Rights and Liberties

Protecting your rights, habeas corpus, torture, death penalty, eavesdropping, spying, no-fly lists. Comprehensive Rights & Liberties coverage available here.

Utah Lawmaker: I Don't Mind "the Gays," but "I Don’t Want ‘Em Stuffing it Down My Throat all the Time"
Posted by Zaid Jilani, Think Progress on November 20, 2009 at 2:32 PM.

Earlier this month, the Church of Latter Day Saints made headlines when it threw its support behind a measure in Salt Lake City that barred “landlords and employers from discriminating based on sexuality,” making it the first city in Utah to adopt the gay rights measure. Now, the Mormon Church is backing a similar statewide bill, enlisting the help of a variety of lawmakers to help get it passed. One such lawmaker is Sen. Chris Buttars (R), who, despite his adamant support for an earlier proposition that banned same-sex marriage, does believe that sexual orientation deserves protection from employer and landlord abuse. However, while explaining his opposition to allowing same-sex couples to adopt children, he told the press that while he doesn’t “mind” gays, he doesn’t want them “stuffing it down [his] throat all the time“:

BUTTARS: I meet with the gays here and there. They were in my house two weeks ago. I don’t mind gays. But I don’t want ‘em stuffing it down my throat all the time. Certainly not in my kid’s face.

Watch it:

In the past, Buttars has said that gay men and women are “the greatest threat to America going down.” “I believe they will destroy the foundation of the American society,” he said in February. “In my mind, it’s the beginning of the end. … Sodom and Gomorrah was localized. This is worldwide.” Last year, the NAACP called for his resignation because of his comments about a controversial bill: “This baby is black, I’ll tell you,” said Buttars. “This is a dark and ugly thing.”

Krauthammer Commits Terrorist Act on the Opinion Pages of the Washington Post
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 20, 2009 at 1:41 PM.

Perhaps we should be concerned about Charles Krauthammer. He's been awfully stressed-out since the last election, and this week's decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York has him in a bit of a state ...

For late-19th-century anarchists, terrorism was the "propaganda of the deed." And the most successful propaganda-by-deed in history was 9/11 -- not just the most destructive, but the most spectacular and telegenic.

And now its self-proclaimed architect, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, has been given by the Obama administration a civilian trial in New York. Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life -- and KSM, a second act: "9/11, The Director's Cut," narration by KSM.

Smell a bit of jealousy here? Krauthammer and Mohammed share a similar interest: instilling a profound dread of Islamic fundamentalism in the hearts of the American public -- the world public. Krauthammer's owned 9/11 for 8 years, and he'll have the final cut, not the damn director!

September 11, 2001 had to speak for itself ...

Right, the Bush bunch and all those right-wing bloggers never spoke on that day's behalf.

A decade later, the deed will be given voice. KSM has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable -- a civilian trial in the media capital of the world -- from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.

We've seen terror trials. Judges have been pretty about not allowing the defendants to use them as a megaphone to promote their worldviews.

But setting aside reality for a moment -- and you have to in order to really soak in a good Krauthammer column -- I'm going to ask you to forget about politics and consider just what in the world might KSM say at that trial that has right-wingers cowering under their beds? Do you think he could -- gasp! -- accuse the U.S. of being craven imperialists? Of supporting Israeli "genocide" against the Palestinians? Might he dare suggest that we're waging a war on Islam? That we're trying to impose our decadent values on the rest of the world? My God, do you think he could accuse us of having some sort of interest in Middle East oil?!?

If KSM were permitted to utter these shocking allegations, would they come as a surprise to anyone? Is the danger here that nobody in the Muslim world has ever heard of such outlandish ideas before? Will ordinary Muslim men and women, hearing Mohammed's suggestion that America might be the Great Satan for the first time on some Al Jazeera broadcast suddenly drop whatever they're doing and strike out against the infidels?

I mean, seriously? If you're not already predisposed to al Qaeda's message (which one assumes is widely available), would you really give what Mohammed says during testimony a lot of credence (again, in the unlikely case they let him ramble)? Is he that articulate? Are we trying the scruffy dude who says he chopped off Daniel Pearl's head or Noam Chomsky here?

Whatever the risk, for Krauthammer it's just not worth it...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

More Republicans Think Obama Stole an Election than Democrats Believe Bush Did
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on November 20, 2009 at 9:53 AM.

A new survey from PPP (PDF) shows that 26% of Americans, most of whom are Republicans, think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama.

For the sake of comparison, a Gallup poll immediately following Gore's concession in the 2000 election showed that 18% of the county, a significant percentage of whom were African-American, believed that Bush stole the election.

In 2004, the numbers for Bush were even lower.  Back then, in the wake of Kerry's concession, a Gallup poll showed only 13% of the country believed that Bush stole the election.  (FWIW, I was among the 5% or so that shifted from 2000 to 2004.)

This is simultaneously a demonstration that hard-core conservatives live in an entirely different reality than the rest of the country, and that the hardcore conservative base is as much as twice as large as the hardcore progressive base. 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Out-of-Control Rick Perry Overrides Rare Clemency Vote, Executes Man Who Killed No One
Posted by Liliana Segura, AlterNet on November 20, 2009 at 8:37 AM.

This post originally appeared in PEEK.

Rick Perry is out of control.

Even as the controversy over his execution of an innocent man goes unresolved, last night the Texas Governor rejected a rare clemency recommendation from the state Board of Pardons and Paroles for a man facing execution for a murder he did not commit.

Robert Lee Thompson was an accomplice in a violent convenience store robbery in Houston in 1996, when his co-conspirator fatally shot the sales clerk, a man named Mansoor Bhai Rahim Mohammed. Thompson himself fired shots that wounded Mohammed, but it was his partner, Sammy Butler, who pulled the trigger that would leave him dead. Butler was tried and sentenced to life. A different jury found Thompson guilty and sentenced him to death.

Thompson was sentenced under Texas's Law of Parties, a cynical legal statute that allows multiple parties to be found guilty of the same crime, even if they did not directly participate in it. Similar to other felony murder statutes, Texas's law states that "if, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it."

