To recognize just how much sway the National Rifle Association has over the U.S. Congress, consider this: Congress has taken more action to protect the “privacy” of law-breaking gun dealers than it has to protect the privacy of Americans from President Bush’s likely unconstitutional program of secret domestic wiretapping without search warrants.
Led by Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas), pro-gun legislators in the House continue to block efforts by local law enforcement officials and over two hundred mayors—from red and blue states—to access federal gun sales data collected by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Until four years ago when Tiahrt and his many gun-loving allies (Democrats and Republicans) restricted access to the data, it was used effectively to track down the 1 percent of gun dealers who are responsible for supplying a substantial majority of guns used in crimes.
Just this week, the House Appropriations Committee blocked attempts by responsible legislators to reduce the Tiahrt restrictions on the use of federal gun sales data to staunch the flow of illegal firearms. Apparently our gun-loving Congress believes the mission of the ATF is to protect the privacy of illegal gun suppliers rather than to reduce the 30,000 yearly gun deaths. So much so that they actually want to criminalize the unauthorized use of gun sales information by law enforcement officials (that is, sharing gun crime data to detect trends that could identify the source of illegal gun sales).
Yet contrast this with the feeble efforts by the House and Senate to get to the bottom of the Bush administration’s secret domestic wiretapping program. That constitutionally suspect program jeopardizes the privacy rights of untold numbers of American citizens by blatantly circumventing legal means to conduct secret wiretapping (as authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).
While the Republican-led Congress (abetted by a not inconsequential number of Democrats) was vigorous in protecting the privacy rights of gun dealers since the passage of the Tiarht amendment in 2003, they were far less vigorous in protecting the privacy rights of the broader citizenry. While still in control of Congress last year, Republicans were more interested in finding ways to legalize Bush’s illegal program than they were in investigating the full breadth of his attack on our constitutional protections. The argument that shutting down the secret eavesdropping program would aid terrorists is a red herring—as the means for conducting secret wiretapping within the law is already in place, using FISA.
Could our elected representatives have their priorities any more confused?
Friday, July 13, 2007
Monday, October 30, 2006
Liberty and justice for all; well, maybe not all.
I was in my daughters’ school the other day, and overheard the pledge of allegiance: “…with liberty and justice for all.” Unless, of course, you happen to be caught in the Bush administration’s war on terror dragnet. Then, in the name of protecting American values and liberty, you’re pretty much out of luck – it may even cost you your life.
You may be whisked away in secret to a foreign country like Syria to be tortured to give up information you don’t possess, as happened to Maher Arar, an innocent Canadian citizen who fell victim to the CIA practice of extraordinary rendition.
You may be locked up for a month without access to legal counsel through abuses of the material witness statue, as happened to Abdallah Higazy. He is an Egyptian citizen who was staying in a New York city hotel room on 9/11, in whose room the previous occupant left an aviation radio that was deemed suspicious.
Or you may be the taxi-driver Mr. Dilawar, who died in an Afghan prison after being assaulted and tortured – even though investigators had concluded that he was almost certainly innocent of involvement in the attack for which he was being held. Or perhaps you were, until recently, in a secret CIA prison, where the Bush administration wanted to engage in interrogation practices that would not be deemed acceptable by civilized countries around the world.
More likely, you’re one of those still languishing in Guantánamo in legal limbo, not charged with any crime, with no recourse to challenge their detention. Why? Because the right to file for a writ of habeas corpus no longer exists for those deemed to be illegal enemy combatants, thanks to the “new and improved” military tribunals conceived of by the Bush administration (after its first attempt was found to be unconstitutional). Has Bush so terrorized Americans that we don’t think twice about locking somebody up indefinitely, before their guilt has been established?
I don’t consider myself to be soft on terrorists, and I want the U.S. to be aggressive in hunting down and prosecuting them. But I also want our country to be able to look itself in the mirror, and be able to say we are doing so in a manner consistent with our principals. We are not infallible; we do make mistakes, we have already made some egregious ones. Not everybody that we think is a terrorist – even under reasonable assumptions – is. That is why our judicial system is built on a foundation of due process.
