The Affirmation Declaration

This is a response to the un-Christlike Manhattan Declaration.

You may read the full text of the Affirmation Declaration here.

From there you may follow a link to sign if you are so inclined.

--the BB

Samantha Bee explains it all

Watch Giuliani debate himself. Then find out the real reasons that trying terrorists in NYC is a frightening thought.




h/t to Jed Lewison

--the BB

Three cheers for the courts!

If you would like to keep up with some exciting developments in the courts, visit Emtpywheel.

Bmaz has some great posts up today. You can read Judge Jeffrey S. White:

Considering the delay in disclosure thus far in this matter, the current administration’s pointed directive on transparency in government, and the public’s renewed interest in the question of legal immunity for the telecommunications companies that participated in the warrantless wiretapping program while considering currently pending legislation repealing the amendments to FISA, the Court finds that the public interest lies in favor of disclosure. This Court has already found, when deciding the motion for preliminary injunction in this case, that “irreparable harm exists where Congress is considering legislation that would amend the FISA and the records may enable the public to participate meaningfully in the debate over such pending legislation.”

Preach it, Your Honor!

Also, Judge Vaughn Walker ain't buyin' the bullshit the Prop 8 proponents are slinging:

A federal judge on Wednesday refused to dismiss a legal challenge to Proposition 8, concluding that the ongoing courtroom battle over California’s voter-approved ban on gay marriage must be resolved in a full-blown trial.

On the judicial front I am, so far, rather disappointed in the Obama administration. News like this encourages me in the belief that the courts may speak up on behalf of the American People and justice when Congress and the White House posture and dally.

I also loved yesterday's smackdown of Oily Taint.

--the BB

¡Sí! ¡Sí! ¡Sí! ¡Sí! ¡Sí!

¿Han entendido Uds. que España piensa en perseguir los crimenes de la administración de Bush? ¡Qué buenas noticias!

Have y'all heard that Spain plans to prosecute the Bushies for their war crimes? What good news!

MinistryOfTruth shared this segment from Raw Story at Daily Kos:

A Spanish judge has decided to go ahead with the prosecution of six Bush administration lawyers - including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales - who were the architects of the legal framework for President George W. Bush "enhanced interrogation" program, according to a report in the Spanish newspaper Publico. (Original article here; Google translation here.)

The six Bush administration alumni targeted in the prosecution are former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; John Yoo, author of the "torture memos"; Douglas Feith, then a deputy defense secretary; Pentagon lawyer William Haynes II; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; and David Addington, a former chief of staff to then-Vice President Dick Cheney.

~snip~

. . . Holder’s investigation will be limited to instances where interrogators overstepped the boundaries set out by Bush lawyers for "enhanced interrogation." By contrast, the Spanish case challenges the legality of the entire program.

This is the beginning of the article at Público.es:

La Fiscalía tildó la querella de "fraudulenta", al Gobierno le incomoda y la Administración Obama no la quiere. Pero el juez de la Audiencia Nacional Baltasar Garzón parece dispuesto a abrir una causa explosiva, dirigida contra el equipo legal de George W. Bush, que redefinió el concepto de tortura para emplearla en la "guerra contra el terrorismo", y que afectaría también a su secretario de Defensa, Donald Rumsfeld.

En una providencia fechada el 11 de agosto y entregada a la vuelta de vacaciones, Garzón no sólo mantiene vivo el caso, sino que deja entrever sus intenciones de abrirlo formalmente: acepta tres nuevas acusaciones particulares y desoye a la Fiscalía, que sostiene que antes de abordarse el asunto en Madrid debería acudirse a los tribunales enWashington.

De la providencia se desprende también que Garzón apremia a EEUU para que conteste la comisión rogatoria planteada y aporte información sobre las eventuales acciones emprendidas allí. No se conforma con el silencio: según subraya en el escrito, solicitó por vez primera dicha información a las autoridades estadounidenses el 15 de junio y, al no obtener respuesta, envió un segundo escrito el 11 de agosto.

Nail 'em. Jail 'em. Show the world that the law applies to everyone!

