business corporations had too much influence on the Bush administration, compared with just 8 percent who thought that they had too little -- again, almost exactly the average of the two middle-class income brackets. And in a March 2004 ABC News/Washington Post poll, 67 percent overall thought that Bush cared more about protecting the interests of large business corporations, compared with 26 percent who thought that he cared more about protecting the interests of ordinary working people -- almost exactly the result for the middling education category of "some college."
Is it possible, though, that the middle class recognizes that the Bush plan doesn't serve it well but still believes, on balance, that the policy's relative priorities are the right ones? That is most emphatically not the case, either. The middle class consistently and overwhelmingly rejects the prioritizing of tax cuts over social investment. In the April 2003 ABC News poll, the two middle-class income brackets averaged 70-percent support for spending more on domestic programs -- like education, health care, and Social Security -- and 28-percent support for cutting taxes. These respondents also said, by 64 percent to 27 percent, that cutting taxes is more important to Bush than providing services, while, by 68 percent to 30 percent, they said that providing services is more important for them personally than cutting taxes. Indeed, no matter how the general trade-off between tax cuts and social investment is framed, middle-class priorities seem consistently skewed toward investment and away from tax cuts.
These findings raise troubling questions. How did the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts pass with so little middle-class support? Why did the Bush administration believe it could get away with flouting middle-class priorities so ostentatiously? And why has there not been -- at least as yet -- a middle-class backlash? In some ways, the middle class seems like Calvin in the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, where the boy's mother asks him, after a particularly egregious act of household mayhem, "Don't you have any common sense?" Calvin replies, "I have plenty of common sense, I just choose not to use it."
When it comes to the middle class, how can it be that it has plenty of common sense about where its interests lie but chooses not to use it? The beginnings of an answer are provided in an important forthcoming book, Off Center: George W. Bush, Tax Cuts, and the Erosion of Democracy, by political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson. Noting that the 2001 tax cut was "radically at odds with clear, firm, and considered public opinion," Hacker and Pierson ask how it passed against the views of the "median voter" -- which can usefully be thought of here as the average member of the middle class -- and with little apparent fear of political retribution.
Their answer is that the political environment in the United States has changed in two basic ways. The first is that politicians in this money-driven era are motivated to reward their base, including partisans, activist groups, and the wealthy. That's a good way to avoid primary challenges, which tend to come from the base and are the chief re-election danger for many incumbents. Pleasing the base also means that incumbents will receive high levels of financial and interest-group support, ensuring their ability to beat back general-election challenges. In this formula, the preferences of average middle-class voters get short shrift.
The second change in the political environment is that, more and more, politicians are able to avoid the electoral consequences of displeasing average voters. Most obviously, the number of competitive elections has declined and the ability of unions and other local, grass-roots organizations to punish incumbents has decreased. Less obviously, but just as important, legislation has become more complex and polling more sophisticated, making it easier to hide large drawbacks of new legislation from voters and highlight small benefits instead. Together these changes mean that legislators gain more and lose less from ignoring the typical middle-class voter.
In the case of Bush's tax policies, the cuts were at odds with the preferences of the middle class but very consistent with the preferences of the GOP base, especially its very wealthy base of political donors. For Republican incumbents who wanted to stay incumbents, that was a powerful incentive to stiff the middle class and to support the cuts. At the same time, the GOP was able to evade middle-class anger by systematically misrepresenting the cuts' middle-class benefits, understating their impact on budgetary balance, hiding their effects on budget priorities, and minimizing their total cost through phase-ins, sunsets, time bombs, and other accounting sleights of hand. As a result, the middle class never really understood how seriously these tax cuts went against its preferences, vigorous middle-class opposition never emerged, and the cuts could scrape through Congress with party-line support.
So, how can the middle class be motivated to act on its interests? That's the key question for Democrats, and they should look to the tax-cut disaster for answers. The first lesson is that the middle class, in the face of its own interests being contravened, will not activate itself. That may have worked in the past, but today the middle class must be activated through conscious political mobilization.