Beyond the liberties and lives of innocents that have been lost, the Bush administration policies have cost America’s reputation in the world dearly. As Colin Powell remarked recently, “the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.” This, and Bush’s failed strategy in Iraq, have increased the threat from terrorism, as the recent National Intelligence Estimate made clear.
Throughout these past five troubling years, the Republican congress has done virtually nothing to hold Bush accountable for his misguided and incompetent strategies in the war on terror. That is why I’m voting for Ned Lamont for senator and Diane Farrell for representative in next week’s midterm election. It’s time to send legislators to Washington who will alter the disastrous course along which Bush is leading us.
You may be whisked away in secret to a foreign country like Syria to be tortured to give up information you don’t possess, as happened to Maher Arar, an innocent Canadian citizen who fell victim to the CIA practice of extraordinary rendition.
You may be locked up for a month without access to legal counsel through abuses of the material witness statue, as happened to Abdallah Higazy. He is an Egyptian citizen who was staying in a New York city hotel room on 9/11, in whose room the previous occupant left an aviation radio that was deemed suspicious.
Or you may be the taxi-driver Mr. Dilawar, who died in an Afghan prison after being assaulted and tortured – even though investigators had concluded that he was almost certainly innocent of involvement in the attack for which he was being held. Or perhaps you were, until recently, in a secret CIA prison, where the Bush administration wanted to engage in interrogation practices that would not be deemed acceptable by civilized countries around the world.
More likely, you’re one of those still languishing in Guantánamo in legal limbo, not charged with any crime, with no recourse to challenge their detention. Why? Because the right to file for a writ of habeas corpus no longer exists for those deemed to be illegal enemy combatants, thanks to the “new and improved” military tribunals conceived of by the Bush administration (after its first attempt was found to be unconstitutional). Has Bush so terrorized Americans that we don’t think twice about locking somebody up indefinitely, before their guilt has been established?
I don’t consider myself to be soft on terrorists, and I want the U.S. to be aggressive in hunting down and prosecuting them. But I also want our country to be able to look itself in the mirror, and be able to say we are doing so in a manner consistent with our principals. We are not infallible; we do make mistakes, we have already made some egregious ones. Not everybody that we think is a terrorist – even under reasonable assumptions – is. That is why our judicial system is built on a foundation of due process.
Beyond the liberties and lives of innocents that have been lost, the Bush administration policies have cost America’s reputation in the world dearly. As Colin Powell remarked recently, “the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.” This, and Bush’s failed strategy in Iraq, have increased the threat from terrorism, as the recent National Intelligence Estimate made clear.
Throughout these past five troubling years, the Republican congress has done virtually nothing to hold Bush accountable for his misguided and incompetent strategies in the war on terror. That is why I’m voting for Ned Lamont for senator and Diane Farrell for representative in next week’s midterm election. It’s time to send legislators to Washington who will alter the disastrous course along which Bush is leading us.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Threatening American values: flag burning and torture
Which do you think is the greater threat to American values: the protester who burns an American flag, or a President who, by all indications, has consistently and flagrantly violated U.S. laws and international treaties? From the righteous speeches by Republican Senators in support of a constitutional amendment to prohibit desecration of the flag, you would think it was the former.
Would that these same “defenders” of our constitution were equally vigorous in protecting us from the excesses of the Bush administration’s grab for unchecked executive power. Whether it involves warrantless domestic spying, secret investigation of Americans’ phone and banking records, claiming (and exercising) the right to imprison anybody, indefinitely, with no right to due process, or condoning torture, the Republican Congress has acquiesced, even defended, President Bush’s desire to do virtually anything he wants in the war on terror, unchecked by Congressional oversight or judicial review.
To me, that is far more sinister than the individual who chooses to burn the American flag, as unseemly as that is. But the Republican Congress is more intent on finding ways to call its opponents unpatriotic – for anybody who dares to disagree with it – than it is on taking President Bush to task for the enormous damage he has done to our country’s values and reputation.
Would that these same “defenders” of our constitution were equally vigorous in protecting us from the excesses of the Bush administration’s grab for unchecked executive power. Whether it involves warrantless domestic spying, secret investigation of Americans’ phone and banking records, claiming (and exercising) the right to imprison anybody, indefinitely, with no right to due process, or condoning torture, the Republican Congress has acquiesced, even defended, President Bush’s desire to do virtually anything he wants in the war on terror, unchecked by Congressional oversight or judicial review.