--the BB

Rule of law only when the people making and wielding the laws feel like following them?

Mcjoan has an excellent article up today titled "Finding Justice." I commend it to you.

Here's what we know, based on the public record as represented above. A) Torture is illegal. B) The architects of the torture regime were informed that the "harsh interrogation techniques" they intended to use were torture, and that those methods were unreliable. C) Against that counsel from a military agency, torture was deployed--excessively, and it was used in part to extract information from detainees about ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, ties that the best intelligence the administration had access to had already deemed nonexistent, in order to justify the planned invasion--the chosen war--in Iraq.

...

Premeditated scandal, engineered so that it would become political and to maximize the difficulty of the reckoning, so that the opposition could be couched as vengeful, as out for "retribution" rather than justice. They played establishment Washington like a fiddle, and so we are here. Actually debating torture as policy and whether activities, which have been deemed war crimes when done by any other nation in any other time, are acceptable when done by us in response to an attack on our soil. FDR must be banging the lid of his coffin in outrage.

Now that the music has stopped, some poor schlubs have to decide what happens now, if they pull away the chairs or just declare the game over. There are a number of options, none of which are mutually exclusive, for proceeding with investigations and possibly even prosecution. Each has advantages and drawbacks from political and legal perspectives. Each, importantly, represents a choice by our country's leaders. The first of those choices is whether or not to recognize that our government is bound by U.S. and international law to investigate potential war crimes.

Assuming that the government chooses to abide by our obligations, follow me below the fold for a consideration of the possibilities.

...

[If we do nothing] It will have made torture a policy choice that future presidents will feel justified in turning to. Finally, it will mean that we're a country governed by the rule of law only when the people making and wielding the laws feel like following them.

She has followed this issue with intelligence and tenacity and I have relied on her in my posts over the past years.
--the BB

I like what watertiger had to say today

For the past six years, you and I have been screaming into the wind about the war crimes this administration has committed in the name of "freedoms". When I heard Chris Cillizza argue on Olbermann last night that holding people accountable for their crimes wouldn't be "productive," that we need to "move forward," I nearly had an aneurysm.

You want to move forward? You want to clear the air? Then bring these fuckers to justice. Try them for war crimes. THAT'S how you move forward.

And then throw the fucking banksters who've robbed us blind in jail. And no, not Club Fed. Attica.

link

Remember, asking that criminals be held accountable to the law is not vengeance; it's the application of the law. No more. No less.

--the BB

Let sunlight do its healing work - UPDATED

After a tense internal debate, the Obama administration this afternoon will make public a number of detailed memos describing the harsh interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency against al Qaeda suspects in secret overseas prisons.
--Mark Mazzetti at The New York Times

There has been some hot debate on this issue.

But the most immediate concern of C.I.A. officials is that the revelations could give new momentum to a full-blown congressional investigation into covert activities under the Bush Administration.

Other Obama administration officials, including Gregory B. Craig, the White House counsel, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder, argued that releasing the documents not only would satisfy the government’s obligation in the lawsuit, but would also put distance between President Obama and some of his predecessor’s most controversial policies.

As mcjoan, who has done so much superb work on the torture issue, puts it:

This is excellent news from the Obama administration.

Needless to say, I am all in favor of "a full-blown congressional investigation into covert activities under the Bush Administration."

UPDATE:
The memos have been released with minor redactions. Mcjoan comments and cites statements by the President and AG Holder. You may read her post here.

Glenn Greenwald shares some of the contents and comments here. One tidbit:

One can certainly criticize Obama for vowing that no CIA officials will be prosecuted if they followed DOJ memos (though that vow, notably, does not extend to Bush officials), but -- assuming the reports about redactions are correct -- there is no grounds for criticizing Obama here and substantial grounds for praising him.

Marcy has links to the four memos at the ACLU site.

--the BB

The rule of law in Spain and in the United States - DiFi, Jello Jay, the CIA, and Obama

Glenn Greenwald has a good article at Salon in which he discusses one of the likely senior CIA folks who would be displeased if memos currently under consideration were to be made public, a certain Stephen Kappes.

