Silencing the 'other side' of the Palestinian story

Silencing the 'other side' of the Palestinian story

Salma Abu Ayyash, P.F. Soto
Bridge News
Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:18 EST

Last year the Center for Palestinian Human Rights (CPHR) rented office space in the basement of the First Church Congregational UCC in Cambridge. For several months the group screened documentaries on Palestine in the church. Then late in October, the leadership of the church sent CPHR a curt letter:

"During the last five weeks, our office has been receiving numerous calls expressing concern about the nature and purpose of your organization. Some of these calls have come from individuals and organizations with whom we have important relationships."

CPHR was asked to vacate by mid November, even though their lease ran through December.

The Jewish Advocate gave credit for this eviction to groups like the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC). "Jewish activists are at the forefront of ousting a series of Palestinian advocacy groups held at a cluster of churches in Cambridge."

The article referred to First Church and Christ Church (home of Sabeel, a Christian pro-Palestine group) as "red hot centers of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic activity."

The charge of anti-Semitism is hurled with abandon at any one who dares to challenge Israel's perspective on the Middle East, which dominates the US media. At stake is over $4 billion a year in military and economic grants to the State of Israel. The "other side of the story" might not sit well with American taxpayers.

Last July 20th, in the midst of Israel's attack on Lebanon, business and political leaders in Massachusetts, including all Democrat and Republican candidates for governor, signed the "We Stand With Israel" ad in the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald.

We have to imagine that these people either didn't know or didn't care that Israel was committing atrocities, atrocities that infuriated the rest of the world; didn't know or didn't care that Israel showered the south of Lebanon with one million cluster bombs, as the remains of hundreds of children, many refugees, piled up; or that Israel's total devastation of Lebanon severely diminished the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Lebanese civilians.

Israel right or wrong

A cynic might even wonder if professional or personal gains were too much to pass up. The fear is that going against the Israel Lobby is a formula for political suicide.

In January this year, all hell broke loose when a Palestinian human rights group tried to speak at Andover High School. Six social studies teachers, including teachers union president Tom Meyers, originally invited the Wheels of Justice Bus Tour [justicewheels.org], to speak in October. Zionists were successful in getting the principal to dis-invite the Wheels of Justice at the very last minute, late in the night before the scheduled visit!

On behalf of the organizers, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) contacted the school and the Wheels of Justice was invited back.

Over 300 parents, students, and community members assembled on January 5th in the school Library. Zionists mobilized and let loose their wrath on the speakers. Zionist agitators and parents who agree with them put on the most despicable display of incivility the tour group has ever encountered - and Wheels of Justice has visited over 200 high schools.

It was too much for the distressed principal, who eventually shut down the event. This was precisely what the Zionists were after, but they didn't gain any friends on that sad and shameful night. The hate and venom was laid bare for all present to see, though TV viewers did not see it on the news.

Joe Carr, a member of a Christian Peacemaker Team for months in Palestine and Iraq, and a speaker on the bus tour, said, "It never ceases to amaze me how far some people will go to hide the truth - though it shouldn't be surprising, considering that lies and propaganda is all the Zionist movement has to stand on. Once enough Americans learn the truth about what our government is supporting in the Middle East, Zionist imperialism is done for." Let's hope Joe's right.

We see what is happening to former President Jimmy Carter, who had the audacity to call his latest book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid. He's not the first and he won't be the last to be shunned, disavowed, or called liar by those who cannot or will not take on the Israel Lobby.

Because he speaks about Israeli violations of human rights, a deluge of politicians have disassociated themselves from Carter. In a democratic country you might think there ought to be a pluralistic response among high ranking politicians. But it seems pure McCarthyism prevails.

There most definitely is an "other side" of the Palestinian story. We can't rely on the US media or elected representatives to get it. But if we are funding crimes against humanity, shouldn't we know about it?

Comment:

Jeff Blankfort comments: Jewish pro-Israel lobbyists don't have to wear brown shirts and jackboots with armbands embellished with the Magen David, or cover themselves with white sheets with hoods to browbeat their targets, just their telephones and their checkbooks. The leave the outright violence to the Israeli Wehrmacht.

Jimmy Carter
Palestine Apartheid
Hebron
Illegal Settlements
Center for Palestinian Human Rights
ACLU
Wheels of Justice Bus Tour

Bringing You All WAR, ALL the Time . . . .

From the Signs of the Times new feature BEST OF THE WEB:

Perle: Bush Will Green Light Iran Attack

Kurt Nimmo
Another Day In The Empire
Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:14 EST

Richard Perle, more accurately referred to by his moniker, the Prince of Darkness, tells us from Herzliya, Israel, that Bush will eventually give the order to kill Iranians. [" uuuhhh, they's almost the same as them eye-rakians, ain't they? . . . . guess that's jes' fahn then. It'll lern 'um some demokracy."]

"If all options were exhausted in the attempt to stop the Iranian nuclear project, and US military involvement was needed for a successful strike on Tehran, US President George Bush would give the green light for the operation, former director of the US Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, Richard Perle, told the Herzliya Conference on Sunday evening," reports Yedioth Internet.

Perle may fool a few Israelis, even more than a few Americans, those who bother to notice, but for the rest of us, those who have followed this gang of criminals for nearly five years, he is simply blowing smoke out of a certain orifice.

Asked if Bush and the neocons would "do it," that is engage in mass murder, Perle responded, "I think that until the day he leaves office, this is a president that, if he is told, 'Mr. President, you are at the point of no return,' I have very little doubt that this president would order the necessary military action."

The Prince of Darkness would have us believe the "point of no return" is Iran armed to the teeth with nukes, a demonstrable fairy tale. In fact, Bush's "point of no return" is the day he leaves office, failing to accomplish the neocon plan of sowing ruin and chaos in the Middle East.

"Perle expressed astonishment at the lack of support granted by the West to Iranian opposition movements who wish to overthrow the regime of the Ayatollahs," the Israeli news site continues. "I'm not convinced that we have a lot of time. Given the peril that would result, its astonishing to me that we do not now have a serious political strategy with Iran.... If we continue on our current course, we have only a military option. So what I'm urging, and this should have happened a very long time ago, is that we make a serious effort to work with the internal (Iranian) opposition."

Of course, for Perle, the Israel First neocons, and the Likudniks in Israel, the idea of subverting an Islamic government from within is natural as rain. Indeed, Israel has messed with its neighbors since the Zionists state was established - after running off a large number of Palestinian Arabs and stealing their land - a historical fact evinced by the Lavon Affair, the Mossad's framing of Libya for the LaBelle Disco bombing, the attack on the USS Liberty, killing 34 Americans and wounding 171, the botched assassination of U.S. ambassador John Gunther Dean in Lebanon, and Israel's connection to the Abu Nidal Organization, to name a few.

