Nostalgic for Nixon?

Posted: December 23, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Civil Liberties, FBI raids | Tags: , , , | 30 Comments

I thought we’d made some progress since J Edgar Hoover headed the FBI, but maybe not.  This is a really disturbing story I heard as I listened to today’s show  from Democracy Now.  You may recall that the FBI raided homes of peace activists in Minnesota and Chicago back in September.  Here’s one of those villainous peace activists from back then.

Most of these folks are aligned with Palestinian solidarity groups.  In the fall, subpoenas to appear before a grand jury were served on 13 of the activists.  The subpoenas were later withdrawn when the activists asserted their fifth amendment rights.  Many of us thought the situation had ended there.  We were wrong.  Three of those people who were the subject of raids were reissued subpoenas earlier this month.  (Happy Holidays!!  Peace On Earth!!!)  Democracy Now picks up the story with an additional subpoena that was issued to a “Chicago-based activist and journalist involved in Palestinian solidarity work—at least the 23rd person subpoenaed since September”.

I found some information on a peace rally in front of the Dirksen Federal Building this month in Chicago from the Episcopal Peace Fellowship. (Yeah, that HAS to be a terrorist group!)  It’s dated December 9, 2010. This piece not only mentions the Palestinian solidarity connections but also Colombian connections.

A  group of about 100 activists braved frigid temperatures to protest the latest round of FBI subpoenas in front of the Dirksen Federal Building in Chicago Monday night.

The FBI issues summons to appear before a federal grand jury to three college students Friday. They are scheduled to appear on Jan. 25, said their attorney Jim Fennerty of the National Lawyers Guild. The women are being targeted because they traveled to the Palestinian occupied territory of the West Bank, he added.

The new subpoenas bring to 17 the number of activists throughout the Midwest that have been targeted by the FBI for their Palestinian and Colombian solidarity work.

Amy Goodman’s piece at Democracy Now has more details. (Shameless Plug:  Please PLEASE keep Democracy Now on your charitable giving list). Notice there’s also a recent Supreme Court decision that has put peace activities in the FBI’s cross hairs.

All those subpoenaed have been involved with antiwar activism that’s critical of U.S. foreign policy. Details on the grand jury case remain scarce, but the subpoenas cited federal law prohibiting, quote, “providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.” In June, the Supreme Court rejected a free speech challenge to the material support law from humanitarian aid groups that said some of its provisions put them at risk of being prosecuted for talking to terrorist groups about nonviolent activities.

I have to admit that I have a particular interest in this because I have an FBI file from the 1970s.  They actually read my mail coming to my dorm room.  It was because I was a member of the University of Nebraska’s University Women’s Action Group and was actively working to change the state’s “rape” law at the time and to get sexual assault and battery  crimes moved out of property crimes divisions in police departments and into major crime units.  Some one broke into the car of the NOW State Coordinator, took her mailing list, and suddenly, all of us noticed that our mail never made it to us without ever having a broken envelope seal.  It was bizarre.  It didn’t last long because I think at some point either Ford or Carter must’ve put an end to it.  Nixon was even out of office by that time.  Believe me, I was hardly a radical or a threat at the time.  I thought the ‘thought police’ thing had kind’ve gone by the wayside after the Nixon/Ford years but, boy does that seem to be a wrong assessment.

So, Amy Goodman interviewed several of the people involved in the recent FBI and grand jury activity.  Here’s an account of the recent ordeal by Peace Activist Tracy Holm.

Right now, our individual lawyers are being called into meetings with the District Attorney, Fox, in Chicago. They’re essentially trying to scare us into talking, to naming names and giving them a case against the movement and against the people that we have worked with historically to fight for justice for the people of Palestine and the people of Colombia.

I’m really curious about the Colombia thing.  Do you know of any suicide bombers, etc. from Colombia?  So, the interview continues by bringing in  “Coleen Rowley, a former FBI agent who was named by Time Magazine Woman of the Year for her exposure of the problems in intelligence by the FBI pre-9/11″.  She is interviewed by Juan Gonzalez.

Well, you know, after 9/11, we almost—there was a green light put on, and there was a very big blurring between protest, civil disobedience and terrorism. And you saw this in many ways. The door was open to basically targeting, without any level of factual justification, advocacy groups. And again, this began pretty quickly after 9/11.