Under the Law of Parties, defendants can be held responsible for "failing to anticipate" that the "conspiracy" would lead to a murder.

Numerous defendants who did not kill anyone have been executed under the Law of Parties; that Perry wouldn't hesitate to sign off on Thompson's execution should comes as no surprise. But yesterday Thompson was granted a recommendation for clemency by the state's Board of Pardons and Paroles -- an extremely rare move. The Board, whose members are political appointments, has only recommended clemency two other times in recent memory.

One of these was two years ago in the case of Kenneth Foster, Jr., who also faced execution under the Law of Parties. In his case, the murder took place while he was in a car, 18 feet away. A grassroots campaign rose up to stop Foster's execution and in August 2007, Perry took the Board's recommendation and spared his life.

Yesterday, the Board voted 5 to 2 to spare Robert Lee Thompson, a "highly unusual" move in the words of the Houston Chronicle, and one described by Thompson's lawyer, as "hugely significant."

"I'm thrilled," he said, upon hearing news of the Board vote.

But in Texas, the Governor has the final say in clemency decisions. Despite the rare recommendation, Perry, who faces a close primary election next year against Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, was unmoved. Hours after the Board's vote, he released a statement saying that he saw "no reason" to spare Thompson's life.

Thompson was executed on schedule, at 6pm Texas time. According to AP reporter Michael Graczyk, "his mother cried uncontrollably, stomped her feet and finally demanded to be taken from the witness area before her son was pronounced dead at 6:19 p.m."

Statements were released by the Texas Moratorium Network on behalf of family members of death row prisoners also sentenced under the Law of Parties, including one from Terri Been, whose brother, Jeff Wood, came close to being executed in August 2008 for a murder he did not commit.

"I must say that I was surprised to hear that the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles grew a conscious and voted in favor of clemency for Robert Thompson, since they unanimously voted for the execution of my brother, Jeff Wood, who was also convicted under the law of parties despite the fact that he is factually innocent of murder," said Been. "However, I was not surprised to hear Perry didn't jump on board the clemency train as the man has no sense of true justice."  

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Mom Lets Cops Taze 10 Year-Old Daughter Who Refused to Take a Shower
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein, Majikthise on November 20, 2009 at 7:50 AM.

This story should put the annoying "bad mommy" confessional genre out of its misery. Nothing can top this. Bad mommies have officially jumped the shark:

An Arkansas mom allegedly allowed a police office to taze (link fixed) her 10-year-old daughter because the girl was having a tantrum. The girl will face disorderly conduct charges. The head of the Arkansas State Police says he isn't sure if the officer made a mistake when he shocked an unarmed child who wouldn't take a shower.

News Flash: Christians Still Not Victimized by Hate Crimes Legislation
Posted by Steven D., Booman Tribune on November 19, 2009 at 6:38 AM.

There is a group which has seen a 25% rise in hate crimes against them in Florida, 17% which involve violent physical assaults. This might surprise some of my counterparts on the Right, but the group which is incurring these vicious attacks is not the one they would suspect.

That's right, violent hate crimes against white Christians are not increasing despite the election of that Kenyan Born Muslim loving Barack Husein Obama. I know it's hard to believe considering all the angst expressed on right wing talk shows about how Christians are under attack and are being victimized and terrorized by Obama, Atheists, Secularists, Democrats and Gays, but its true, nonetheless.

Let me ask all those concerned Republicans and Conservative Christians who are so afraid/whiny/have their undies in a twist over their alleged claim that that the recent hate crimes legislation protecting gays was directed against them (despite the fact that all people of religious faith have been a protected class under hate crime legislation since the first such laws were written years ago.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Oklahoma Lawmaker Considering Bill To Opt Out Of Hate Crimes Act
Posted by Alex Seitz-Wald, Think Progress on November 19, 2009 at 3:12 AM.

A common right-wing objection to federal health care legislation is that it's unconstitutional. So-called "tenthers" argue that the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution never explicitly gives the federal government the right to regulate health care, leaving that power exclusively in the hands of the states. To that end, officials in various states have raised the possibility of passing legislation to exempt their residents from federal health care reform if it passes.

Oklahoma state Sen. Steve Russell (R) is proposing to use the same argument and tactic to try to exempt his state from the recently-passed Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act — which extends hate crimes protections to gays and lesbians — because he claims it infringes on freedom of speech:

Russell said because the government has decided to intervene on issues of morality, he is worried that religious leaders who speak out against any lifestyle could be imprisoned for their speech.

"The law is very vague to begin with," Russell said. "Sexual orientation is a very vague word that could be extended to extremes like necrophilia." [...]

Russell said Oklahoma can opt out of the law on the basis of the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"The bill gives the federal government power that was not given to them in the Constitution," Russell said. "I am aware of the supremacy of the federal government over state governments, but the federal requirements are vague enough for us to make actions. We just have to be very careful on how we proceed."

Hate crime protections have been on the books since 1969, but Russell seems to object to only those which protect gays and lesbians. Moreover, Russell and the other tenthers have flimsly legal basis for their claims. The Constitution gives Congress broad power to "provide for the common defense and general welfare," but as Ian Millhiser noted, tenthers "insist that these words don't actually mean what they say." The right-wing fringe believes landmark federal programs such as Medicare, Social Security, the federal highway system, and rules regulating airplane safety are unconstitutional.

Other right wingers have echoed Russell's concern about the new hate crimes bill: Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said on the House floor that the measure would lead to Nazism and the legalization of pedophilia and necrophilia. But as Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) said, "Nothing in this legislation diminishes an American's freedom of religion, freedom of speech or press or the freedom to assemble," because the law "targets acts, not speech." These acts need to be targeted. In 2007 — the most recent year for which data is available — 16.6 percent of all hate crimes reported reported to the FBI "resulted from sexual-orientation bias."

Senate Leader Announces Health-Care Bill
Posted by Adele Stan on November 18, 2009 at 4:12 PM.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that his Democratic caucus was ready to begin debate on a health-care bill that will be made public later this evening.