As well, the CIA and Pentagon are no strangers to attacking, subverting, undermining and overthrowing governments, as they have a long and sordid track record beginning in the late 1940s, following up on more than a hundred years of interventions, from the Philippines in 1899 to Honduras, Panama, Guatemala, China, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Colombia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Haiti, even the Soviet Union near Vladivostok during the Bolshevik revolution, right up to the present day.

Naturally, Perle understands full well any effort to "work with the internal opposition" in Iran is doomed to failure, as this opposition consists basically of the son of the late Shah, Reza Pahlavi, who lives in exile in Virginia, and a scattering of other groups, including Mojahedin-e-Khalq, a terrorist organization involved in killing Iranian civilians. Perle actually expects us to believe the people of Iran will support the butchers of MEK or reinstall a monarch, the son of a dictator who unleashed SAVAK, a particularly brutal secret police, on the people of Iran for over three decades. [so much for the reality-creating neocons]

In fact, Perle and the neocons are impatiently waiting for Bush to attack Iran, as their plan is to destroy Iranian society, not free the Iranian people from the mullahs. Perle, like a demented carnival barker, is setting the stage, telling us Bush will "do it," when in fact the neocons will, as Bush is little more than a trained monkey from an elite family that made its way in the world after rubbing elbows with Nazis

How DARE You Call Israel Apartheid???

Well, maybe intelligent, compassionate people call the State of Israel apartheid because of things like this:

From Wanye Madsen's Report:

January 22, 2007 -- President Carter remains under assault by a coalition of right-wing Christian fundamentalists, neo-cons, and pro-Israel expansionist organizations. His book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is being attacked by this unholy alliance of religious nut cases, right-wing political extremists, and dual loyalty Americans. Nothing illustrates President Carter's points better than the photo below of young Israeli West Bank settlers harassing an older Palestinian woman (note the boy kicking the woman) while Israeli soldiers stand idly by. Such physical harassment of black South Africans by whites during apartheid was also commonplace. Carter's detractors should stop attacking him and start explaining the scene below.

And from Jonathan Cook, an even more frightening long-term assessment:

Israel's Dark Future

Jonathan Cook
http://www.jkcook.net/
Sun, 21 Jan 2007 14:34 EST

When I published my book Blood and Religion last year, I sought not only to explain what lay behind Israeli policies since the failed Camp David negotiations nearly seven years ago, including the disengagement from Gaza and the building of a wall across the West Bank, but I also offered a few suggestions about where Israel might head next.

Making predictions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be considered a particularly dangerous form of hubris, but I could hardly have guessed how soon my fears would be realized.

One of the main forecasts of my book was that Palestinians on both sides of the Green Line - those who currently enjoy Israeli citizenship and those who live as oppressed subjects of Israel's occupation - would soon find common cause as Israel tries to seal itself off from what it calls the Palestinian "demographic threat": that is, the moment when Palestinians outnumber Jews in the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

I suggested that Israel's greatest fear was ruling over a majority of Palestinians and being compared to apartheid South Africa, a fate that has possibly befallen it faster than I expected with the recent publication of Jimmy Carter's book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. To avoid such a comparison, I argued, Israel was creating a "Jewish fortress," separating - at least demographically - from Palestinians in the occupied territories by sealing off Gaza through a disengagement of its settler population and by building a 750km wall to annex large areas of the West Bank.

It was also closing off the last remaining avenue of a Right of Return for Palestinians by changing the law to make it all but impossible for Palestinians living in Israel to marry Palestinians in the occupied territories and thereby gain them citizenship.

The corollary of this Jewish fortress, I suggested, would be a sham Palestinian state, a series of disconnected ghettos that would prevent Palestinians from organizing effective resistance, non-violent or otherwise, but which would give the Israeli army an excuse to attack or invade whenever they chose, claiming that they were facing an "enemy state" in a conventional war.

Another benefit for Israel in imposing this arrangement would be that it could say all Palestinians who identified themselves as such - whether in the occupied territories or inside Israel - must now exercise their sovereign rights in the Palestinian state and renounce any claim on the Jewish state. The apartheid threat would be nullified.

I sketched out possible routes by which Israel could achieve this end:

* by redrawing the borders, using the wall, so that an area densely populated with Palestinian citizens of Israel known as the Little Triangle, which hugs the northern West Bank, would be sealed into the new pseudo-state;

* by continuing the process of corralling the Negev's Bedouin farmers into urban reservations and then treating them as guest workers;

* by forcing Palestinian citizens living in the Galilee to pledge an oath of loyalty to Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state" or have their citizenship revoked;

* and by stripping Arab Knesset members of their right to stand for election.

When I made these forecasts, I suspected that many observers, even in the Palestinian solidarity movement, would find my ideas improbable. I could not have realized how fast events would overtake prediction.

The first sign came in October with the addition to the cabinet of Avigdor Lieberman, leader of a party that espouses the ethnic cleansing not only of Palestinians in the occupied territories (an unremarkable platform for an Israeli party) but of Palestinian citizens too, through land swaps that would exchange their areas for the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Lieberman is not just any cabinet minister; he has been appointed deputy prime minister with responsibility for the "strategic threats" that face Israel. In that role, he will be able to determine what issues are to be considered threats and thereby shape the public agenda for next few years. The "problem" of Israel's Palestinian citizens is certain to be high on his list.

Lieberman has been widely presented as a political maverick, akin to the notorious racist Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose Kach party was outlawed in the late 1980s. That is a gross misunderstanding: Lieberman is at the very heart of the country's rightwing establishment and will almost certainly be a candidate for prime minister in future elections, as Israelis drift ever further to the right.

Unlike Kahane, Lieberman has cleverly remained within the Israeli political mainstream while pushing its agenda to the very limits of what it is currently possible to say. Kadima and Labor urgently want unilateral separation from the Palestinians but are shy to spell out, both to their own domestic constituency and the international community, what separation will entail.

Lieberman has no such qualms. He is unequivocal: if Israel is separating from the Palestinians in parts of the occupied territories, why not also separate from the 1.2 million Palestinians who through oversight rather than design ended up as citizens of a Jewish state in 1948? If Israel is to be a Jewish fortress, then, as he points out, it is illogical to leave Palestinians within the fortifications.