It’s gotten to the point now, nine years later—and I wanted to mention the Washington Post is doing a pretty good job of exposing this, this top-secret America, this monitoring. Their most recent article in the Washington Post says there’s a hundred—the FBI has 164,000 suspicious activity reports. Again, these are things that just have no level of factual justification, that people call in, and the FBI is now keeping records on people. So, I think that, you know, this case will just be the start of targeting various groups like this.

Are we now back in the place that we were in the 1970s where just being an activist for Social Justice gets you onto some one’s radar?  Because, if we are, I’m thinking my email and mail are going to be read again.  Does this trouble you the way it troubles me?

Obama Signs DADT Repeal and other breaking news

Posted: December 22, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Barack Obama, Breaking News, Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, DADT, Democratic Politics, Festivities, GLBT Rights, Human Rights, legislation, Live, open thread | Tags: , , | 27 Comments

I think we can all agree that the service men and women in this picture and the folks that helped pass this repeal deserve a great big booyah! from us all.  It was great to see some of our country’s heroes get some credit and recognition.  Let’s hope the president’s signature is the first step in tearing the entire DADT infrastructure down and that the radical right groups working to repeal the repeal FAIL.

Just one small step for Human Kind …

The guests at the ceremony included Joe Solmonese, head of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group; Vice President Biden; Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.); and Dan Choi, a former U.S. Army soldier who was discharged under “don’t ask, don’t tell” and was arrested in November after chaining himself to a White House fence to protest the policy.

Several other soldiers who have been discharged from military service because they are gay attended the ceremony as well.

Among the guests on the stage with Obama was Eric Alva, a former Marine staff sergeant who lost a leg in Iraq and who, following a medical discharge, has been working for the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Another participant was Navy Cmdr. Zoe Dunning, a repeal advocate who fought to remain in the Navy Reserves and ultimately retired in 2007 after 13 years of service as an openly gay officer.

Senator Reid Gives Dan Choi His West Point Ring Back

This is morphing into a mid afternoon Senate news post so you can consider it an open thread for other news besides the DADT signing ceremony.

Also:

ABC news is reporting that the Senate has come to an agreement on the 9/11 First Responders Bill.

Senators on both side of the aisle came together to unanimously pass a bill to give continuing health benefits and compensation to first responders who got sick after the 9/11 terror attacks.

The bill passed after Senate Democrats struck a deal Wednesday with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who agreed to drop his objections when the cost of the bill was reduced by about $2 billion.

The Oklahoma Republican had come under withering criticism for opposing the bill on the grounds that it provided “overly generous funding” and included “unnecessary and duplicative compensation funds.”

Coburn emerged Wednesday from a closed-door meeting that included Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and New York Democrats Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand to reveal that that a deal has been worked out that will likely enable the bill to pass the Senate – and then the House – by the end of the day.

Under the deal, the total cost of the bill over ten years would be reduced from $6.2 billion to $4.2 billion. Of that $4.2 billion, $1.5 billion will go to health benefits for the first responders, while $2.7 billion will go to compensation for them.

update from CNN: “House OKs measure providing free health care to first responders of NYC 9/11 attacks, sending the bill to the president.”  The House and Senate bills have gone through reconciliation are now consistent and will become law.

The START treaty has just been ratified too via The Boston Globe (obviously a Kerry Fanzine.)

In one of the biggest victories of Senator John F. Kerry’s legislative career, the US Senate today voted to approve an arms control agreement with Russia, by a bipartisan 71 to 26 vote, with Vice President Joe Biden presiding over the chamber and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the floor. The treaty needed at least 67 votes to be ratified.

The treaty, known as New START, will reduce strategic warheads by about a third on each side, to 1,550, and set up protocols for inspections of each nation’s warheads. The vote is a major foreign policy victory to President Obama, who considered approval of the treaty a top priority of the lame-duck congressional session.

Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was in charge of shepherding the treaty through the Senate.

“This historic Senate vote makes our country safer and moves the world further away from the danger of nuclear disaster,” Kerry said in a statement. “The winners are not defined by party or ideology. The winners are the American people, who are safer with fewer Russian missiles aimed at them, and who benefit knowing that our cooperation with Russia in curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and supplying our troops in Afghanistan can be strengthened.”