Reid told reporters that the bill contains a public option with an opt-out provisions whereby state legislatures could deny citizens participation in the plan.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will cost $849 billion.

Reid made his announcement this evening surrounded by a group of senators, including Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who wrote the health-care legislation that came out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that was chaired by the late Ted Kennedy, for whom health-care reform was a life-long goal. Other senators, all Democrats, around the podium included Sen. Patty Murray, Wash.; Al Franken, Minn.; Chuck Schumer, N.Y.; Debbie Stabenow, Mich., and Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin, Ill.

Absent from the scene were the Senate's most ardent pro-choice women senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California. Also absent was Sen. Jay Rockefeller, W.V., who opposed the Senate Finance Committee bill for its lack of a public option -- a situation Reid has attempted to remedy with this opt-out provision. Rockefeller is regarded as the Senate's health-care scholar.

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Mont., was notably absent, as well, though for family reasons. Dodd said that Baucus' mother was ill, and that accounted for his absence. The bill that Reid announced today melds Dodd's HELP Committee bill with the one crafted by Baucus' committee.

Reid promised that the bill would be available to the public online later this evening.

C-SPAN has the video here of Reid's press announcement.

Stupak Amendment Could End Abortion Coverage -- For Everyone
Posted by Daniela Perdomo, AlterNet on November 18, 2009 at 12:00 AM.

A little over a week ago, Democrats bent over backwards to appease conservatives in the House by adding the Stupak-Pitt amendment to the health care bill. The amendment imperils access to abortion -- a reproductive freedom affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1973 -- by making it illegal for women to use government insurance plans to cover costs associated with an abortion. 

And there is more bad news for women: a George Washington University study released this week indicates that the Stupak amendment could have serious implications for industry-wide coverage of medically-indicated abortions.

But if the GWU study is correct, the Stupak amendment would not simply affect women under the public insurance option -- it would affect women covered by private insurance plans, too:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Priceless: Gay Rights Activists Take Over Christian Right Hate-Fest in DC
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 17, 2009 at 12:00 PM.

I guess Dana Milbank just worships power and delights in picking on the marginalized. So while I've grown to detest him for years of snarky columns cherry-picking little vignettes to make progressives -- environmentalists, anti-war activists, human rights experts -- look like hopeless geeks who should be ignored when the GOP was in power, now that the Democrats are riding high he seems to be focusing that admittedly sharp pen on tea-baggers and the religious right -- the GOP's immoderate base.

Today he tells an interesting story that could have been titled: Reverend Smith Goes to Washington ...

Conservative Christian ministers from across the land, determined to test the bounds of a new law punishing anti-gay hate crimes, assembled outside the Justice Department on Monday to denounce the sin of homosexuality and see whether they would be charged with lawbreaking.

Needless to say, no arrests were made.

No hands were cuffed. In fact, the few cops in attendance were paying no attention to the speakers, instead talking among themselves and checking their BlackBerrys.

The evangelical activists had been hoping to provoke arrest, because, as organizer Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission put it, "we'd have standing to challenge the law." But their prayers were not answered. Nobody was arrested, which wasn't surprising: To run afoul of the new law, you need to "plan or prepare for an act of physical violence" or "incite an imminent act of physical violence."

But there was some drama ...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Free Market Vultures Are Snatching Away the Livelihoods of Minorities in the Inner City
Posted by Allison Kilkenny, True/Slant on November 17, 2009 at 9:31 AM.

You would think during a time of vast unemployment, wealth disparity, and economic instability that great minds would unite in order to imagine and build a new tomorrow in which the suffering of the masses could be lessened. Of course, that fantasy includes the provision that The Smartest Guys In The Room are also The Most Moral Guys In The Room, which is rarely the case.

Enter T.A. Frank, a New America Foundation think tank lackey, who believes the solution to horrific living conditions in the ghetto is to privatize Section 8 housing and ship black people out to the subprime suburbs.

This is a bad idea for obvious reasons laid out in The Exile by Yasha Levine. First, the area where Frank wants to ship poor black people isn’t that great, according to Levine.

My adopted home of Victorville, California, a McTractHome paradise on the edge of the Mojave Desert 100 miles east of LA, has a buttload of crime, non-existent employment options, racial isolation and a gestapo police presence—just like the real ghetto.

If men like Frank were truly acting in the spirit of altruism, wouldn’t they want to improve the preexisting communities of poor black people, say, by increasing police presence, creating job programs, fostering small businesses, and rebuilding public schools? Frank’s idea to “help” poor people is the same strategy negligent pet owners employ when they want to get rid of an unwanted dog. Drive to the city limits and dump the mutt in the woods. Then drive away as quickly as possible.

Second, unless the government is also willing to supply cars for this newly created diaspora, I have no idea how these people are supposed to get around. L.A. isn’t exactly known for its wonderful public transportation, so I doubt there is an efficient bus fleet. Of course, these are all minor details. The main goal is to get the black, poor people the hell out of the way so that Frank and Associates can get their fingers on that prime real estate. As for the black people, it’s like Levine says:

Outta sight, outta mind.

That’s the best kind of charity!

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

No Logo, Ten Years Later
Posted by Naomi Klein, Huffington Post on November 17, 2009 at 6:00 AM.

Almost ten years ago, on November 30, 1999, tens of thousands of protestors shut down a meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle. The activists were not against trade or globalization, despite the many misleading claims in the mainstream media. They were against a system of deregulated capitalism that was spreading around the world.

At the time of the Seattle protests, my first book, No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies, was at the printer. The book looked at the war being waged on public space by a new breed of corporate "superbrands," as well as the first signs of a fight back against corporate power. It was good timing for an author-activist: I had the rare privilege of watching my book become useful to a movement I believed could change the world.

On the ten-year anniversary of the Seattle protests, with anger mounting at the open collusion between corporations and governments, I am re-releasing No Logo with an extended new introduction. Among other developments, the new essay looks at the unprecedented bailout of Wall Street, as well as the rise of the Obama Brand (the most powerful brand in the world) and examines the troubling gaps between its marketing and reality.