Take Stephen Kappes. At the time of the worst torture sessions outlined in the ICRC report, Kappes served as a senior official in the Directorate of Operations—the operational part of the CIA that oversees paramilitary operations as well as the high-value detention program. (The directorate of operations is now known as the National Clandestine Service.) Panetta has kept Kappes as deputy director of the CIA—the number two official in the agency.
--John Sifton at The Daily Beast

And why is it that Stephen Kappes was made the number 2 officials at the CIA despite his being in a key CIA position during the implementation of America's torture regime? Because the two most important Senate Democrats on intelligence matters -- Jay Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein -- insisted that he be so empowered as a condition for their supporting Panetta's nomination, after both of them first demanded that Kappes actually be made CIA Director.
--Glenn Greenwald at Salon (immediately following the preceding paragraph)

Ah, Dianne Feinstein, the gift that keeps on giving.

If any patriotic Americans feel like getting in a huff over the Spaniards it might be a good idea to review the fact that, according to our own laws and treaties, we are positively obligated to pursue possible war criminals. The Spaniards are willing to back off their legal pursuit if the U.S. undertakes its own investigations.

Right. Anyone here think we have the political will to do the right thing?

I am counting on Spain because when it comes to holding high officials accountable I, sad to say, have almost no confidence in our legal system. Our system is capable of handling this, but our Department of Justice and Congress simply don't have the teabags to do the right thing.

Greenwald notes:

Put another way, Obama has been far from neutral. At least thus far, he has been the prime agent working overtime to keep these illegal Bush policies as secret as possible and to shield them from any and all accountability.

One thing I love about blogs and the internet is access to information the traditional (read: corporate) media ignore. We can check facts, do research, disseminate news and updates, and organize to make our voices heard.

If anyone thought that progressives who complained about virtually everything Bush did are now going to roll over and agree with Obama on everything, guess again. We intend to hold him accountable to the People too.

Issues of torture, government secrecy, and evasion of the law are some of the areas where I am far from happy, no matter how good it is to have W and the Dick out of DC.



¡Viva España!
--the BB

Queremos justicia - updated

Jane R pointed me to this gratifying piece of news:

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A top Spanish court has moved toward starting a probe of six former Bush administration officials including ex-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in connection with alleged torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, The New York Times said on Saturday.

The criminal investigation would focus on whether they violated international law by providing a legalistic justification for torture at the U.S. detention camp in Cuba, the Times said.

The paper said the National Court in Madrid had assigned the case to judge Baltasar Garzon, known for ordering the arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

Garzon has accepted the case and sent it to the prosecutor's office for review, the newspaper said, citing an official close to the case.

The complaint, prepared by Spanish lawyers with the help of U.S. and European legal experts, also names John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer who wrote secret legal opinions saying the president had the authority to circumvent the Geneva Conventions, and Douglas Feith, the former undersecretary of defense for policy.

Spain can claim jurisdiction in the case because five Spanish citizens or residents who were prisoners at Guantanamo Bay say they were tortured there.

In the name of justice and the rule of law, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!

Pity that Congress and the courts in the United States are too pusillanimous to do it.

UPDATE:

See also dday's article here, where there is more discussion of the issues.

Mcjoan also discusses torture investigations in the UK and Spain here.

--the BB

Pray for our courts

They may be our final recourse against tyranny (since Congress is doing such a lousy job of it).

The CD Circuit Court of Appeals smacks down allegations by the Bush machine in a Guantánamo case, reaffirming that courts require evidence, not assertions. You can read about it in Smintheus' post here.
--the BB

About those military tribunals

The Rude Pundit has some good points to make.


--the BB

OPOL keeping it real

There is no pause to absorb the outrages of the day, no interlude to break the tragedies into digestible chunks, no relief for the overwhelmed between the vicious punches to the gut, the finger jabs to the eyes, the thunder kicks to the groin.