To me, that is far more sinister than the individual who chooses to burn the American flag, as unseemly as that is. But the Republican Congress is more intent on finding ways to call its opponents unpatriotic – for anybody who dares to disagree with it – than it is on taking President Bush to task for the enormous damage he has done to our country’s values and reputation.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Impeach Bush? Not yet.
On the one hand, I would welcome the opportunity see President Bush impeached. Through his willful manipulation of intelligence, condoning of torture and violation of constitutional protections of due process and privacy, he has done more to destroy the integrity of the United States than any president since President Nixon. President Clinton may have embarrassed the office, but he did not threaten our institutions.
However, impeachment is a misplaced fantasy at this time, just as is Senator Russell Feingold’s call for censure of President Bush. What Democrats, and Republicans, should be calling for is a vigorous examination of the facts – which the Republican leadership has been thwarting for months.
Congressional energy should be directed towards getting Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to fulfill his promise to investigate administration misuse of intelligence in the war on terror. Roberts has been stalling the conclusion of his investigation for months. He is a disgrace to the principle of an independent legislative branch of government.
Rather than doing deals to legitimize the NSA domestic spying program, the Republican leadership, and Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, should be demanding a full investigation of that program to determine whether Bush has violated constitutional protections, as the current evidence strongly suggests.
Only then can we know whether censure, or more, is the appropriate response.
However, impeachment is a misplaced fantasy at this time, just as is Senator Russell Feingold’s call for censure of President Bush. What Democrats, and Republicans, should be calling for is a vigorous examination of the facts – which the Republican leadership has been thwarting for months.
Congressional energy should be directed towards getting Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to fulfill his promise to investigate administration misuse of intelligence in the war on terror. Roberts has been stalling the conclusion of his investigation for months. He is a disgrace to the principle of an independent legislative branch of government.
Rather than doing deals to legitimize the NSA domestic spying program, the Republican leadership, and Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, should be demanding a full investigation of that program to determine whether Bush has violated constitutional protections, as the current evidence strongly suggests.
Only then can we know whether censure, or more, is the appropriate response.
Monday, January 23, 2006
How much more Bush can we take?
President Clinton was impeached for lying about highly inappropriate personal behavior which had nothing to do with how he governed or protected our nation. Fast forward to today, when nearly three-quarters of Americans believe President Bush was “hiding something” or “mostly lying” about the evidence for weapons of mass destruction, and half of Americans believe he “intentionally misled” us into the war in Iraq (The New York Times/CBS News Poll 12/8/05).
That alone should be enough for the Congress to start asking some tough questions about possible deception by the Bush Administration.
Yet this high level of mistrust was before it was disclosed that President Bush secretly authorized the N.S.A. to conduct wiretaps of communications with Americans without court order. There is widespread belief, across the political spectrum, that this program may be illegal. At the very least, Bush has continued to lie to the American people about his conduct of the war on terror. How else to explain a remark he made in Buffalo, NY in 2004 that “a wiretap requires a court order”? That was made more than two years after he authorized the N.S.A. activity.
If that doesn’t send a chill down your back, how about the repeated assertions by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld that terrorism detainees are being treated “humanely” – despite case after case of abuse, torture and even death, many too gruesome to mention. The Bush administration claims that this is just the work of a few errant soldiers, yet the ACLU has obtained over 70,000 pages of government documents covering what surely is a much more pervasive problem, for which President Bush is holding no senior officials accountable. In one specific instance, the CIA inspector general found in 2004 that some aspects of his agency’s treatment of detainees might constitute cruel and inhuman treatment as defined by an international treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory.
While Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was busy last December trying to convince Europeans that “the United States does not condone torture,” the Administration was doing all it could to keep the Congress from passing an amendment prohibiting torture. What does that tell you about the President’s commitment to human rights and the truth?
On these critical issues of national security and fundamental American values, it is time for Congress to aggressively and tirelessly work to uncover the facts about whether President Bush has lied and broken the law in prosecuting the war on terror.