These arguments express the common mood among the Israeli public, one that has been cultivated since the eruption of the intifada in 2000 by endless talk among Israel's political and military elites about "demographic separation." Regular opinion polls show that about two-thirds of Israelis support transfer, either voluntary or forced, of Palestinian citizens from the state.

Recent polls also reveal how fashionable racism has become in Israel. A survey conducted last year showed that 68 per cent of Israeli Jews do not want to live next to a Palestinian citizen (and rarely have to, as segregation is largely enforced by the authorities), and 46 per cent would not want an Arab to visit their home.

A poll of students that was published last week suggests that racism is even stronger among young Jews. Three-quarters believed Palestinian citizens are uneducated, uncivilized and unclean, and a third are frightened of them. Richard Kupermintz of Haifa University, who conducted the survey more than two years ago, believes the responses would be even more extreme today. [the brainwshing program has been a resounding success]

Lieberman is simply riding the wave of such racism and pointing out the inevitable path separation must follow if it is to satisfy these kinds of prejudices. He may speak his mind more than his cabinet colleagues, but they too share his vision of the future. That is why only one minister, the dovish and principled Ophir Pines Paz of Labor, resigned over Ehud Olmert's inclusion of Lieberman in the cabinet.

Contrast that response with the uproar caused by the Labor leader Amir Peretz's appointment of the first Arab cabinet minister in Israel's history. (A member of the small Druze community, which serves in the Israeli army, Salah Tarif, was briefly a minister without portfolio in Sharon's first government.)

Raleb Majadele, a Muslim, is a senior member of the Labor party and a Zionist (what might be termed, in different circumstances, a self-hating Arab or an Uncle Tom), and yet his appointment has broken an Israeli taboo: Arabs are not supposed to get too close to the centers of power.

Peretz's decision was entirely cynical. He is under threat on all fronts - from his coalition partners in Kadima and in Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu, and from within his own party - and desperately needs the backing of Labor's Arab party members. Majadele is the key, and that is why Peretz gave him a cabinet post, even if a marginal one: Minister of Science, Culture and Sport.

But the right is deeply unhappy at Majadele's inclusion in the cabinet. Lieberman called Peretz unfit to be defense minister for making the appointment and demanded that Majadele pledge loyalty to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Lieberman's party colleagues referred to the appointment as a "lethal blow to Zionism."

A few Labor and Meretz MKs denounced these comments as racist. But more telling was the silence of Olmert and his Kadima party, as well as Binyamin Netanyhu's Likud, at Lieberman's outburst. The center and right understand that Lieberman's views about Majadele, and Palestinian citizens more generally, mirror those of most Israeli Jews and that it would be foolhardy to criticize him for expressing them - let alone sack him.

In this game of "who is the truer Zionist," Lieberman can only grow stronger against his former colleagues in Kadima and Likud. Because he is free to speak his and their minds, while they must keep quiet for appearance's sake, he, not they, will win ever greater respect from the Israeli public.

Meanwhile, all the evidence suggests that Olmert and the current government will implement the policies being promoted by Lieberman, even if they are too timid to openly admit that is what they are doing.

Some of those policies are of the by-now familiar variety, such as the destruction of 21 Bedouin homes, half the village of Twayil, in the northern Negev last week. It was the second time in a month that the village had been razed by the Israeli security forces.

These kind of official attacks against the indigenous Bedouin - who have been classified by the government as "squatters" on state lands - are a regular occurence, an attempt to force 70,000 Bedouin to leave their ancestral homes and relocate to deprived townships.

A more revealing development came this month, however, when it was reported in the Israeli media that the government is for the first time backing "loyalty" legislation that has been introduced privately by a Likud MK. Gilad Erdan's bill would revoke the citizenship of Israelis who take part in "an act that constitutes a breach of loyalty to the state," the latest in a string of proposals by Jewish MKs conditioning citizenship on loyalty to the Israeli state, defined in all these schemes very narrowly as a "Jewish and democratic" state.

Arab MKs, who reject an ethnic definition of Israel and demand instead that the country be reformed into a "state of all its citizens," or a liberal democracy, are typically denounced as traitors.

Lieberman himself suggested just such a loyalty scheme for Palestinian citizens last month during a trip to Washington. He told American Jewish leaders: "He who is not ready to recognize Israel as a Jewish and Zionist state cannot be a citizen in the country."

Erdan's bill specifies acts of disloyalty that include visiting an "enemy state" - which, in practice, means just about any Arab state. Most observers believe that, after Erdan's bill has been redrafted by the Justice Ministry, it will be used primarily against the Arab MKs, who are looking increasingly beleaguered. Most have been repeatedly investigated by the Attorney-General for any comment in support of the Palestinians in the occupied territories or for visiting neighboring Arab states. One, Azmi Bishara, has been put on trial twice for these offenses.

Meanwhile, Jewish MKs have been allowed to make the most outrageous racist statements against Palestinian citizens, mostly unchallenged.

Former cabinet minister Effi Eitam, for example, said back in September: "The vast majority of West Bank Arabs must be deported ... We will have to make an additional decision, banning Israeli Arabs from the political system ... We have cultivated a fifth column, a group of traitors of the first degree." He was "warned" by the Attorney-General over his comments (though he has expressed similar views several times before), but remained unrepetant, calling the warning an attempt to "silence" him.

The leader of the opposition and former prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, the most popular politician in Israel according to polls, gave voice to equally racist sentiments this month when he stated that child allowance cuts he imposed as finance minister in 2002 had had a "positive" demographic effect by reducing the birth rate of Palestinian citizens.

Arab MKs, of course, do not enjoy such indulgence when they speak out, much more legitimately, in supporting their kin, the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza, who are suffering under Israel's illegal occupation. Arab MK Ahmed Tibi, for example, was roundly condemned last week by the Jewish parties, including the most leftwing, Meretz, when he called on Fatah to "continue the struggle" to establish a Palestinian state.

However, the campaign of intimidation by the government and Jewish members of the Knesset has failed to silence the Arab MKs or stop them visiting neighboring states, which is why the pressure is being ramped up. If Erdan's bill becomes law - which seems possible with government backing - then the Arab MKs and the minority they represent will either be cut off from the rest of the Arab world once again (as they were for the first two decades of Israel's existence, when a military government was imposed on them) or threatened with the revocation of their citizenship for disloyalty (a move, it should be noted, that is illegal under international law). [not that Isreal ever gave a fig for international law unless it could be bent to serve the Zionists . . . ]

It may not be too fanciful to see the current legislation eventually being extended to cover other "breaches of loyalty," such as demanding democratic reforms of Israel or denying that a Jewish state is democratic. Technically, this is already the position as Israel's election law makes it illegal for political parties, including Arab ones, to promote a platform that denies Israel's existence as a "Jewish and democratic" state.