The second lesson is that Democrats must relentlessly counterattack when Republicans misrepresent Democrats' policies and try to hide their negative aspects. It is now clear that the GOP shows no respect for the historic limits on such misrepresentation. Democrats have to work just as hard to clarify the issues. That means, for example, making the trade-offs between tax cuts and social spending come alive for middle-class voters. Though they tried, Democrats failed to focus middle-class voters on a concrete choice between tax cuts and a specific social program or goal. The problem wasn't that Democrats failed to mention the idea that the tax cuts might affect other budgetary priorities; it was that they mentioned too many. Some dwelled on the cuts' impact on the deficit. Others focused on education, health-care programs (especially a possible Medicare prescription-drugs benefit), or homeland security. But there was no unified voice focusing over and over on how passage of the tax cuts would preclude one specific goal or hurt one specific program that middle-class voters believe in.
Bill Clinton and the Democrats did this successfully in 1998, when they insisted on "saving Social Security first." Even if some aspects of this strategy were flawed -- the emphasis on the "lockbox" for the Social Security trust fund, for example, and the eventual obsession with debt-reduction -- there is no doubt the Democrats' unified focus on a popular program gave middle-class voters a clear choice: tax cuts or saving Social Security. And that worked politically.
They need to do that again. When opposing Republican tax cuts, Democrats will naturally and justifiably mention a range of social investments that these cuts will preclude. But to rally middle-class opposition to the cuts, Democrats need to rally around one alternative priority that gets top billing. That could be "funding health care first" or "defending the homeland first" or "putting good schools first." The important thing is for that alternative to be simple, clear, and popular. If what the middle class hears instead is a diffuse list of spending alternatives, it will allow the GOP to focus attention on the (shamelessly exaggerated) middle-class benefits of its proposed tax cuts. And we already know how that one comes out.
Such strategic unity is a difficult task. But it is a prerequisite to activating middle-class self-interest and, therefore, a necessity, not an option. Democrats, it's time to get to work.
Copyright © 2004 by The American Prospect, Inc. Preferred Citation: Ruy Teixeira, "Don't Mourn, Mobilize", The American Prospect, The Wreckage Beyond Iraq, May 2004 This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author. Direct questions about permissions to permissions@prospect.org.

Swift Boat haters of Kerry Get Caught by Vet's Group

Gutless Bush Republicans Sending E-Mails
Recently we have exposed two Veteran Groups for misleading, and/or betraying Veterans. We contacted a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" that is no more then a Right-Wing Republican Political Group that opposes Kerry running for President.
Although they claim to have served with Senator Kerry none of them did. It's all fraud. A "front" attack group to deceive Veterans. A Republican Dirty Trick intended to deceive Veterans and rig the election.
Every person that actually served on the swift boat with Senator Kerry calls him a hero, and supports him, except for a gunner Kerry confronted in front of his men, because the gunner was shooting at children, and unarmed civilians.
We confronted them about these facts and e-mailed EACH of their contacts inviting them to respond and offering to post their response.
NOT ONE OF THEIR MEMBERS HAD THE GUTS TO ANSWER!
They know that they are liars. Recently they released an ad they are running on TV to deceive the public in which 13 of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" claim to have served with Kerry, and claim he did not earn his medals. Not one of the 13 actually served with Kerry, as they claim, and REPUBLICAN SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN calls the ad "Dishonest and Dishonorable". We join Senator John McCain in that view which can also accurately describe the Republican Former Navy Officers who made the ad, and intended to lie and deceive the public, for their political purposes.
Republican Senator McCain said ""I can't believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt."
"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, comparing the anti-Kerry ad to tactics used by President Bush in his bitter Republican primary fight with Senator McClain, who is also a former Vietnam Prisoner of War. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/08/05/politics1020EDT0544.DTL
We exposed Colonel Day, who has put a great deal of effort into fighting the thief of medical benefits from military retirees, only to turn and betray them by urging Veterans to support President Bush.
President Bush is the very politician that SENT the Justice Department to take their medical benefits from them at the same time he was approving over one BILLION dollars to reimburse hospitals for federally mandated health care for ILLEGAL ALIENS!!!! http://www.mdjonline.com/articles/2004/08/05/270/10152188.txt
Illegal aliens is the White House priority, NOT AMERICA'S VETERANS AND RETIRED MILITARY!