As the new edition comes out, it feels like a "movement moment" once again. A new wave of exciting climate justice activism is underway in the lead up to the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, one that builds on many of the networks born in Seattle. As I wrote in a recent article in Rolling Stone, now that a serious deal is off the table, many activists see Copenhagen as "a chance to seize the political terrain back from business-friendly half-measures, such as carbon offsets and emissions trading, and introduce some effective, common-sense proposals -- ideas that have less to do with creating complex new markets for pollution and more to do with keeping coal and oil in the ground."

One of our movement's challenges back in 1999 was that, in the midst of the euphoria of the dot-com boom, few were interested in hearing about the downside of capitalism. Ten years later, perhaps our movement's time has come.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama Considers Illinois Prison for Guantanamo Detainees
Posted by Maya Schenwar, TruthOut.org on November 16, 2009 at 11:30 AM.

The Obama administration is eyeing a practically vacant prison in western Illinois to house terrorism suspects transferred from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, following its closure.

Top Democrats, including Illinois Gov. Patrick Quinn and Sen. Dick Durbin, have announced their support for the plan, calling it an economic boon for the area, according to The Chicago Tribune.

Quinn called the prospect a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" for Illinois during a fly-around tour on Sunday.

The prison under consideration, a maximum-security facility in rural Thomson, Ill., could house 1,600 prisoners.

Bureau of Prisons official will visit Thomson this week.

Prominent Illinois Republicans have voiced vehement opposition to the Thomson proposal. Rep. Don Manzullo, who represents the district that includes Thomson, expressed strong reservations, though he admitted the economic advantages of the plan.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

What Will Happen to Guantanamo's "Child Soldier," Omar Khadr?
Posted by Suzanne Ito, Blog of Rights on November 16, 2009 at 9:30 AM.

With [Friday's] announcement that the Justice Department will move five of the men accused of 9/11 crimes to federal court in New York, the question still remains about one of the other high-profile detainees: Omar Khadr.

The world knows Khadr as one of the child soldiers detained at Gitmo since he was 15. (The other child soldier, Mohammed Jawad, was released back to Afghanistan after the government failed to produce enough credible evidence to bring charges against him.) Khadr is accused of throwing a grenade that killed an Army medic in Afghanistan, a charge that the U.S. government itself later threw into question by accident during one of his pre-trial hearings:

During a break in the hearing, members of the press were given copies of legal motions on the issue of whether the military commission has the authority to try Khadr, given his status as a juvenile at the time of his alleged offenses. Included in those papers was a classified attachment, which, according to military commissions officials, should have been redacted, instead of released.

The significance of the document was made clear by Khadr's military defense counsel, Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler. Asked to describe it later in the day, Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler said it dispelled what he referred to as a myth propagated by the government: that Khadr was the only person who could have lobbed the grenade that killed U.S. soldier Christopher Speer -- the basis of the most serious charge against him. The document, created in 2004, turned out to be an interview of a witness to Khadr's capture. In it, the witness describes finding two people alive in the Afghan compound in which Khadr was captured -- the witness shot and killed the first man before he saw Khadr. Then, according to Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler, Khadr, who was 15 years old at the time, "was shot on sight -- in the back -- twice -- while wounded, sitting and leaning against a wall facing away from his attackers." (emphasis ours)

Earlier [Friday], the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in an appeal by the Canadian government on two lower court decisions that found Khadr's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been breached when Canadian officials interviewed him at the prison in Guantánamo in 2003 and shared the resulting information with U.S. authorities. Khadr's lawyers argued that Canada was complicit in his abuse and maintain that the Canadian government is obliged under international law to demand the prisoner's return. Since Khadr was only addressed in passing at Attorney General Eric Holder's news conference this morning, Canadian news outlets are reporting the possibility that Khadr could still be repatriated to Canada and tried in a Canadian court.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Christian Bootcamp Seeks to Arm Home-Schooled Youths for "Spiritual Warfare"
Posted by Eleanor Bader, RH Reality Check on November 16, 2009 at 8:40 AM.

Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas, Assistant Director of Operation Save America, is worried. According to studies by the Barna Research Group, California pollsters specializing in tracking religious and spiritual attitudes, only nine percent of teenaged Christians believe in moral absolutes. What’s more, Barna reports that the vast majority of kids raised Christian will abandon all or part of their faith by the time they finish high school. "Assembly of God leaders estimate between 65 and 70 percent will depart, while the Southern Baptist Council on Family Life estimates roughly 88 percent will leave," Thomas writes.

To remedy this, Thomas' Elijah Ministries has started the Kingdom Leadership Institute, a weeklong ideological boot camp for home-schooled Christians between the ages of 14 and 21. His recently released book, The Kingdom Leadership Institute Manual, is a roadmap for their training and a fascinating -- if twisted -- look at the concerns of far right evangelicals, complete with a game plan for action.

There's no pussy-footing in Thomas' screed. For him the battle between God and Satan is at hand, pitting True Believers against Sinners. Common ground? Impossible since there are only two sides, one resulting in heavenly salvation and the other ending with the earth’s destruction.

"Life is not a playground," he rails. "It is a war zone -- a clash of ideas, philosophies, values, and worldviews. It demands leaders who do not shrink back in [sic] the day of battle." He calls it "spiritual warfare" and repeatedly summons images straight out of the Middle Ages, with gallant Knights protecting grateful maidens, and courtliness trumping gender equity.

Contemporary equals bad, he rants. "During Colonial times, children would be up at four in the morning to help with chores; spoke only when spoken to by an adult; and by the age of seven or eight, boys had chosen their craft or trade and were ready to become apprentices. What a contrast compared to the unruliness, laziness, and lack of direction that characterizes many in this generation."  One can only wonder about the regimen imposed on the good reverend’s 13 children and two grandchildren.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Kingdom Leadership Institute Manual. "It is a war zone."&topic=politics">

Will Immigration Foes Keep Families of Foreign-Born U.S. Armed Service Members from Getting Papers?
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 15, 2009 at 11:50 AM.