Soon Arab MKs and their constituents may also be liable to having their citizenship revoked for campaigning, as many currently do, for a state of all its citizens. That certainly is the view of the eminent Israeli historian Tom Segev, who argued in the wake of the government's adoption of the bill: "In practice, the proposed law is liable to turn all Arabs into conditional citizens, after they have already become, in many respects, second-class citizens. Any attempt to formulate an alternative to the Zionist reality is liable to be interpreted as a 'breach of faith' and a pretext for stripping them of their citizenship."

But it is unlikely to end there. I hesitate to make another prediction but, given the rapidity with which the others have been realized, it may be time to hazard yet another guess about where Israel is going next.

The other day I was at a checkpoint near Nablus, one of several that are being converted by Israel into what look suspiciously like international border crossings, even though they fall deep inside Palestinian territory.

I had heard that Palestinian citizens of Israel were being allowed to pass these checkpoints unhindered to enter cities like Nablus to see relatives. (These familial connections are a legacy of the 1948 war, when separated Palestinian refugees ended up on different sides of the Green Line, and also of marriages that were possible after 1967, when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza, making social and business contacts possible again.) But, when Palestinian citizens try to leave these cities via the checkpoints, they are invariably detained and issued letters by the Israeli authorities warning them that they will be tried if caught again visiting "enemy" areas.

In April last year, at a cabinet meeting at which the Israeli government agreed to expel Hamas MPs from Jerusalem to the West Bank, ministers discussed changing the classification of the Palestinian Authority from a "hostile entity" to the harsher category of an "enemy entity." The move was rejected for the time being because, as one official told the Israeli media: "There are international legal implications in such a declaration, including closing off the border crossings, that we don't want to do yet".

Is it too much to suspect that before long, after Israel has completed the West Bank wall and its "border" terminals, the Jewish state will classify visits by Palestinian citizens to relatives as "visiting an enemy state"? And will such visits be grounds for revoking citizenship, as they could be under Erdan's bill if Palestinian citizens visit relatives in Syria or Lebanon?

IDF
Palestine Occupation
West Bank
Illegal Settlements
Avigdor Lieberman
Gilad Erdan
Palestinian Authority

Making rights wrong: U.S. Attorney General on Habeas Corpus

Making rights wrong: U.S. Attorney General on Habeas Corpus

G. Saunders
Signs Of The Times
Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:19 EST




In a recent article in the Baltimore Sun, Robert Parry felt compelled to draw attention to some very alarming comments made by US attorney general Alberto Gonzales:

Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus

Robert Parry
Baltimore Chronicle
January 19 2007

In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every American.

Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.

"There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.

Now you may be thinking: 'Did he really say that, and out loud'? The answer is an emphatic 'yes'. See for yourself...

[See this article link for the Yuo-Tube video of Gonzoles's remarks}

Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican, stammering:

"Wait a minute," Specter interjected. "The Constitution says you can't take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's a rebellion or invasion?"

Gonzales continued:

"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended" except in cases of rebellion or invasion."

Unbelievable. 'Just because it says you can't take it away, doesn't mean you have the right to it'!!

Parry continues:

"You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense," Specter said.

While Gonzales's statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it, his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other fundamental rights that Americans hold dear also don't exist because the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative.

For instance, the First Amendment declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The amendment simply bars the government, i.e. Congress, from passing laws that would impinge on these rights.

Quite. That is how they think. And judging by the manner of Gonzales in the clip, they are very excited and pleased that they have found a 'legal' way to finally begin expressing this line of thought in public. Gently does it.

Parry continues:

Similarly, Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states that "the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

The clear meaning of the clause, as interpreted for more than two centuries, is that the Founders recognized the long-established English law principle of habeas corpus, which guarantees people the right of due process, such as formal charges and a fair trial.

That Attorney General Gonzales would express such an extraordinary opinion, doubting the constitutional protection of habeas corpus, suggests either a sophomoric mind or an unwillingness to respect this well-established right, one that the Founders considered so important that they embedded it in the original text of the Constitution.

Other cherished rights - including freedom of religion and speech - were added later in the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.

With Gonzales' train of thought, the citizen becomes no more that a possession of State. [a classic definition of Fascism] The State giveth and the State taketh away. You can have your Rights if it makes you feel good, but don't forget its just "a goddamn piece of paper" as Bush said.

Parry again:

Ironically, Gonzales may be wrong in another way about the lack of specificity in the Constitution's granting of habeas corpus rights. Many of the legal features attributed to habeas corpus are delineated in a positive way in the Sixth Amendment, which reads:

"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 ... and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; [and] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses."

Bush's Powers

Gonzales's Jan. 18 statement suggests that he is still seeking reasons to make habeas corpus optional, subordinate to President George W. Bush's executive powers that Bush's neoconservative legal advisers claim are virtually unlimited during "a time of war," even one as vaguely defined as the "war on terror" which may last forever.

In the final weeks of the Republican-controlled Congress, the Bush administration pushed through the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that effectively eliminated habeas corpus for non-citizens, including legal resident aliens.

Under the new law, Bush can declare any non-citizen an "unlawful enemy combatant" and put the person into a system of military tribunals that give defendants only limited rights. Critics have called the tribunals "kangaroo courts" because the rules are heavily weighted in favor of the prosecution.

Some language in the new law also suggests that "any person," presumably including American citizens, could be swept up into indefinite detention if they are suspected of having aided and abetted terrorists.

"Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission," according to the law, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in September and signed by Bush on Oct. 17, 2006.

Another provision in the law seems to target American citizens by stating that "any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission ... may direct."

Who has "an allegiance or duty to the United States" if not an American citizen? That provision would not presumably apply to Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda, nor would it apply generally to foreign citizens. This section of the law appears to be singling out American citizens.

Besides allowing "any person" to be swallowed up by Bush's system, the law prohibits detainees once inside from appealing to the traditional American courts until after prosecution and sentencing, which could translate into an indefinite imprisonment since there are no timetables for Bush's tribunal process to play out.

The law states that once a person is detained, "no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever ... relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions."

That court-stripping provision - barring "any claim or cause of action whatsoever" - would seem to deny American citizens habeas corpus rights just as it does for non-citizens. If a person can't file a motion with a court, he can't assert any constitutional rights, including habeas corpus.