-One Pissed Of Liberal (aka OPOL)


OPOL does amazing photo essays, expressing a barely contained fury over what has been happening to this country (and through us to the world). It is a pained, angry voice that comes through. The image above is from today's essay: "I’m Not Bitter – I’m Outraged." You may read it all here.

Thanks, OPOL, for your ongoing witness.
--the BB

Thursday Constitution Blogging

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Tonight I want to life one phrase out of the Preamble.

We the People of the United States, in Order to ... establish Justice, ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Wikipedia article on "justice" speaks of its importance:

Justice concerns the proper ordering of things and persons within a society. As a concept it has been subject to philosophical, legal, and theological reflection and debate throughout history. According to most theories of justice, it is overwhelmingly important: John Rawls, for instance, claims that "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought."

Mingled in our concepts of justice one finds the concepts of what is fair, what is right, and what is true. The establishment of justice thus involves discernment of the true from the false, the equitable from the inequitable, right from wrong.

In the more symbolic and less philosophical article on "Lady Justice" Wikipedia notes:

...Lady Justice is often depicted wearing a blindfold. This is done in order to indicate that justice is (or should be) meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of the [sic] identity, power, or weakness....

Central, then, to our concept of justice, is the issue of "without fear or favor": the idea that everyone gets a fair break. Law should be applied without regard to one's status in society, one's power or lack thereof. Without this element, any purported justice becomes suspect.

The prophets of Israel had a lot to say about justice and the Torah insists that there should be one law for both the Israelite and the resident alien. This is an interesting and important principle in light of all the brouhaha over alien status in the United States and the xenophobia that is being stirred up these days. The Torah also insists that there be one set of measures, not one standard for selling and another for buying, thus always favoring oneself and cheating the other party.

Standards and procedures keep us from falling into either chaos or the principle of "might makes right" taking over. As the motto inscribed over the entrance to the Supreme Court Building says: "Equal Justice Under Law."

We are appropriately outraged when the law and the courts are subverted so that the true, the right, and the fair seem to lose out. Sometimes we are horrified when adherence to procedure springs someone on a technicality though I suggest we should be more horrified if procedures are ignored or abused. Procedures undergird both objectivity, for the sake of fairness, and careful documentation, for the sake of truth.

[What I say here about procedures and standards in the civil realm also applies in ecclesiastical matters and the role of canon law in framing our application of justice carefully and correctly.]

When someone simply flouts the law and gets away with it we all recognize that the underpinnings of society are shaken. If the Constitution, for instance, which constitutes the supreme law of the land, is ignored or undermined, then what is the basis for our government? What guarantee have we that justice can prevail? What protections do we have from any number of abuses or the rise of a new tyranny? These were things the Founders had in mind when they framed our government and they sought to put various checks and balances into place so that power would be distributed and not accrue to one person or one branch of government.

Anyone who reads this blog knows my feelings about the behavior of the current administration and what I, and many others, deem demonstrable violations of the Constitution and other laws of this nation.

What does "justice" mean to you?

--the BB

Advent Thoughts – Friday of Advent 1

Ah, you that turn justice to wormwood, and bring righteousness to the ground! (Amos 5:7)

In our current legal arrangements, corporations are treated as persons. Randi Rhodes gave a speech in Michigan a while back in which she said that if corporations were persons they would get colonoscopies. She was pointing out a certain absurdity about the way the law grants incredible rights, privileges, and benefits to corporations, often losing sight of real persons, human beings whose rights and welfare often are overridden for the sake of corporations.

“Tort reform,” for instance, is a code word for changing the law so that injured human beings have less recourse against the source of their injury. It is cloaked in terms of limiting outrageous settlements (which makes lots of sense) but what it ultimately does is protect corporations from accountability. The corporations win, individuals lose.

I toss this out as one example of turning justice into the bitterness of wormwood.

Where is the vision of the wellbeing of the people? What happens when the law is structured to favor some to the disadvantage of others? When it is no longer impartial?

What does it say of our nation when we have multiple standards, when we start demanding laws that penalize aliens in our land? Is that a “godly” standard?

The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you. (Exodus 12:49)

You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 24:22)

The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you. (Numbers 15:16)

I’m just sayin’.