Conservatives are facing a tough issue with the Military Families Act. The bill, introduced by Senate Dems, would allow the immediate family of foreign-born, active-duty members of the armed forces to apply for permanent resident status, "even" if the service member was killed in the line of duty. (It seems bizarre to say "even" if he or she was killed given that the greatest sacrifice a person can make for one's country is to give one's life for it, and, philosophically speaking, you'd think their families would have a greater claim to a green card than anyone else.)

According to The Hill:

A report released this month by the Immigration Policy Council cites a high, continuing need for immigrants in the U.S. military, not only for basic recruitment needs but also for translators and interpreters.

As of June 30, the report notes there are 114,601 foreign-born individuals serving in the armed forces, or almost 8 percent of the 1.4 million total military personnel on active duty. In the current fiscal year, the report notes more than 10,500 military service members were granted U.S. residency.

So far, no Republican has signed onto this or previous bills that would grease the wheels for military families. And if you expected that their base might be flexible, or at least pragmatic, on this issue because of the context: these aren't people who snuck across a border in the middle of the night -- we're talking about extending legal status to the kin of active service members in the midst of two occupations and at a time when our armed forces are stretched thin and suffering from the strain of repeated deployments.

But compromise does not a hard-liner make, regardless of the issue in question. Predictably, F.A.I.R., the hard-line anti-immigrant group, calls the measure "military amnesty "; Numbers USA warns of the uncontrollable "chain migration" that would result from its passage (the two groups are connected).

G. Gordon Liddy "Convinced" Obama is a Muslim
Posted by Matt Corley, Think Progress on November 15, 2009 at 7:51 AM.

On his radio show today, G. Gordon Liddy hosted former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer to discuss his Human Events column on the Fort Hood massacre, in which Bauer — echoing his close personal friend Bill Kristol — declared that “[p]olitical correctness has been radical Islam’s greatest asset in its war against America. Let’s execute it.” “Accommodation of Islam pervades our schools,” added Bauer in his column.

In the beginning of their discussion, Liddy said that political correctness towards Islam “precedes the Obama administration” because President Bush proclaimed that “Islam is a religion of peace.” “You know that’s just not true,” said Liddy. Later in the conversation, after Bauer complained that Obama’s Homeland Security adviser John Brennan would lead the investigation into what the U.S. intelligence community knew about Nidal Malik Hasan before his attack, Liddy announced his belief that President Obama “is a Muslim”:

LIDDY: I’m convinced that despite his protestations to the contrary, that Barack Obama is a Muslim. I don’t believe that he’s a Christian at all. I believe he’s a Muslim.

BAUER: Well, you know the church that he famously or infamously attended was, was odd in many ways. Not only the rantings of its pastor, the clear racist rantings of its pastor, which the President chose to listen to year after year with his family and his children. You know something that still in my view has never been adequately explained. But it was also a church that had some real strange ideas about Islam and Christianity. I’ve seen a number of suggestions that there were many people in the congregation that considered themselves both Christian and Muslim. Something that I’m sure both real Christians and real Muslims would deny is possible.

Not only did Bauer not disagree with Liddy’s claim that Obama is lying about his Christianity, he went on to praise Liddy’s contribution to America’s political debate. “You do an outstanding job on your show bringing people the information they need,” said Bauer. “I commend you for the good work you do every day.” Listen to it here:

It’s not surprising that Liddy would hold such a fringe view. After all, he is a prominent birther who thinks that Obama is an “illegal alien.” Bauer, on the other hand, has previously written that he doesn’t want to “question the sincerity of Obama’s faith.” But in playing along with Liddy, that’s exactly what he has done.

Hypocrisy Watch: RNC Insurance Plan Has Covered Abortions for 18 Years
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 13, 2009 at 5:17 PM.

RNC SUBSIDIZES ABORTIONS FOR 18 YEARS -- AND COUNTING.... The debate over financing of abortions -- the basis for the offensive Stupak amendment -- is all about money being fungible. Amy Sullivan explained the problem nicely recently: "The problem, they say, is that if any insurance plan that covers abortion is allowed to participate in a public exchange, then premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars."

But applying this argument can prove problematic. Focus on the Family, for example, one of the nation's largest religious right organizations and a fierce opponent of abortion rights, has health insurance for its employees through a company that covers "abortion services." The far-right outfit, by its own standards, indirectly subsidizes abortions.

Apparently, the Republican National Committee has the same problem. Politico reported yesterday afternoon that the RNC -- whose platform calls abortion "a fundamental assault on innocent human life" -- gets insurance through Cigna with a plan that covers elective abortion.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Politico Trivializes Rape by Gov Contractors, Spins Franken Amendment as Partisan Attack (Obsenity-Laden Rant Alert)
Posted by Thers, Whiskey Fire on November 13, 2009 at 2:53 PM.

Here is why I dislike the American Political Insider Press, and by "dislike," I mean, "want to toss into a vat of shark-infested sulfuric acid." It is because of this class of thing from The Politico.

When Al Franken ran for the Senate last year, the former “Saturday Night Live” star had to reassure skeptics that the fierce partisan attacks he lobbed at Republicans as an author and radio host wouldn’t define his style as a legislator. 

But because of one of his first pieces of legislation, Democrats now have their most brazen attack line of the emerging 2010 campaign season: that Republicans are insensitive to rape victims. 

The charge stems from a Franken-sponsored amendment that would prohibit the Department of Defense from contracting with companies that require employees to resolve workplace complaints — including complaints of sexual assault — through private arbitration rather than the courts. 

Only in the god-blighted shitworld of the horrible fuckassed American Political Insider Press is it possible to even fucking think for a motherfucking minute that it's Playing with Partisan Dynamite to argue that the American government should not negotiate expensive contracts with companies that shield rapists. What the fuck? What the motherfucking fuck?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

9/11 Suspect to be Tried in NY... and Right-Wingers Got Grievances
Posted by Brad Reed, Sadly, No! on November 13, 2009 at 10:33 AM.

Via John Cole, here’s a Red State Action Alert:

Today Barack Obama is going to announce that the terrorist mastermind of September 11th, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be sent to New York City for a criminal trial in a civilian court.