Other constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights - such as a speedy trial, the right to reasonable bail and the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" - would seem to be beyond a detainee's reach as well.

Special Rules

Under the new law, the military judge "may close to the public all or a portion of the proceedings" if he deems that the evidence must be kept secret for national security reasons. Those concerns can be conveyed to the judge through ex parte - or one-sided - communications from the prosecutor or a government representative.

The judge also can exclude the accused from the trial if there are safety concerns or if the defendant is disruptive. Plus, the judge can admit evidence obtained through coercion if he determines it "possesses sufficient probative value" and "the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence."

The law permits, too, the introduction of secret evidence "while protecting from disclosure the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence if the military judge finds that ... the evidence is reliable."

During trial, the prosecutor would have the additional right to assert a "national security privilege" that could stop "the examination of any witness," presumably by the defense if the questioning touched on any sensitive matter.

In effect, what the new law appears to do is to create a parallel "star chamber" system for the prosecution, imprisonment and possible execution of enemies of the state, whether those enemies are foreign or domestic.

Under the cloak of setting up military tribunals to try al-Qaeda suspects and other so-called "unlawful enemy combatants," Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress effectively created a parallel legal system for "any person" - American citizen or otherwise - who crosses some ill-defined line.

There are a multitude of reasons to think that Bush and advisers will interpret every legal ambiguity in the new law in their favor, thus granting Bush the broadest possible powers over people he identifies as enemies.

As further evidence of that, the American people now know that Attorney General Gonzales doesn't even believe that the Constitution grants them habeas corpus rights to a fair trial.

While still White House counsel, Gonzales wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document." Looks like now we are getting more of an insight into Gonzales' thoughts on that, its freedom, justice and equality that are 'outdated'. After all, in a fascist dictatorship who needs em?


Habeas Corpus
Alberto Gonzalas
Freedom of Speech
NEOCONS
Military Tribunals
Constitutional Rights
Ponerology

PONEROLOGY: The Word is Spreading

"Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come."

-- Victor Hugo, French dramatist, novelist, & poet (1802 - 1885)

An so it is. Those who are searching for answers sincerely and diligently, will find them. Even better, they will share them with fellow seekers. We salute Catherine Austin Fitts for sharing this information with her readership.

Blue Ibis

**********************************************************************

The Catherine Austin Fitts Blog

Ignotas Nulla Curatio Morbid - A Review of Political Ponerology by Andrzej M. Lobaczewski

January 15, 2007 at 11:17 pm · Filed under Daily Musings

Ignotas nulla curatio morbid - do not attempt to cure what you do not understand - is the opening theme in this study of evil. Political Ponerology is "a science on the nature of of evil adjusted for political purposes." The author, Andrzej Lobaczewski, describes himself as a Polish psychologist who - with many other colleagues - found meaning living through Nazism and then Communism by studying how evil happens and triumphs in a wider political and economic system.

Lobaczewski's hypothesis is that a small percentage of humans are born psychopaths. He describes the research to back up that data that was destroyed and supressed. Another minority percentage are of a nature to go along with psychopaths while the vast majority of people are essentially healthy. The majority who are healthy have a difficult time understanding that some people are not - they can not fathom being a psychopath or acting like one.

No one has worked harder in the last five years to understand the Tapeworm than Harry Blazer. It was Harry who discovered Political Ponerology and sent it to me. I found it chock full of deeply useful insights that can inform organizing to shift our situation. For example, Lobaczewski discovered that dealing with psychopathic systems made healthy people neurotic. However, they could heal very quickly when he gave them a scientific framework for understanding what had happened and why. With a sound framework, they could start to differentiate who was healthy and who was not and to devise strategies to deal effectively with psychopaths in power. Rather than having their relations with all humans destroyed, they were able to discriminate between healthy and unhealthy and increase their immunity to the drain of unhealthy culture and systems.

I strongly recommend this book for anyone who is managing human or financial risk in this environment or is looking to create healthy change. Traditionally, the Tapeworm’s greatest advantage is that healthy people can not fathom what they are up against and so keep inviting the Tapeworm back into their intimate spaces. This book helps you understand why that will not work. It helps you understand why conspiracies of the healthy and 'coming clean' are essential.

Political Ponerology is a book to read slowly. Lobaczewski uses a lot of academic and long words. The insights are deep and rich - they require focus and concentration. And the point comes home again and again: Ignotas nulla curatio morbid - do not attempt to cure what you do not understand.

Political Ponerology is available from:

Red Pill Press
http://www.redpillpress.com/

Permalink

Solari, Catherine Austin Fitts, The Tapeworm, Harry Blazer, Ponerology, Pathocracy, Pathocrat

GOD Interviews Bush . . . .

. . . . . . .At the Pearly Gates:

another Signs of the Times find!

By John M Conley
March 5, 2005

http://www.opednews.com/

Let's imagine for a moment that George W. Bush is being interviewed by God for entry into Heaven. (and George's replies are actual quotes from Bush.)

God: Okay, George, you're on the bubble here. We allowed Laura in, but we need to clear up a few things about your time spent on earth.

Bush: Okay, Lord. Shoot! Hallelujah.

God: In 1989 you made the following comment: "You know I could run for governor but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that's not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office."

Bush: Did I say that?

GOD: Yes, you did, George.

BUSH: If you say so.

GOD: What caused you to change your mind?

BUSH: About what?

GOD: About your decision to run for Governor of Texas! You really don't pay attention.

Bush: "I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things." - On board Air Force One, June 4, 2003

God: And you didn't have much interest in keeping up with current events, do you?

Bush: "I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves." (Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003)

GOD: But, you ended up running for Texas governor. Why?

Bush: "When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were. It was us vs. them, and it was clear who them was. Today, we are not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there." - Iowa Western Community College, Jan 21, 2000

God: What's that supposed to mean?

Bush: What?

God: Never mind. Let's move on. What was your priority as Governor of Texas.......the number one problem you wanted to see solved?

Bush: "[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling." (Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004) "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" (Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000)

God: Well, do you believe your own daughters did well learning within the Texas school system?

Bush: "Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is sometimes until we get an objective analysis." (CNBC, April 15, 2000) "Then you wake up at the high school level and find out that the illiteracy level of our children are appalling." George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

God: Hmmmm. Ok. Can you summarize the job you feel you did as Governor?

Bush: "One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'."
God: And you believe your judgements were fair?

Bush: "I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future." ''I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe - believe what I believe is right." - Rome, July 22, 2001

God: Only I know the future, George.

Bush: "The future will be better tomorrow."