Yes Colonel Day SUPPORTS giving OVER ONE BILLION DOLLARS to provide the very best of health care to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS while the "Class" of Military Retirees he represents has the medical benefits they EARNED stolen from them. After all he strongly supports the politician who has set such a policy.
We also gave Colonel Day and his group an opportunity to respond. They remained silent.
Apparently because we have exposed these shams on America's Veterans we have been receiving a substantial number of e-mails, apparently from either the Swift Boat Veterans lying for Bush, or the Colonel Day Lawsuit Group, or some of their supporters, harassing us. It's hard to tell which group it is because they lack the guts to sign their e-mails.
They often use vulgarity, question the military service of members of VetsForJustice, and call us liars. And often they make it clear that they are upset at our exposing the truth about President Bush, and the corrupt Republican Election Tactics. Rather then answer each Republican Hate E-Mail we would like to state the following;
1. If you want a response then try to find the guts to sign your name.
2. Unlike the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" we stand behind every word we say and even provide links to evidence.
3. Unlike Colonel Day we will NEVER support any politician that betrays Veterans on Veterans Issues.
4. We intend to both keep our word and work toward our "Out the Door in 2004" promise, and to use our vote AS A VETERAN WEAPON to vote against politicians that betray America's Veterans.
Billy Ray Kidwell
VetsForJustice.com

Questioned Military Records Lost... 

I smell a partisan rat...

Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff August 6, 2004
WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals.

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.
Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."
The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.
Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.
''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."
Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."
The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star.
The book, ''Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," is to be published next week. Yesterday it reached number one on the bestseller list on Amazon.com, based on advance orders, in part because of publicity about it on the Drudge Report.
The book seeks to undermine one of the central claims of Kerry's campaign -- that his Vietnam War heroism would make him a good commander in chief.
While the Regnery Publishing yesterday declined to release an advance copy of the book, Drudge's website quotes it as saying, ''Elliott indicates that a Silver Star recommendation would not have been made by him had he been aware of the actual facts."

Books for Soldiers

Many neocons think that a person who opposes the war, does not care about the military that has been sent by our country to fight the war. The war was not properly planned nor executed.
But that is not the fault of our men and women who serve. Whether or not they believe in their mission is irrelevant. They are soldiers and even though some may have callous hearts and insensitive attitudes toward the people of the land they occupy, I pray that these individuals are a rarity. Whether the military guards involved in detainee abuse were merely following orders, either implied or expressed, does not excuse the demeaning conduct and assaults that the world finds collectively abhorent. That they will be scapegoats to those who clearly were responsible is even more reprehensible. But for all those other morally bound and socially conscious military personnel, I provide the following link. I close with heartfelt apologies for the hubris of power that placed you in harm's way, and that will forever affect your perceptions and ideals.
http://booksforsoldiers.com/

When the Law Goes Flat

August 6, 2004
By Ernest Partridge, The Crisis Papers
Amidst all the outrages of the Bush Administration - raiding the Federal treasury, starving education and social services, trashing the environment, launching an aggressive war - it is all too easy to overlook the erosion of the rule of law. Yet the law is the institution that most immediately affects us all, because the law, as established by the founders of our nation, protects us all from the reckless power of abusive government - from what Hamlet called, "the insolence of office."
To be sure, laws can be petty or even silly, especially in local jurisdictions. Far worse, they can be cruel and unjust when enacted by oppressive regimes such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. But this is not the case in the United States of America. Our laws are founded on our Constitution, ratified with "the consent of the governed," and devised, in the words of the Preamble, "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty." When our courts are functioning properly, laws judged to be in violation of these Constitutional objectives and protections are ruled null and void.