Guess those folks really wanted that long Holiday Break!  All 58 Democrats and both Independents supported the Treaty Ratification.  It was supported by 13 Republicans.

In other surprises:   Obama press conference at 4:15 pm  (Does this mean he’s going to take questions?)

White House Preparing Executive Order on Indefinite Detention

Posted: December 21, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Barack Obama, Civil Liberties, executive orders, Gitmo, Human Rights, indefinite detention, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , | 19 Comments

Dafna Linzer at ProPublica:

The White House is preparing an Executive Order on indefinite detention that will provide periodic reviews of evidence against dozens of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, according to several administration officials.

The draft order, a version of which was first considered nearly 18 months ago, is expected to be signed by President Obama early in the New Year. The order allows for the possibility that detainees from countries like Yemen might be released if circumstances there change.

But the order establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial.

Nearly two years after Obama’s pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo, more inmates there are formally facing the prospect of lifelong detention and fewer are facing charges than the day Obama was elected.

The stated goal of this new policy is to give detainees who have been designated for indefinite detention the opportunity for more frequent reviews:

…a minimal review every six months, with and then a more lengthy annual review. Detainees will have access to an attorney, to some evidence against them and the ability to challenge their continued detention.

However it isn’t clear to whom these detainees would plead their cases. Would they meet directly with the President or administration officials? What would be their chances of changing their status through these reviews? I guess we’ll have to wait until the next administration official decides to anonymously leak some more specific information.

According to the Washington Post:

Those designated for prosecution but who are not charged could also have their cases reviewed under the proposed system in the executive order, the White House official said.

Detainees at Guantanamo would continue to have access to the federal courts to challenge their incarceration under the legal doctrine of habeas corpus. Officials said the plan would give detainees who have lost their habeas petition the prospect of one day ending their time in U.S. custody. And officials said the International Committee of the Red Cross has been urging the administration to create a review process.

I guess I must be kind of simple-minded compared to the geniuses in the Obama administration, but I tend to agree with Laura Murphy of the ACLU, who told the WaPo:

“Indefinite detention without charge or trial is wrong, whether it comes from Congress or the president’s pen….Our Constitution requires that we charge and prosecute people who are accused of crimes. You cannot sell an indefinite detention scheme by attaching a few due-process baubles and expect that to restore the rule of law. That is bad for America and is not the form of justice we want other nations to emulate”

The WaPo speculates that the motivation for Obama’s executive order is to

preempt legislation supported by some Republicans, which would create a system of indefinite detention not only for some Guantanamo detainees but also for future terrorism suspects seized overseas.

Maybe, but to me it just seems like another in an endless string of broken promises from the guy who seduced the “progressives” with hope ‘n change and then delivered Bush’s policies on steroids.

I’ll end with an extended quote from Spencer Ackerman, who asks some very good questions:

And there’s a lot of unanswered questions, process-wise, that lend themselves to ad hoc solutions. Who will a lawyer be pleading her client’s case to, here? A judge or an administration official? What role will there be for the courts in reviewing this process, if any? How could a detainee’s counsel successfully argue that he no longer poses a threat? According to the official Dafna quotes, the criterion for determining a detainee’s threat level is inescapably a strategic decision. We’d never leave it for a judge to determine whether, say, Yemen is still a terror-exporting nation. So what’s the point of having a lawyer in the process, if this is an exclusively executive-derived process? None of the above should be construed as an endorsement of the administration’s decisionmaking here, but rather a statement of confusion as to just what system it’s in fact creating for its “Fifth Category” of detainee.

Also: why think this executive order will forestall congressional efforts at codifying an indefinite-detention architecture? Lindsey Graham is going to reintroduce his detention bill in the Senate. Buck McKeon is going to reintroduce his detention bill in the House, where chances are better than even that some indefinite detention bill will pass. The Republicans ran on a platform that included indefinite detention and did very well. Obama ran on a platform that included opposition to indefinite detention, won, and then pursued it anyway. Which of these political forces can we say has more fortitude?

Update, 6:58 p.m.: If I understand the Post’s story correctly, the annual review hearing would be in front of a judge, for a kind of re-habeas-ing. But having made the initial decision that the executive has the right to hold Detainee X, what question is the judge to answer, aside from “Is This Person A Th?reat?” which is not a judicial decision. If the question is “Is The Government’s Case Against This Person Valid?” congratulations — you’re in trial territory! Which isn’t what this is. What kind of hybrid is Obama creating?