Indeed, Congress should go a step further and appoint an independent counsel to conduct this inquiry. It tolerated a 10-year, $20 million Independent Counsel investigation of a Clinton cabinet secretary, Henry Cisneros, for lying about payments to his mistress. Surely it can find the wherewithal to investigate an Administration that is quite clearly taking enormous liberties with the truth, and perhaps more.
That alone should be enough for the Congress to start asking some tough questions about possible deception by the Bush Administration.
Yet this high level of mistrust was before it was disclosed that President Bush secretly authorized the N.S.A. to conduct wiretaps of communications with Americans without court order. There is widespread belief, across the political spectrum, that this program may be illegal. At the very least, Bush has continued to lie to the American people about his conduct of the war on terror. How else to explain a remark he made in Buffalo, NY in 2004 that “a wiretap requires a court order”? That was made more than two years after he authorized the N.S.A. activity.
If that doesn’t send a chill down your back, how about the repeated assertions by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld that terrorism detainees are being treated “humanely” – despite case after case of abuse, torture and even death, many too gruesome to mention. The Bush administration claims that this is just the work of a few errant soldiers, yet the ACLU has obtained over 70,000 pages of government documents covering what surely is a much more pervasive problem, for which President Bush is holding no senior officials accountable. In one specific instance, the CIA inspector general found in 2004 that some aspects of his agency’s treatment of detainees might constitute cruel and inhuman treatment as defined by an international treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory.
While Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was busy last December trying to convince Europeans that “the United States does not condone torture,” the Administration was doing all it could to keep the Congress from passing an amendment prohibiting torture. What does that tell you about the President’s commitment to human rights and the truth?
On these critical issues of national security and fundamental American values, it is time for Congress to aggressively and tirelessly work to uncover the facts about whether President Bush has lied and broken the law in prosecuting the war on terror.
Indeed, Congress should go a step further and appoint an independent counsel to conduct this inquiry. It tolerated a 10-year, $20 million Independent Counsel investigation of a Clinton cabinet secretary, Henry Cisneros, for lying about payments to his mistress. Surely it can find the wherewithal to investigate an Administration that is quite clearly taking enormous liberties with the truth, and perhaps more.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
What is happening to our country?
It is time for Americans to start asking ourselves, “what is happening to our country?” As I look around, there are so many signs that President Bush, his administration and the Republican leadership are systematically destroying the values and well-being of our nation through their arrogance, greed and incompetence.
Facing a cost of $200 billion for reconstruction in the aftermath of Katrina, Bush refuses to reconsider his ideological obsession with tax cuts for the wealthy. Don’t be fooled – “no tax increases” doesn’t just mean no new taxes, it means sticking with his plan to make earlier rounds of tax cuts permanent. Burdening future generations with the cost of his largess to the wealthy, through record-breaking deficits, doesn’t seem to concern him. How can we trust a political party where 222 of its congressmen and 46 of its senators have categorically refused to raise taxes (by signing Grover Norquist’s tax pledge)? How is that a sign of fiscal responsibility?
At the core of some of our most challenging security and economic issues is our lack of energy independence. But Bush has shown zero leadership on energy – his is a policy of avoidance – looking for a few barrels of oil in Alaska and relaxing environmental standards. Instead of sending people to Mars (as NASA wants to do), our national quest should be a radical reduction in our dependence on oil, using economic incentives – including a national gas tax – to fund research and encourage conservation.
I am concerned with more than just economic security. Bush policies have deeply damaged the credibility of the United States as a protector of human rights. The very values we are fighting for in the war on terror are being systematically violated. Widespread abuse and torture of prisoners is met with indifference and no accountability, even as it turns those who might be sympathetic to the U.S. away from us. Wholesale disregard for due process (we have held prisoners in Guantanamo for more than three years without bringing charges) is acceptable, because President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have decided they are guilty. Through “extraordinary rendition”, we secretly send suspects, including our own citizens, for interrogation to countries, including Syria, that we know engage in torture.