The protection of the law, and the loss of that protection, is the central theme of Robert Bolt's play and movie, A Man for All Seasons, which dramatizes the life and martyrdom of Thomas More. In the play, More warns his son-in-law:
[Would you] cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ... And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide..., the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast..., and if you cut them down... do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
Thomas More's offense, which eventually cost him his life, was his refusal to recognize the supremacy of the English monarch over papal authority. More, a legal scholar, believed that so long as he remained silent, the law would protect him, even from the sovereign, Henry VIII. But when that law was "flattened" - as it became subordinate to and a political weapon of that sovereign - Thomas More's fate was sealed.
The fate of Thomas More, and of countless others throughout history who have fallen victim to the corruption of law by the wealthy and powerful, must stand as a warning to all Americans today. For the evidence of the corruption of law in the hands of the present administration and its party is compelling to any who have the eyes to see and the judgment to appreciate the threat. Put bluntly, the Bush administration is literally an "outlaw" regime - it has placed itself outside the law that both constrains and protects the rest of us.
The 2000 Election
To begin, we must never forget that this administration was conceived in lawlessness. Thousands of Florida voters were unlawfully "purged" and denied access to the polls. Military ballots postmarked past the deadline were counted. In Miami-Dade county, an official act of ballot counting was shut down by a "yuppie riot" of GOP staff members - an event as blatantly illegal as the disruption of a trial or of a debate on the floor of the Congress. Yet no one was ever charged, much less punished, for this lawlessness.
Article Two, Section One of the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that "each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors." Thus it is the business of the states, as interpreted by the Supreme Courts of the states, to select the presidential electors. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered the continued counting of the ballots, and that decision was upheld by two appellate federal courts.
No matter. In a legally indefensible ruling ("limited to the present circumstances"), clearly concocted with the sole purpose of putting George Bush in the White House, five Republican judges on the Supreme Court ordered an end of the vote counting and, in effect, selected the President. (See my "A Day of Infamy," and a collection of legal and journalistic responses to Bush v. Gore: "We Dissent.").
Subsequently, more than 600 Professors of law signed a petition of protest, which included the following:
We are Professors of Law at American law schools, from every part of our country, of different political beliefs. But we all agree that when a bare majority of the U. S. Supreme Court halted the recount of ballots under Florida law, the five justices were acting as political proponents for candidate Bush, not as judges.
The Unequal Enforcement of the Law
Carved above the entrance to this same Supreme Court, are the words "Equal Justice under Law." Would that it were so. Unfortunately, there are two kinds of "justice." There is one standard of justice for the wealthy murderer with a team of high-priced attorneys, and another standard for the poor murder suspect with the court-appointed lawyer.
There is one law for wealthy users of powdered cocaine or oxycontin, and another for poor black users of crack cocaine. There is one law for the corporate executive who fixes energy prices, another for "Grandma Millie" who must pay those inflated prices. There is one law for the Republican donor who cheats thousands of taxpayers of billions of invested dollars, and another for Democratic contributor Martha Stewart, caught "dumping" $50,000 of stock on an "insider tip."
There is one law of perjury for Casper Weinberger, Eliot Abrams and Oliver North, all of whom escaped fine and imprisonment due to "technicalities" and presidential pardons, and another law for President Bill Clinton caught, at last, in a "perjury trap" over a non-material sexual indiscretion.
The Violation of International Treaties
Article Six of the Constitution decrees that "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." But not, apparently, to this Administration which has casually ignored and violated numerous treaties at its convenience.
The most outrageous has been the violations of the Geneva Conventions in Iraq, and specifically at the Abu Ghraib prison. In a March 6, 2003, memo from the Pentagon "working group," we read: "In light of the President's complete authority over the conduct of war, without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the President's ultimate authority in these areas."
Regarding this memo, Molly Ivins wrote: "Quite literally, the president may as well wear a crown - forget that 'no man is above the law' jazz. We used to talk about 'the imperial presidency' under Nixon, but this is the real thing."
Civil Rights
George Bush's violation of the rights of citizens is open and flagrant. Until very recently, at least three U. S. citizens (that we know of) were incarcerated without specific charges, without access to counsel, without expectation of a jury trial - all this in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights).