There is a lot of talk these days about issues of faith and politics. I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state. I do not want the state meddling in my faith, I do not want an established faith, I do not want anything that smacks of theocracy. I believe in secular government that governs for the benefit of all with freedom to practice any faith or no faith, and no religious tests whatsoever with regards to government office.

I do not care if the President of the United States is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Wiccan, agnostic, or atheist so long as she or he will uphold the law, seek the welfare of the people of the United States, and pursue policies the foster peace and justice.

I do, however, believe that the God revealed in the Bible expects certain values to be lived out the lives of followers. Some of the rules and traditions appear historically conditioned and others universal. There is argument over which category some things fall into. But standards of justice and impartiality in judgment so clearly run through multiple strands of scripture that they cannot be easily dismissed.

It thus behooves us to stand up for justice and fight against its distortion and perversion.

Not an especially pious meditation for this Friday, but something we dare not ignore.

He brings God’s rule, O Zion; he comes from heaven above.
His rule is peace and freedom, and justice, truth, and love.
Lift high your praise resounding, for grace and joy abounding.
Oh, blest is Christ that came in God’s most holy name.
(Hymn 65, verse 2)

I have set the Lord always before me; because he is at my right hand I shall not fall. (Psalm 16:8)

--the BB

Thursday Constitution Blogging

Welcome back to our new feature, Thursday Constitution Blogging. Now that I've testified for Jesus I want to put in a few good words for the United States Constitution. I don't think it's perfect but it's one damn fine structure for a free People to gather as a nation and govern themselves.

I currently work as a contractor for a federal government agency. At a "family meeting" a while back the branch chief talked a bit about the oath of office. You know, the one about allegiance to the Constitution? Sort of like the one the President takes. She had been reminded about it and wished she had a judge present to administer the oath to the lot of us. I so wished someone official in black robes were present. Even though not technically a federal employee I was ready to leap to my feet and take the oath. Several times over the course of that day I got teary thinking about it.

You see, I not only love me some Jesus, I love me some United States of America. Jingoism makes me wanna puke, but I love this land and the dream and ideals that shaped it. I remember returning from my first trip abroad, three months in France as a student. I had seen the world through non-Yankee eyes, which was shocking and liberating. But when I emerged from Customs at JFK and saw the words of Emma Lazarus' "The New Colossus" inscribed there and thought of that lifted lamp I wept and wept. THIS was what made America great: that shining promise.

I reread the Constitution periodically. Bored the hell out of me in high school. Not anymore. So now you have some idea why I post about it here.

On a related topic, I urge y'all to give an ear (well, actually, an eye or two) to Dennis. He has something important to say and is calling on us to spread the word [link]. Dennis points us to A Tale of Two Decisions about FBI coerced confessions, a story of the sickness that infests our nation these days. Here's a bit of Dennis that I found moving.

Did you ever think that one day this would be America? That our government would ask a court to help cover up illegal and immoral behaviors? Sometimes I don't recognize America anymore.

It is time for a change in America. It is time for an end to the lies and the secrecy. Someone, please tell Hillary and Barack and John and Chris and Bill and the rest of the crowd running that they need to convince us that they will change these things. And tell the media that this is what matters, not the stupid horse race that politics in America has become.

Let's stand up and fight to restore America to herself, People!

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

--the BB

It's the right thing to do

Unequal justice is no justice

It is time the prosecutor started connecting the damn dots. If he cannot see that the entire series of events in Jena, Louisiana, between white and black youths are interrelated then he must be deaf and blind.

I have heard no one say the black youths are innocent and should be held unaccountable but I do hear a cry from the earth itself that consistent standards be applied. White youths in incidents of violence seem to get slaps on the wrist and misdemeanor charges; black youths are charged with felonies. Why?

The use of nooses on a tree cannot be described as "funnin'." One cannot say skin color is not a major operant factor.

When will "the recent unpleasantness" become the distant unpleasantness?

I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered for the word of God and for the testimony they had given; 10they cried out with a loud voice, ‘Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?’ (Revelation 6:9b-10)