We agonize about how we are going to protect ourselves against terrorist attacks on our soil, yet the Republicans whom we have put in charge of our executive and legislative, and soon perhaps, judicial, branches of government are beholden to the National Rifle Association, which stymies every reasonable way to restrict access by criminals (including terrorists) to firearms. That’s an organization which invites speakers who profess, “I want burglars dead…no court case. No parole. No early release. I want ‘em dead. Get a gun, and when they attack you shoot ‘em.” (as quoted in The New Yorker, 8/1/05). It is disgraceful that our president, and the majority of our national leaders (Democrats included), take their direction from an organization with so little respect for our values.
If you are disturbed by where our country is heading, I urge you to speak out.
Facing a cost of $200 billion for reconstruction in the aftermath of Katrina, Bush refuses to reconsider his ideological obsession with tax cuts for the wealthy. Don’t be fooled – “no tax increases” doesn’t just mean no new taxes, it means sticking with his plan to make earlier rounds of tax cuts permanent. Burdening future generations with the cost of his largess to the wealthy, through record-breaking deficits, doesn’t seem to concern him. How can we trust a political party where 222 of its congressmen and 46 of its senators have categorically refused to raise taxes (by signing Grover Norquist’s tax pledge)? How is that a sign of fiscal responsibility?
At the core of some of our most challenging security and economic issues is our lack of energy independence. But Bush has shown zero leadership on energy – his is a policy of avoidance – looking for a few barrels of oil in Alaska and relaxing environmental standards. Instead of sending people to Mars (as NASA wants to do), our national quest should be a radical reduction in our dependence on oil, using economic incentives – including a national gas tax – to fund research and encourage conservation.
I am concerned with more than just economic security. Bush policies have deeply damaged the credibility of the United States as a protector of human rights. The very values we are fighting for in the war on terror are being systematically violated. Widespread abuse and torture of prisoners is met with indifference and no accountability, even as it turns those who might be sympathetic to the U.S. away from us. Wholesale disregard for due process (we have held prisoners in Guantanamo for more than three years without bringing charges) is acceptable, because President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have decided they are guilty. Through “extraordinary rendition”, we secretly send suspects, including our own citizens, for interrogation to countries, including Syria, that we know engage in torture.
We agonize about how we are going to protect ourselves against terrorist attacks on our soil, yet the Republicans whom we have put in charge of our executive and legislative, and soon perhaps, judicial, branches of government are beholden to the National Rifle Association, which stymies every reasonable way to restrict access by criminals (including terrorists) to firearms. That’s an organization which invites speakers who profess, “I want burglars dead…no court case. No parole. No early release. I want ‘em dead. Get a gun, and when they attack you shoot ‘em.” (as quoted in The New Yorker, 8/1/05). It is disgraceful that our president, and the majority of our national leaders (Democrats included), take their direction from an organization with so little respect for our values.
If you are disturbed by where our country is heading, I urge you to speak out.
Thursday, September 1, 2005
Katrina getting in the way of tax cuts, no way!
President Bush stated that the federal government will do its share to help the victims of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. But, he also spoke of the importance of having the American people do their share by contributing privately.
While I support charitable contributions, and have myself contributed to the relief effort, perhaps the need for private support would not be so great if President Bush had not given billions of dollars of tax breaks to the very wealthiest Americans, gutting federal resources. As if a deficit exceeding $400 billion (one of the highest on record) is not enough of a wake up call for more prudent fiscal management, the administration and Republican leadership is still pushing for a permanent repeal of the estate tax, an additional $745 billion gift over ten years to the richest Americans.
The next time Bush calls for private support, perhaps he should address just the recipients of his largess, since for the vast majority of Americans, household incomes have failed to increase over the past five years, as reported by the Census Bureau. That’s a new record, neatly coinciding with the term of the Bush presidency.
While I support charitable contributions, and have myself contributed to the relief effort, perhaps the need for private support would not be so great if President Bush had not given billions of dollars of tax breaks to the very wealthiest Americans, gutting federal resources. As if a deficit exceeding $400 billion (one of the highest on record) is not enough of a wake up call for more prudent fiscal management, the administration and Republican leadership is still pushing for a permanent repeal of the estate tax, an additional $745 billion gift over ten years to the richest Americans.
The next time Bush calls for private support, perhaps he should address just the recipients of his largess, since for the vast majority of Americans, household incomes have failed to increase over the past five years, as reported by the Census Bureau. That’s a new record, neatly coinciding with the term of the Bush presidency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