Even worse violations of basic judicial rights were visited upon the non-citizens held at Guantánamo. But now, at last, the courts have dug in their heels, as the very Supreme Court that appointed Bush to his office finally drew the line and ordered that U.S. citizen Yaser Hamdi be allowed access to his lawyer and be formally charged. (The Supremes "punted" the similar case of Jose Padilla back to the state court.)
Even so, the Bush Administration's aspirations to "transcend" the law remain a constant threat. Last month the conservative legal journalist, Stuart Taylor, Jr., wrote:
These warped analyses [by the Defense Department legal team] are not just the work of a few lawyers carried away with clever circumvention of the law. They reflect an attitude deeply entrenched in the Bush White House - including Bush and Dick Cheney as well as (White House counsel Alberto) Gonzales - that whenever the president invokes national security, he enjoys near-dictatorial powers and is quite literally above the law. ... These perversions of the law would allow Bush to seize, imprison, and torture anyone in the world, at any time, for any reason that he associates with national security. Little did the Framers suspect that their Constitution would be twisted by a president to claim powers more appropriate to Roman emperors, Russian czars, and King George III.
Anyone claiming to be an authentic "conservative" who can still support this president is engaging in an extraordinary feat of mind-bending.
Tort Reform
Finally, we come to the issue of "tort reform," brought to public attention by the selection of "trial attorney" John Edwards as the Democratic Candidate for Vice President.
Libertarians, and in particular the libertarian faction of the Republican party, have long contended that tort law - court mandated compensation for damages - would accomplish all that government regulation attempts to achieve, and that it would do this more effectively and at less cost. Unfortunately, history clearly testifies that it simply won't work. Furthermore, the attempt to have tort law take on the same task as regulation would entail a re-establishment of the same sort of bureaucracy that the libertarians deplore.
This is a bold charge that I make against the libertarian "tort and court" remedy. Because I have defended this criticism of libertarianism at length in a published article, "With Liberty for Some," I will not repeat that argument here.
But just suppose that the libertarians are right: that the work of the EPA, the Food and Drug Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other regulatory agencies, can all be accomplished through the threat of personal lawsuits against private corporations.
This proposed alternative to government regulation is insincere, to say the least of it. For if the Republicans really believed that the courts could and should protect the citizens and consumers from injuries from the corporations, then they would be in the vanguard of those who would at least retain, and perhaps even increase, the legal penalties imposed upon offending parties and corporations. And, of course, the opposite is the case.
Instead, they propose "tort reform" which would make access to the courts prohibitively expensive for ordinary citizens. In addition, this so-called "reform" would result in settlements unlikely to fully compensate for damages, and would exact costs to large corporations sufficiently small to have virtually no deterrent effect. Such "reform" would truly be a "flattening" of the law, leaving little or no protection for private citizens from corporate abuses, damages and injuries. But, of course, that's precisely the objective of "tort reform."
In short, the GOP and its corporate sponsors want it both ways: no protection of the consumer-citizen through enforcement of government regulation, and no protection of the consumer-citizen through punishing court settlements. The corporation as screwer - the citizen as screwee.
Equal Justice Under Law
The founders of our Republic resolved that the inalienable rights of every citizen would be protected by the equal application of the rule of law. They understood that in a well-ordered polity, justice, embodied in the rule of law, is above politics; the law sets the rules and defines the constraints of acceptable political activity.
The law is the "referee" that assures "fair play." And it does so blindly, with equal fairness to the various factions. The law protects the individual citizen from the abuse of power, from the lowliest citizen to the President. This is what Robert Bolt's Thomas More had in mind, when he said that "I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake."
The blindfolded Lady Justice makes no distinctions: all are to be protected equally by the law. And when the blindfold is torn off and the scales of justice are weighted in favor of the rich and powerful, and against the opposing parties and dissenting citizens, then the lowliest citizen is not safe.
Worse still, when that citizen comes to appreciate this fact, he will no longer look to the law for justice and protection. Law, for the citizen, will then have ceased to be his protector, and will instead have become his oppressor - a political tool of a sovereign that has thus forfeited his right to govern. "When in the course of human events" such misfortune befalls a public, the time has come to replace the government - peacefully if possible, but forcibly if necessary.