In that trial, the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an American citizen in a criminal trial, including the right to a fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to review all the evidence against him, potentially including classified intelligence matters, the right to exclude evidence against him including, potentially, any confession obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.

So yes, the basic gist is that they’re outraged that we won’t be allowed to use evidence obtained through torture at Mohammed’s trial. This is standard wingnut fare. But wait! We’ve got more:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

In Obama Era, Neo-Nazis Becoming More Visible
Posted by David Neiwert, Orcinus on November 13, 2009 at 7:41 AM.

James Verini at the Daily Beast notices something we've been tracking here at Orcinus too: Neo-Nazis and far-right extremists are not only recruiting more openly, they're being much more public in their full-on expressions of racism, nativism, and xenophobia. Unlike David Duke, these characters aren't even trying to hide it:

A year after President Obama's election, hate groups are feeling bolder than they have in over a decade, and their usually insular anger is beginning to spill into the public realm. This weekend, the National Socialist Movement, a neo-Nazi organization, held rallies in Arizona and Minnesota. Those demonstrations came on the heels of similar actions in Southern California, where epithet-spewing white supremacists were forced to disband by rock-throwing counter-protesters. The upsurge in visibility is more than anecdotal—law-enforcement officials are monitoring levels of agitation among extremist groups that they say are the highest since Timothy McVeigh’s deadly attack in Oklahoma City nearly 15 years ago.

The outcries of right-wing tea-partiers, death panellers, birthers, and the like are accompanied by increased activity all along the paranoid fringe.

“It’s sort of a beehive now,” says James Cavanaugh, a special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Cavanaugh was one of the agents at the standoff at David Koresh’s Waco, Texas, compound in 1993 (which McVeigh timed his terrorist act to commemorate, two years later, on April 19, 1995). Last October in Tennessee, Cavanaugh aided in the arrest of two white supremacists charged with plotting to assassinate Obama, and in 2007 he helped bring down members of the Alabama Free Militia, who were found with hundreds of hand- and rifle grenades and other explosives. The arrests had an unsettling familiarity. “We haven’t had that kind of activity since the 1990s,” Cavanaugh says.

“We believe there is a real resurgence,” adds Lieutenant David Hall, director of the Missouri Information Analysis Center, which tracks antigovernment extremist groups around the Midwest. “The atmosphere is ripe.”

That was obvious to anyone who was in downtown Phoenix, Arizona, this past weekend:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Cold-Hearted: Conservative Gov Blocks Same-Sex Partners from Making Funeral Arrangements for Loved Ones in RI
Posted by PZ Myers, Pharyngula on November 13, 2009 at 5:11 AM.

Sometimes I find it hard to believe how callous these conservative politicians can be. The governor of Rhode Island has just vetoed a bill that would have allowed a same-sex partner to make funeral arrangements for a dead partner. So imagine this: someone wracked with grief at the loss of someone to whom they had committed a substantial part of their life now gets to also be told that they are locked out of the responsibility of taking care of anything to do with the funeral ceremony. How degrading and insensitive; how vile and intrusive.

Shame on Governor Carcieri. It takes a real man to kick the heart-broken and bereaved at the moment of their deepest hurt, and Carcieri has arranged to do it over and over again for years to come.

Catholic Church Threatens to Stop Taking DC's Money if Officials Don't Bow to its Demands on Same-Sex Marriage
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on November 12, 2009 at 5:44 PM.

God is love, bitchez:

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care. 

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

Just so we're all on the same page, the Catholic Church doesn't want to extend partner benefits to same-sex married couples, because they view homosexuality as a sin. The Catholic Church also believes that all of its employees are sinners, by virtue of its doctrine viewing all humans as sinners. But they're not arguing that they shouldn't be compelled to extend benefits to those sinners, nor would they argue that providing healthcare coverage to people whose bad health habits they regard as sinful (gluttony! sloth! lust!) is a tacit endorsement of those sins. It's a special argument reserved especially just for the very special case of gay people and their specialized sin.

Catholic Charities, the church's social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington's homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

"All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language remains so narrow," Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, wrote to the council this week.

Ah, it reminds me of those lovely words spoken by the Savior during his Sermon on the Mount: "And lo I beseech you to fuck over the homeless if the gays get too uppity."

Councilperson David Catania, who sponsored DC's same-sex marriage bill and chairs the Health Committee, sniffed at the church's threat: "They don't represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure." Councilperson Mary Cheh was even less generous, saying the church's behavior was "somewhat childish."

Transgender Asylum-Seeker Caught in Immigration Detention Hell
Posted by Staff, RestoreFairness.org on November 12, 2009 at 3:18 PM.

Courage comes in many different forms. For Esmeralda a transgender asylum seeker from Mexico who faced horrific circumstances in immigration detention, it came in the form of seeking justice. Kept in a segregated cell with other transgender detainees, Esmeralda never realized that her experience in detention would match the trauma of discrimination she had faced back home. But her story is also one of hope for change.

Esmeralda: A Transgender Detainee Speaks Out from Breakthrough on Vimeo.

While the Obama administration has pledged to reform the detention system, its promises do not go far enough. Spread over a patchwork of more than 500 county jails, privately run prisons and federal facilities, immigration detention is a $1.8 billion business estimated to hold 442,941 detainees in custody in 2009 alone.

Transferred far away from their homes and families, stories are rife of how detainees are denied visitation, access to lawyers, medical care, and are subject to physical and verbal abuse. Many vulnerable people, including asylum seekers, pregnant women, children, lawful permanent residents and even U.S. citizens are among those detained.

Listen to Esmeralda’s voice of courage and take action now to fix a broken detention system.

Hey, I've Got a "Moral Objection" to Health Insurance Covering Viagra
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on November 12, 2009 at 2:00 PM.

I have a moral objection to paying for any kind of erectile dysfunction medicine in the new health reform bill and I think men who want to use it should just pay for it out of pocket. After all, I won't ever need such a pill. And anyway, it's no biggie. Just because most of them can get it under their insurance today doesn't mean they shouldn't have it stripped from their coverage in the future because of my moral objections. (I don't think there's even been a Supreme Court ruling making wood a constitutional right. I might be wrong about that.)