I just have one more question. Why doesn’t Obama just “follow his bliss” and run as a Republican in 2012? Then maybe we could find a real Democrat to run against him.

DADT Vote Live Blog: DADT is REPEALED!!!

Posted: December 18, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, DADT, Democratic Politics, Diplomacy Nightmares, Foreign Affairs, GLBT Rights, Human Rights, legislation, U.S. Politics, Women's Rights | Tags: , | 27 Comments

I just wanted to update you on two Senate votes that are really important.  The first, is the DADT vote and the second is the Child Marriage Bill.

First, the DADT has been repealed.  It got 8 votes from Republicans.  We’ll be adding links to the coverage as they become available.  Be sure to check back in!!  You’ll see we’re adding more as you read!!

Also, there is a bill that would help the State Department stop the exploitation of teenage girls who are damaged for life by early marriage.  The grandstanding around this is just getting ridiculous.  The Jane Crow Law set is trying to turn this into an abortion bill, of all things!!!

Here’s the status on the Child Marriage bill (S. 987)  from Post Partisan at WaPo.

In case you missed it, S. 987 (The International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act) failed to pass last night. Despite unanimously passing the Senate, it only garnered a 241-166 majority in the House. Since House rules were in suspension, the bill needed a two-thirds majority to pass.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who sponsored the bill, had a blunt response in a late-night press release:

The action on the House floor stopping the Child Marriage bill tonight will endanger the lives of millions of women and girls around the world. These young girls, enslaved in marriage, will be brutalized and many will die when their young bodies are torn apart while giving birth. Those who voted to continue this barbaric practice brought shame to Capitol Hill.

His frustration makes sense: the corresponding House Bill had 112 co-sponsors! What the heck happened?

In the hours before the vote, Republicans circulated a memo to pro-life members of Congress alleging that the bill could fund abortions and use child marriage “to overturn pro-life laws.” It also reiterated concerns over the bill’s cost. When it came time for a vote, a number of the bill’s pro-life supporters in both parties abandoned ship. Even co-sponsors of the corresponding House bill (H.R. 2103), like Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and Lee Terry (R-Neb.), voted against it.

Time for the facts. First of all, S. 987 is short–the body of the bill is around ten pages long–and does not mention abortion (“family planning” isn’t in there either). A quick read suffices to show that the bill is not dealing with abortion.

The lives of teenage women are at stake.  How is this not more important than inventing abortion charades?

The Senate just passed the Bill To Repeal DADT by 65-31. CSPAN is showing the results now and Lieberman is giving the presser.

Here’s the coverage from CNN.

Here’s the coverage from NYT.

The Senate on Saturday struck down the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, bringing to a close a 17-year struggle over a policy that forced thousands of Americans from the ranks and caused others to keep secret their sexual orientation.

By a vote of 65 to 31, with eight Republicans joining Democrats, the Senate approved and sent to President Obama a repeal of the Clinton-era law, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a policy critics said amounted to government-sanctioned discrimination that treated gay and lesbian troops as second-class citizens.

Mr. Obama hailed the action, which fulfills his pledge to reverse the ban. “As commander in chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known,” Mr. Obama said in a statement after the Senate, on a 63-33 vote, beat back Republican efforts to block a final vote on the repeal bill.

The vote marked a historic moment that some equated with the end of racial segregation in the military. It followed a review by the Pentagon that found little concern in the military about lifting the ban and was backed by Pentagon officials as a better alternative to a court-ordered end.

I will be thrilled to see the President sign this policy change.  Finally, a few people do the RIGHT thing!!!  Thanks go out to Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins and to Harry Reid who made this a stand alone, up and down vote.  Senators Gillibrand and Levin also played important roles.  It’s great to get rid of this unjust policy!!

Here’s something from The Hill on the bill itself.

The repeal measure requires the president and the secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to send a certification to Congress declaring they have considered the recommendations contained in the Pentagon Working Group report on repealing “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

They must also certify that the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement the repeal and that those policies are consistent with military standards for readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.

“Don’t ask, don’t tell,” a policy established under former President Bill Clinton, will not be repealed until 60 days after Obama submits the certification to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees.

Newer Entries →