If you disagree then your argument is not with me, it is with all the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He publishes the website, The Online Gadfly and co-edits the progressive website, The Crisis Papers.

If Bush is Re-elected, He'll Gut the Courts.
Representative Jim McDermott says that could be the beginning of the end.
By Mary Lynn F. Jones eb Exclusive: 08.02.04
Sen. Patrick Leahy used an event held in his honor during the Democratic convention last week to talk about the importance of the First Amendment.
“With the crew we have in charge right now, we would not be able to ratify the Bill of Rights,” Leahy said on July 27. He noted that after the founding fathers set up the new government, the first thing they did once in power was pass the Bill of Rights to protect the people they were governing.
But the current administration, “who have botched everything, question the patriotism and the honesty of those who dare stand up to use their First Amendment rights” to challenge it, he added.
Then Leahy told those gathered that the man elected president this fall could nominate as many as four Supreme Court justices in the next few years, and that the Senate would vote on whether to approve them. Leahy didn’t leave the audience guessing as to which party he hopes is in charge of both the White House and the Senate.
While Leahy chose to talk about the courts, the issue got little attention just about everywhere else. The economy, Iraq, and health care were the main talking points of the week. Democratic nominee John Kerry talked about the need to avoid using the Constitution for political purposes, but didn’t mention the courts specifically in his July 29 acceptance speech.
“You would think people would be focused on [the courts], but it’s a nuanced argument,” Rep. John Larson of Connecticut told me. “It’s a great, provocative issue that needs to be fleshed out more.”
Sen. Tom Carper told me he’s not surprised the issue isn’t getting more attention. When he ran for governor of Delaware in 1992, “no one ever asked me a single question about my criteria for judges,” despite the fact that Carper could nominate them as the state’s executive officer.
“I’m not really surprised that this issue isn’t on the front of everybody’s minds,” Carper said.
It was on somebody’s mind, however. A large billboard ad near the FleetCenter read “THINK! (about the Supreme Court) Kerry’s Scary.” The website mentioned on the ad, www.kerrysscary.com, is a project of the Committee for Justice. The group is chaired by C. Boyden Gray, who served as President George H.W. Bush’s White House counsel and helped push Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court nomination.
Many lawmakers say the court is among the most important issues up for consideration this fall.
“Given what this administration has done both in Congress and the presidency, the courts are now our last hope,” said Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington, noting the court’s check-and-balance power. “If [George W.] Bush is elected and guts the court, all hope is lost for everybody.”
One area Democrats are especially concerned about is abortion rights. In 1992, the court was one vote away from overturning Roe v. Wade. The same is true this year.
Just as importantly, if the election winds up a nail-biter like 2000, it’s not inconceivable that the court could step in again and swing the election Bush’s way.
Then, of course, there is the issue of civil rights, an area the Bush administration has disregarded repeatedly. At a panel on national security and terrorism on July 28, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania called voting for the Patriot Act the worst vote he’s cast in his 12 terms in Congress. “If we lose our liberty, there’s nothing worse,” he said.
While Bush will have to win the Senate’s support on his Supreme Court nominees, he’s routinely ignored its advise-and-consent role on other choices, such as Charles Pickering and Bill Pryor, whom he installed as appellate judges through recess appointments earlier this year. And just last week, with the spotlight safely off him, Bush made 20 recess appointments for executive positions such as chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, no small matter.
Rank-and-file voters, caught up in traditional bread-and-butter issues such as whether they can afford to feed their families and worried about sons and daughters serving in Iraq, aren’t likely to give the courts much thought, Larson said. But while the courts may not carry the same sense of urgency, they’re just as -- if not more -- important in the long term. The economy will recover and the war will end at some point, but the courts have the ability to make fundamental changes to our system of government, and therefore our way of life. And, like Leahy said, this administration isn’t interested in protecting voters from its excesses.
As McDermott told me, “We’ve got to win the presidency.”
Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week in the online edition of The American Prospect.
Copyright © 2004 by The American Prospect, Inc. Preferred Citation: Mary Lynn F. Jones, "Court Jester",
The American Prospect Online, Aug 2, 2004. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author. Direct questions about permissions to permissions@prospect.org.