Many of the men who are prescribed this medication are on Medicare, so I think it should be stripped out of that coverage as well.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Right Swoons Over Bush's Widely Publicized "Unpublicized" Visit to Fort Hood
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM.

There's some buzz in the right-wing blogosphere in response to this post on a PUMA blog (yes, PUMA blogs are still around) and this one by Jerusalem Post columnist and editor Caroline Glick, both praising George W. Bush for his "unpublicized" trip last week to see wounded Fort Hood soldiers.

An excerpt from Glick's post:

Missing George W. Bush

A couple of days ago I heard the news that George and Laura Bush paid a private visit to the wounded soldiers at Fort Hood. They specifically requested that the base commander not inform the media of their visit. They came. They comforted the wounded soldiers and the Fort Hood community for a couple of hours. And then they left. And they never had their pictures taken saluting the troops or holding their hands.

When I heard the news, I felt this pain that hasn't gone away. It's a pain that I have been feeling fairly often since last November....

When I heard the news, I was struck by the fact that I heard the news. Isn't it odd how fast word of this "private" visit got around -- on Fox News the next morning, and ultimately all over the media? Darn that base commander, or whoever it was, who informed the press of the visit even though Bush specifically requested that it not be publicized!

A cynic, of course, would say that there's an effort in Bushworld to sell him as a guy who not only visits troops but shuns any publicity for those visits -- and what do you know, there was a story publicizing Bush's aversion to publicity in the Bush-friendly Washington Times last December, just about when Bushies were devoting considerable energy to making the case in the media for his "legacy":

EXCLUSIVE: Bush, Cheney comforted troops privately

For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have waged a clandestine operation inside the White House. It has involved thousands of military personnel, private presidential letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or sometimes left the news media in the dark.

Their mission: to comfort the families of soldiers who died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and to lift the spirits of those wounded in the service of their country....

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

ACORN Suing U.S. Gov Over Defunding Law Pushed by GOP
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 12, 2009 at 9:51 AM.

Remember that whole 'separation of powers' dealio? Congress writes the laws, and the courts punish those who break 'em. Neat system; worked OK so far.

If Congress passes a law punishing someone for doing something it thinks wrong, it's usurping the role of the courts, and the Constitution frowns on it! Legislators aren't empowered to punish wrong-doers, both because the "Founders" appreciated the value of a good trial and because they understood that politicians are often motivated by considerations other than the rule of law (shocking, I know!).

So they prohibited the passage of "bills of attainder" -- laws singling out specific groups or individuals for retribution. Which is double-plus good today, when our Congress includes frothing-mad right-wingers shouldering massive grievances and not a few members who are dumb-as-the-proverbial-box-of-rocks.

Speaking of which, you'll recall that the GOP pushed hard back in September to pass a bill that prohibited any federal funding from going to ACORN, the right-wing bogeyman-of-the-day [correction: the bill passed in the House but is still in committee on the senate side). Perhaps sensitive to the Constitutional issue, they wrote the law so broadly that it could apply to just about any contractor, and some suggested at the time that in theory it could, if applied consistently, lead to the entire military-industrial-complex being "defunded." Proponents said it passed Constitutional muster because it applied to everyone.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Is It Cruel and Unusual to Sentence Teens to Die In Prison?
Posted by Liliana Segura, AlterNet on November 9, 2009 at 11:50 AM.

Editor's Note: This is an excerpt of a longer article on juvenile life without parole.

Sara Kruzan was 11 years old, a middle school student from Riverside, Calif., when she met a man -- he called himself GG -- who was almost three times her age. GG took her under his wing; he would buy her gifts, take her and her friends rollerskating. "He was like a father figure," she recalls.

Despite suffering severe bouts of depression as a child, until then, Kruzan was a good student, an "overachiever" in her words. But her mother was abusive and addicted to drugs; as for her father, she had only met him a couple of times. So, more and more, GG filled in.

"GG was there -- sometimes," she said. "He would talk to me and take me out and give me all these lavish gifts and do all these things for me …" Before long, he started talking to her about sex, giving her his expert advice on what men were really like and telling her that she didn't "need to give it up for free."

Unbeknownst to her, GG was grooming Kruzan to be a prostitute. When she was 13, he raped her. "He uses his manhood to hurt," Kruzan recalls, "Like, break you in. I guess."

Kruzan worked for GG as a prostitute for three years. The hours were 6 p.m. until 5:30 or 6 in the morning. She and "the other girls" would come back and hand over their earnings to him. "He was, like, married to all of us I guess," she says. " … Everything was his."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Students Who Exposed 30-Year-Old Wrongful Conviction Being Targeted By Chicago DA
Posted by Ari Berman, The Nation on November 9, 2009 at 6:00 AM.

There's a very important editorial in The Nation this week that I hope everyone will take the time to read. It's about the wrongful conviction of Anthony McKinney, who's been in prison for thirty-one years for a murder he did not commit. I'm posting the relevant portions below. 

On the evening of September 15, 1978, a white security guard named Donald Lundahl was murdered in a robbery gone awry in a racially fraught southern suburb of Chicago. Police fingered Anthony McKinney, an 18-year-old African-American with no criminal record, as the killer. The prosecution sought death by lethal injection; the judge sentenced McKinney to life in prison.

McKinney has long maintained his innocence. Based on newly uncovered evidence, there's strong reason to believe that he has spent thirty-one years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

...In 2000 the Land of Lincoln's Republican governor, George Ryan, issued a moratorium on the death penalty, and in 2003 he granted clemency to all death-row inmates. Ryan announced his decision at Northwestern University, citing the work of Northwestern journalism professor David Protess and his students at the Medill School of Journalism, who had uncovered evidence that helped free five wrongly convicted men from death row.