God: I wouldn't say that's true for the 152 people you executed as Governor.

Bush: "The only things that I can tell you is that every case I have reviewed I have been comfortable with the innocence or guilt of the person that I've looked at. I do not believe we've put a guilty ... I mean innocent person to death in the state of Texas." All Things Considered, NPR, June 16, 2000

God: Oh, but you did George. Based on your own human statistics 16 or 17% of all people executed are actually innocent. Out of 152 people, do you know how many innocents you've allowed to die?

Bush: "I'm the master of low expectations." (Aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003)

God: And are you aware that the vast majority of those on death row are too poor to hire an attorney who can represent them adequately?

Bush: "First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill." (Washington, D.C., May 19, 2003)

God: My, my. How good of you. As a Christian, are you aware that even a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without my notice?

Bush: "Just remember it's the birds that's supposed to suffer, not the hunter." (Advising quail hunter and New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici, Roswell, N.M., Jan. 22, 2004)

God: There are several you've executed at this very moment living here in my Kingdom and they've been interested in visiting with you.......if you make it in, that is.

Bush: "My answer is bring them on." (On Iraqi militants attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003)

God: One of them is Karla Faye Tucker. Remember the one you taunted when she asked you for mercy?

Bush: Oh, yeah....her. What a whiner. But, God, with all due respect, should I have pardoned her just because Pat Robertson asked me to?

God: Who?

Bush: Pat Robertson.

God: Doesn't ring a bell. Let's move on....... Tell me, George, in your heart of hearts, what do you think of war?

Bush: "I think war is a dangerous place." (Washington, D.C., May 7, 2000)

God: Do you believe you worked for peace?

Bush: "The second pillar of peace and security in our world is the willingness of free nations, when the last resort arrives, to retain aggression and evil by force." (Bush, speaking in London, England, Nov. 19, 2003)

God: What about the families of those who have fought and died in Iraq so that you, Cheney, Rimsfeld, and Wolfowitz could get control of their oilfields?

Bush: "Obviously, I pray every day there's less casualty." (Fort Hood, Texas, April 11, 2004) But, we went there to free the Iraqi people from Sadaam Hussein! [my words]

God: George, George. This is God you're talking to, remember?

Bush: "The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were president of the United States, and we’d be a lot better off." (Bush at the second presidential debate in St. Louis, Oct. 8, 2004.)

God: Say, what?

Bush: "The world is more peaceful and more free under my leadership." (Source: The Boston Globe, Oct. 29, 2003)

God: What are your feelings for those families who have lost loved ones in the war?

Bush: "There's only one person who hugs the mothers and the widows, the wives and the kids upon the death of their loved one. Others hug but having committed the troops, I've got an additional responsibility to hug and that's me and I know what it's like." (Source: ABC News Transcripts, "President Bush and First Lady Bush '20/20' Year-End Interview," Dec. 13, 2002

God: Let's move on. Do you believe you did a good job with the economy as president?

Bush: "By making the right choices, we can make the right choice for our future." (Bush, sharing insights into improving Americans' health and fitness Source: The White House, "President Bush Highlights Health and Fitness Initiative: Remarks by the President on Fitness," July 18, 2003)

God: But, did you bring experts in to consult about the best economic path to take for the country?

Bush: "We don't believe in planners and deciders making the decisions on behalf of Americans." (Scranton, Pa., Sept. 6, 2000)

God: Okay, but you do have a budget, right?

Bush: "It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it." - (Reuters, May 5, 2000)

God: Having an MBA degree from Harvard, I need to know your economic philosophy once and for all.

Bush: Okay. "Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red." - George W. Bush, explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005

God: There's a talking ass in the Old Testament that made more sense than you, but let me take a stab at it.....Are you talking about Social Security?

Bush: Over your head a little?

God: Way over my head. Why didn't you listen more to the Democrats?

Bush: "They want the Federal Government controling Social Security like it's some kind of Federal program." (ST. CHARLES, MO., NOV. 2, 2000)

God: But . . . . . .never mind. You gave huge tax cuts to the absolute wealthiest Americans, George. Why?

Bush: "We ought to make the pie higher." (SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN DEBATE, FEB. 15, 2000)

God: You want the pie higher?

Bush: "See, without the tax relief package, there would have been a deficit, but there wouldn't have been the commiserate -- not 'commiserate' -- the kick to our economy that occurred as a result of the tax relief."

God: But, George, all the money you gave away is the main reason for the deficit! It kicked the economy alright. Right in the ribs!

Bush: "Let me tell you my thoughts about tax relief. When your economy is kind of ooching along, it's important to let people have more of their own money." (Boston, Oct. 4, 2002) "It's very important for folks to understand that when there's more trade, there's more commerce." (Quebec City, Canada, April 21, 2001)

God: That's not a smart answer at all. And you actually graduated from Harvard with an MBA degree?

Bush: "I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating [me]." (U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 2000)

God: You're forgetting, George. I'm God. Anyway, let's try foreign policy. What was the driving force behind your foreign policy?

Bush: "This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." (as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002)

God: Yeah, tell me about it. But, what is your general theory to solving the problems of mankind?

Bush: "[W]hether they be Christian, Jew, or Muslim, or Hindu, people have heard the universal call to love a neighbor just like they'd like to be called themselves." (Washington, Oct. 8, 2003)

God: Okay . . . . I guess. What else?

Bush: "We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."

God: What?

Bush: "It's time for the human race to enter the solar system."

God: You are in the solar system, George.

Bush: Well, I guess you oughta know! (henh, henh, henh, henh, henh)

God: (I should have given him a different laugh) Listen carefully. Give me something specific that you've done that showed you cared for my people around the world.

Bush: "We had a good Cabinet meeting, talked about a lot of issues. Secretary of State and Defense brought us up to date about our desires to spread freedom and peace around the world." (Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 2003)

God: Were any decisions made?

Bush: "Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace." (Washington, D.C., July 25, 2003)

God: What!?

Bush: I don't chew my cabbage twice.

God: Do you know who you're talking to?

Bush: "I don't bring God into my life to -- to, you know, kind of be a political person." (Interview with Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One, April 24, 2003)

God: And I'm not "kind of a political person." I'm neither Democrat or Republican. But, you've convinced so many people on earth that you were such a moral, Christian man of God who only wanted to follow my instructions and do the right things, I just think it's fair that you convince me, too....especially if you think you're going to park your butt inside these gates for eternity!!

Bush: Okay, okay......don't get your robes in a wad. What is it you have to know, God? No offense, but I'm in a bit of a hurry. Laura's waiting, you know.