Hiroshima Story by Tom Engelhardt...

With August 6, Hiroshima Day, in mind, the author offers a personal tale touching on a nuclear story that none of us can yet quite tell.
By Tom Engelhardt
August 5, 2004

Even though we promptly dubbed the site of the 9/11 attacks in New York City "Ground Zero" -- once a term reserved for an atomic blast -- Americans have never really come to grips either with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the nuclear age they ushered in.
There can be no question that, as the big bang that might end it all, the atomic bomb haunted Cold War America. In those years, while the young watched endless versions of nuclear disaster transmuted into B-horror films, the grown-ups who ran our world went on a vast shopping spree for world-ending weaponry, building nuclear arsenals that grew into the tens of thousands of weapons.
When the Cold War finally ended with the Soviet Union's quite peaceful collapse, however, a nuclear "peace dividend" never quite arrived. The arsenals of the former superpower adversaries remained quietly in place, drawn down but strangely untouched, awaiting a new mission, while just beyond sight, the knowledge of the making of such weapons spread to other countries ready to launch their own threatening mini-cold wars.
In 1995, fifty years after that first bomb went off over the Aioi Bridge in Hiroshima, it still proved impossible in the U.S. to agree upon a nuclear creation tale. Was August 6, 1945, the heroic ending to a global war or the horrific beginning of a new age? The Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the Hiroshima bomb and a shattered school child's lunchbox from Hiroshima could not yet, it turned out, inhabit the same exhibit space at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC.
Today, while the Bush administration promotes a new generation of nuclear "bunker-busters" as the best means to fight future anti-proliferation wars, such once uniquely world-threatening weapons have had to join a jostling queue of world-ending possibilities in the dreams of our planet's young. Still, for people of a certain age like me, Hiroshima is where it all began. So on this August 6th, I would like to try, once again, to lay out the pieces of a nuclear story that none of us, it seems, can yet quite tell.
In my story, there are three characters and no dialogue. There is my father, who volunteered for the Army Air Corps at age thirty-five, immediately after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He fought in Burma, was painfully silent on his wartime experiences, and died on Pearl Harbor Day in 1983. Then there's me, growing up in a world in which my father's war was glorified everywhere, in which my play fantasies in any park included mowing down Japanese soldiers -- but my dreams were of nuclear destruction. Finally, there is a Japanese boy whose name and fate are unknown to me.
This is a story of multiple silences. The first of those, the silence of my father, was once no barrier to the stories I told myself. If anything, his silence enhanced them, since in the 1950s, male silence seemed a heroic attribute (and perhaps it was, though hardly in the way I imagined at the time). Sitting in the dark with him then at any World War II movie was enough for me.
As it turned out though, the only part of his war I possessed was its final act, and around this too, there grew up a puzzling silence. The very idea of nuclear destruction seemed not to touch him. Like other school children, I went through nuclear attack drills with sirens howling outside, while -- I had no doubt -- he continued to work unfazed in his office. It was I who watched the irradiated ants and nuclearized monsters of our teen-screen life stomp the Earth. It was I who went to the French film Hiroshima Mon Amour, where I was shocked by my first sight of the human casualties of the A-bombing, and to On the Beach to catch a glimpse of how the world might actually end. It was I who saw the mushroom cloud rise in my dreams, felt its heat sear my arm before I awoke. Of all this I said not a word to him, nor he to me.
On his erstwhile enemies, however, my father was not silent. He hated the Japanese with a war-bred passion. They had, he told me, "done things" that could not be discussed to "boys" he had known. Subsequent history -- the amicable American occupation of Japan or the emergence of that defeated land as an ally -- did not seem to touch him.
His hatred of all things Japanese was not a ruling passion of my childhood only because Japan was so absent from our lives. There was nothing Japanese in our house (one did not buy their products); we avoided the only Japanese restaurant in our part of town, and no Japanese people ever came to visit. Even the evil Japanese I saw in war movies, who might sneeringly hiss, "I was educated in your University of Southern California" before they met their suicidal fates were, I now know, regularly played by non-Japanese actors.
In the end, I followed my own path to Hiroshima, drawn perhaps to the world my father so vehemently rejected. In 1979, as an editor, I published Unforgettable Fire, the drawings of Hiroshima residents who had lived through that day. It was, I suspect, the first time any sizable number of images of the human damage there made it into mainstream American culture. I visited Japan in 1982, thanks to the book's Japanese editor who took me to Hiroshima -- an experience I found myself unable to talk about on return. This, too, became part of the silences my father and I shared.
To make a story thus far, would seem relatively simple. Two generations face each other across the chasm of a war and an act that divided them. It is the story we all know. And yet, there is my third character and third silence -- the Japanese boy who drifted into my consciousness after an absence of almost four decades only a few years ago. I no longer remember -- I can't even imagine -- how he and I were put in contact sometime in the mid-1950s. Like me, my Japanese pen-pal must have been eleven or twelve years old. If we exchanged photos, I have no memory of his face, nor does a name come to mind. If I can remember half-jokingly writing my own address at that age ("New York City, New York, USA, the Solar System, the Galaxy, the Universe"), I can't remember writing his. I already knew by then that a place called Albany was the capital of New York State, but New York City still seemed to me the center of the world. In many ways, I wasn't wrong.
Even if he lived in Tokyo, my Japanese pen-pal could have had no such illusions. Like me, he had undoubtedly been born during World War II. Perhaps in his first year of life he had been evacuated from one of Japan's charred cities. For him, that disastrous war would not have been a memory. If he had gone to the movies with his father in the 1950s, he might have seen Godzilla (not the U.S. Air Force) dismantle Tokyo and he might have hardly remembered those economically difficult first years of American occupation. But he could not at that time have imagined himself at the center of the universe.
I have a faint memory of the feel of his letters; a crinkly thinness undoubtedly meant to save infinitesimal amounts of weight (and so, money). We wrote, of course, in English, for much of the planet, if not the solar-system-galaxy-universe, was beginning to operate in that universal language which seemed to radiate from my home city to the world like the rays of the sun. But what I most remember are the exotic-looking stamps that arrived on (or in) his letters. For I was, with my father, an avid stamp collector. On Sunday afternoons, my father and I prepared and mounted our stamps, consulted our Scott's Catalog, and pasted them in. In this way, the Japanese section of our album was filled with that boy's offerings; without comment, but also without protest from my father.
We exchanged letters -- none of which remain -- for a year or two and then who knows what interest of mine (or his) overcame us; perhaps only the resistance boys can have to writing letters. In any case, he, too, entered a realm of silence. Only now, remembering those quiet moments of closeness when my father and I worked on our albums, do I note that he existed briefly and without discussion in our lives. He existed for both of us, perhaps, in the ambiguous space that silence can create. And now I wonder sometimes what kinds of nuclear dreams my father may have had.
For all of us in a sense, the Earth was knocked off its axis on August 6, 1945. In that one moment, my father's war ended and my war -- the Cold War -- began. But in my terms, it seems so much messier than that. For we, and that boy, continued to live in the same world together for a long time, accepting and embroidering each other's silences.
The bomb still runs like a fissure, but also like an attracting current -- a secret unity -- through our lives. The rent it tore in history was deep and the generational divide, given the experiences of those growing up on either side of it, profound. But any story would also have to hold the ways, even deeper and harder to fathom, in which we lived through it all together in pain, hatred, love, and most of all silence.
In this fifty-ninth year after Hiroshima, a year charged with no special meaning, perhaps we will think a little about the stories we can't tell, and about the subterranean stream of emotional horror that unites us, that won't go away whether, as in 1995, we try to exhibit the Enola Gay as a glorious icon or bury it deep in the Earth with a stake through its metallic heart. For my particular story, the one I've never quite been able to tell, there is a Japanese boy who should not have been, but briefly was, with us; who perhaps lives today with his own memories of very different silences. When I think of him now, when I realize that he, my father, and I still can't inhabit the same story except in silence, a strange kind of emotion rushes up in me, which is hard to explain.
Copyright C2004 Tom Engelhardt