God: What is your idea of justice, George?

Bush: "Justice ought to be fair." (speaking at the Whitehouse Economic Conference, Dec 15, 2004)

God: I'm really concerned about you. Do you have any concept at all about the huge problems on earth?

Bush: Yes, I do. "In 2000, alone, obesity costs totaled the country an estimated cost of $117 billion."
(Bush, promoting his Health and Fitness Initiative)

God: I see no purpose in pursuing this any longer. I may as well let you in with the others.

Bush: "Do you have blacks, too?" (Bush, speaking to Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso.
Source: Salon.com, "Bushed," Jake Tapper, June 20, 2002)

God: Yes, George. And guess what? There are gays here, also!

Bush: Seriously?

God: Is there anything else you want to know before you go in? Any question you've had all your life that you knew only I could answer?

Bush: Yeah, as a matter of fact.

God: Okay, what is it?

Bush: "Will the highways on the Internet become more few?" (CONCORD, N.H., JAN. 29, 2000)

God: Let me get back with you on that, George.

Bush: Okay. Do you have any questions for me?

God: Yeah, Have you ever been bitch-slapped?

If Words Still Had the Power They Once Held . . . .

Keith Olbermann speaks out -

MSNBC
Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:58 EST
New World Politics

Keith Olbermann speaks the truth one week before George W Bush fills the airwaves with lies.

If only his words held the power they might have held in the 1950's - before the media was bought and paid for; before it became a mouthpiece for those who will destroy us.

January 3, 2007
by Keith Olbermann
MSNBC

Broadcast on 'Countdown', January 2, 2007: The BBC is reporting President Bush is about to announce a plan to increase troop levels in Iraq via a speech with the theme of 'sacrifice.' Keith Olbermann responds in a special comment.

If in your presence an individual tried to sacrifice an American serviceman or woman, would you intervene?

Would you at least protest?

What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them?

What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them -- and was then to announce his intention to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more?

This is where we stand tonight with the BBC report of President Bush's "new Iraq strategy," and his impending speech to the nation, which, according to a quoted senior American official, will be about troop increases and "sacrifice."

The president has delayed, dawdled and deferred for the month since the release of the Iraq Study Group

He has seemingly heard out everybody, and listened to none of them.

If the BBC is right - and we can only pray it is not - he has settled on the only solution of all the true experts agreed cannot possibly work: more American personnel in Iraq, not as trainers for Iraqi troops, but as part of some flabby plan for "sacrifice."

Sacrifice!

More American servicemen and women will have their lives risked.

More American servicemen and women will have their lives ended.

More American families will have to bear the unbearable and rationalize the unforgivable "sacrifice" - sacrifice now, sacrifice tomorrow, sacrifice forever.

And more Americans - more than the two-thirds who already believe we need fewer troops in Iraq, not more - will have to conclude the president does not have any idea what he's doing - and that other Americans will have to die for that reason.

It must now be branded as propaganda - for even the president cannot truly feel that very many people still believe him to be competent in this area, let alone, "the decider."

But from our impeccable reporter at the Pentagon, Jim Miklasewski, tonight comes confirmation of something called "surge and accelerate" - as many as 20,000 additional troops - for "political purposes."

This, in line with what we had previously heard, that this will be proclaimed a short-term measure, for the stated purpose of increasing security in and around Baghdad, and giving an Iraqi government a chance to establish some kind of order.

This is palpable nonsense, Mr. Bush.

If this is your intention - if the centerpiece of your announcement next week will be 'sacrifice' - sacrifice your intention, not more American lives!

As Sen. Joseph Biden has pointed out, the new troops might improve the ratio our forces face relative to those living in Baghdad (friend and foe), from 200 to 1, to just 100 to 1.

"Sacrifice?"

No.

A drop in the bucket

The additional men and women you have sentenced to go there, sir, will serve only as targets.

They will not be there "short-term," Mr. Bush, for many it will mean a year or more in death's shadow.

This is not temporary, Mr. Bush.

For the Americans who will die because of you, it will be as permanent as it gets.

The various rationales for what Mr. Bush will reportedly re-christen "sacrifice" constitute a very thin gruel, indeed.

The former labor secretary, Robert Reich, says Sen. John McCain told him that the "surge" would help the "morale" of the troops already in Iraq.

If Mr. McCain truly said that, and truly believes it, he has either forgotten completely his own experience in Vietnam ... or he is unaware of the recent Military Times poll indicating only 38 percent of our active military want to see more troops sent ... or Mr. McCain has departed from reality. [along with the rest of the Neocons who proudly proclaim their disdain for the "reality-based" rest of us]

Then there is the argument that to take any steps toward reducing troop numbers would show weakness to the enemy in Iraq, or to the terrorists around the world.

This simplistic logic ignores the inescapable fact that we have indeed already showed weakness to the enemy, and to the terrorists.

We have shown them that we will let our own people be killed for no good reason.

We have now shown them that we will continue to do so.

We have shown them our stupidity.

Mr. Bush, your judgment about Iraq - and now about "sacrifice" - is at variance with your people's, to the point of delusion.

Your most respected generals see no value in a "surge" - they could not possibly see it in this madness of "sacrifice."

The Iraq Study Group told you it would be a mistake.

Perhaps dozens more have told you it would be a mistake.

And you threw their wisdom back, until you finally heard what you wanted to hear, like some child drawing straws and then saying "best two out of three . . . best three out of five . . . hundreth one counts."

Your citizens, the people for whom you work, have told you they do not want this, and moreover, they do not want you to do this.

Yet once again, sir, you have ignored all of us.

Mr. Bush, you do not own this country!

To those Republicans who have not broken free from the slavery of partisanship - those bonded still, to this president and this administration, and now bonded to this "sacrifice" - proceed at your own peril.

John McCain may still hear the applause of small crowds - he has some[how] inured himself to the hypocrisy, and the tragedy, of a man who considers himself the ultimate realist, courting the votes of those who support the government telling visitors to the Grand Canyon that it was caused by the Great Flood.

That Mr. McCain is selling himself off to the irrational right, parcel by parcel, like some great landowner facing bankruptcy, seems to be obvious to everybody but himself.

Or, maybe it is obvious to him and he simply no longer cares.

But to the rest of you in the Republican Party:

We need you to speak up, right now, in defense of your country's most precious assets - the lives of its citizens who are in harm's way.

If you do not, you are not serving this nation's interests - nor your own.

November should have told you this.

The opening of the new Congress on Wednesday and Thursday should tell you this.

Next time, those missing Republicans will be you.

And to the Democrats now yoked to the helm of this sinking ship, you proceed at your own peril, as well.

President Bush may not be very good at reality, but he and Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rove are still gifted at letting American troops be killed, and then turning their deaths to their own political advantage.

The equation is simple.

This country does not want more troops in Iraq.

It wants fewer.

Go and make it happen, or go and look for other work.

Yet you Democrats must assume that even if you take the most obvious of courses, and cut off funding for the war, Mr. Bush will ignore you as long as possible, or will find the money elsewhere, or will spend the money meant to protect the troops, and re-purpose it to keep as many troops there as long as he can keep them there.

Because that's what this is all about, is it not, Mr. Bush?

That is what this "sacrifice" has been for.

To continue this senseless, endless war.

You have dressed it up in the clothing, first of a hunt for weapons of mass destruction, then of liberation . . . then of regional imperative . . . then of oil prices . . . and now in these new terms of "sacrifice" - it's like a damned game of Colorforms, isn't it, sir?

This senseless, endless war.

But - it has not been senseless in two ways.

It has succeeded, Mr. Bush, in enabling you to deaden the collective mind of this country to the pointlessness of endless war, against the wrong people, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

It has gotten many of us used to the idea - the virtual "white noise" - of conflict far away, of the deaths of young Americans, of vague "sacrifice" for some fluid cause, too complicated to be interpreted except in terms of the very important-sounding but ultimately meaningless phrase "the war or terror."

And the war’s second accomplishment - your second accomplishment, sir - is to have taken money out of the pockets of every American, even out of the pockets of the dead soldiers on the battlefield, and their families, and to have given that money to the war profiteers.

Because if you sell the Army a thousand Humvees, you can't sell them any more until the first thousand have been destroyed.

The service men and women are ancillary to the equation.

This is about the planned obsolescence of ordinance, isn't it, Mr. Bush? And the building of detention centers? And the design of a $125 million courtroom complex at Gitmo, complete with restaurants.

[need that sick bag yet?]

At least the war profiteers have made their money, sir.

And we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.

You have insisted, Mr. Bush, that we must not lose in Iraq, that if we don't fight them there we will fight them here - as if the corollary were somehow true, that if by fighting them there we will not have to fight them here.

And yet you have re-made our country, and not re-made it for the better, on the premise that we need to be ready to "fight them here," anyway, and always.

In point of fact, even if the civil war in Iraq somehow ended tomorrow, and the risk to Americans there ended with it, we would have already suffered a defeat - not fatal, not world-changing, not, but for the lives lost, of enduring consequence.

But this country has already lost in Iraq, sir.

Your policy in Iraq has already had its crushing impact on our safety here.

You have already fomented new terrorism and new terrorists.

You have already stoked paranoia.

You have already pitted Americans, one against the other.

We ... will have to live with it.

We ... will have to live with what- of the fabric of our nation- you have already "sacrificed."


The only object still admissible in this debate is the quickest and safest exit for our people there.

But you - and soon, Mr. Bush, it will be you and you alone - still insist otherwise.

And our sons and daughters and fathers and mothers will be sacrificed there tonight, sir, so that you can say you did not "lose in Iraq."

Our policy in Iraq has been criticized for being indescribable, for being inscrutable, for being ineffable.

But it is all too easily understood now.

First we sent Americans to their deaths for your lie, Mr. Bush.

Now we are sending them to their deaths for your ego.

If what is reported is true - if your decision is made and the "sacrifice" is ordered - take a page instead from the man at whose funeral you so eloquently spoke this morning - Gerald Ford:

Put pragmatism and the healing of a nation ahead of some kind of misguided vision.

Atone.

Sacrifice, Mr. Bush?

No, sir, this is not "sacrifice." This has now become "human sacrifice."

And it must stop.

And you can stop it.

Next week, make us all look wrong.

Our meaningless sacrifice in Iraq must stop.

And you must stop it.

Meanwhile, In the Alternate Reality . . .

. . . where the Neocons and Christian Right are trying to drag the Sensible Majority, geology is being re-written to suit the Fundies. It would be hilarious if it weren't true.

From banning stem-cell research to this particular bit of farce, the U.S. is fast becoming the laughingstock of the entire scientific world. Another gem turned up by Signs of the Times News Service

Blue Ibis
***************************************************************

For Immediate Release: December 28, 2006
Contact: Carol Goldberg (202) 265-7337

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON?
PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY

-- Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology

Washington, DC -- Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

"In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. " It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is 'no comment.'"

In a letter released today, PEER urged the new Director of the National Park Service (NPS), Mary Bomar, to end the stalling tactics, remove the book from sale at the park and allow park interpretive rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon. PEER is also asking Director Bomar to approve a pamphlet, suppressed since 2002 by Bush appointees, providing guidance for rangers and other interpretive staff in making distinctions between science and religion when speaking to park visitors about geologic issues.

In August 2003, Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale at park bookstores of Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a book claiming the Canyon developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters and members of Congress that there would be a high-level policy review of the issue.

According to a recent NPS response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PEER, no such review was ever requested, let alone conducted or completed.

Park officials have defended the decision to approve the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, claiming that park bookstores are like libraries, where the broadest range of views are displayed. In fact, however, both law and park policies make it clear that the park bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such, materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover, unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item -- the creationist book.

Ironically, in 2005, two years after the Grand Canyon creationist controversy erupted, NPS approved a new directive on "Interpretation and Education (Director’s Order #6) which reinforces the posture that materials on the "history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism [and] Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes."

"As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan," Ruch added, pointing to the fact that previous NPS leadership ignored strong protests from both its own scientists and leading geological societies against the agency approval of the creationist book. "We sincerely hope that the new Director of the Park Service now has the autonomy to do her job."

###

Read the PEER letter to NPS Director Bomar

View the NPS admission that no policy review on the creationist book has occurred

See the 2005 NPS Director’s Order #6 on Interpretation

8.4.2 Historical and Scientific Research. Superintendents, historians, scientists, and interpretive staff are responsible for ensuring that park interpretive and educational programs and media are accurate and reflect current scholarship…Questions often arise round the presentation of geological, biological, and evolutionary processes. The interpretive and educational treatment used to explain the natural processes and history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism. The facts, theories, and interpretations to be used will reflect the thinking of the scientific community in such fields as biology, geology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, and paleontology. Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes. Programs, however, may acknowledge or explain other explanations of natural processes and events. (Emphasis added)

Trace how the creationist book controversy started and grew

Look at tax dollars used to support the Bush administration program of "Faith-Based Parks"