In 2003 Protess and his students began examining McKinney's case. Over three years of painstaking reporting, they unearthed startling new evidence: the prosecution's two main witnesses, 15 and 18 at the time of the trial, recanted their testimony during interviews with the students, claiming they were beaten by the police and intimidated into doctoring the facts; McKinney alleged that he was beaten with a pipe by a detective with a history of police brutality before signing a sham confession; TV logs proved that both witnesses were watching a boxing match at the time of the shooting and thus could not have seen the murder; an ex-gang member, Anthony Drake, confessed on tape to being at the murder scene, named two perpetrators and said McKinney was not involved; current and former residents of the neighborhood confirmed they heard Drake and two other suspects confess to Lundahl's murder.

In 2006 the Medill Innocence Project turned over its findings to the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern's law school. The center shared the evidence with the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, which began an internal investigation the following year. After more than a year of delay by the state, the center filed a postconviction petition on behalf of McKinney in October 2008, calling for a new trial or his immediate release. Following her election that November as Cook County State's Attorney, hardline career prosecutor Anita Alvarez fought the discovery of new evidence, and in May she issued a sweeping, unprecedented subpoena ordering Protess to hand over all material related to the McKinney case--including students' private memos and grades. Alvarez insultingly suggested that students might receive better grades for uncovering exculpatory evidence and claimed that Protess and his students were "investigators," not journalists, and thus not subject to the Illinois shield law...Apparently Alvarez has never heard of investigative journalism.

...The state's subpoena, wielded to stall justice and intimidate those who seek it, sets a terrible precedent. Lawyer Barry Scheck says that in his seventeen years at the Innocence Project in New York, he's never seen a subpoena of this nature directed at journalists or lawyers. Concludes Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University, "It creates an enormous chilling effect that's positively glacial."

Judge Cannon will soon rule on the validity of the state's subpoena. We urge her to throw it out and order a prompt evidentiary hearing. The kind of difficult reporting undertaken by the Medill Innocence Project should be celebrated, not undermined. It's shocking that the state would rather keep an innocent man behind bars than admit a mistake.

Nine groups of student journalists from Medill have interviewed McKinney in prison. By their accounts, he's a fragile and gentle man who's battled severe depression during three decades of wrongful incarceration. "If the state had gotten its way," Protess notes, "he would have been executed long ago."

I was one of those students. I took Protess's class in the spring of 2004 and worked on McKinney's case. The experience became the highlight of my time at Medill. My team and I were just twenty-one and twenty-two at the time, thrust into unfamiliar environs on the South Side of Chicago and elsewhere, trying to ferret out the facts of a murder that occurred before any of us were born. David's class, more than any other, taught me how to be a reporter, how to make make difficult decisions in a quick and decisive manner and how to always strive for justice and empathy in my work. (CNN anchor and McKinney alum Nicole Lapin has also posted a great piece about her own experiences.)

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Ugly Politics of Mass Killings
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 7, 2009 at 2:13 PM.

FUNNY THING ABOUT RIGHT WINGERS

So far, I haven't heard anyone on the right saying that the authorities shouldn't charge Malik Nidal Hassan with a hate crime because doing so would be a totalitarian, Orwellian criminalization of a thoughtcrime. But surely they'll want to make that point firmly and decisively in the days to come ... right?

****

And I'm confused. Right-wingers (NewsBusters in particular) have told us for years that the "liberal media" doesn't like to acknowledge certain demographic information about certain suspects in horrible crimes ... but right now CNN is prominently highlighting a convenience-store surveillance video showing Hasan in a traditional Middle Eastern robe and skullcap (the story is headlined "Fort Hood Suspect Seemed 'Cool, Calm, Religious'"), while the front pages of Talking Points Memo and the Huffington Post prominently feature stories that claim Nidal shouted "Allahu akbar!" before shooting (a claim made by Fort Hood's commanding officer in an interview on the allegedly arch-liberal NBC). How can this be? Where's the liberal cover-up? And if there's no cover-up, gosh, why isn't NewsBusters heaping these news outlets with praise?

(The same right-wingers, of course, went to great pains to make the case that James von Brunn, the man charged with shooting up the Holocaust Museum, was a liberal. But our side, naturally, is the guilty side.)

(VIDEO) More Torture by Taser: Cops Zap Man Offering No Resistance
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on November 7, 2009 at 12:00 AM.

Police officers commonly say that tasers are needed to get people under control for their own and everyone else's safety. And they insist they they don't use it as a form of punishment.

Right-Bloggers React to Fort Hood Exactly as Expected
Posted by Roy Edroso, Alicublog on November 6, 2009 at 10:26 AM.

FIGHTIN' KEYBOARDERS CALLED BACK INTO ACTION. We'll probably be reading a lot of idiotic stuff about Fort Hood, but it'll be hard to top this from Robert Stacy McCain:

The people who want to kill you are not Tea Party protesters or accountants from Saranac Lake, N.Y. They're not Kentucky populists or Belgian radicals. 

Anyone who wants to distract you from real dangers by telling you to fear this week's pet bogeyman -- global warming! creationists! Ron Paul! -- is not your friend. They are fools and liars who cannot be trusted. They are objectively evil.

The only through-line I can detect in this incoherent gush is this: Liberals are trying to distract you so their friend the Arab terrorist can kill you. So don't shit your pants like they want you to -- shit your pants like Robert Stacy McCain wants you to!

There are other contenders. For example, there's Linda Chavez at Commentary, who attempts to portray President Obama's delivery of planned remarks to a Native American affairs conference before announcing the Fort Hood situation as the equivalent of "President Bush’s 'Pet Goat' moment on 9/11." First of all, Obama was, in the face of crisis, taking care of business rather than, as our last President did, shitting his pants; second, how refreshing to hear a conservative acknowledge there was something weird about "President Bush’s 'Pet Goat' moment on 9/11."

There will be plenty of small-time nutcakes making fools of themselves (like Mad Americans Club, which raves "Obama wants to honor these type of actions with a United States Stamp! USPS New 44-Cent Stamp!!! Celebrates Muslim holiday," apparently referring to this), but the more well-known and respectable rightbloggers are soiling themselves as badly as any of those.

The reason's simple, and the same as it was during 9/11: they think soiling oneself is a sign of patriotism, and consider those who pants are not full of shit to be traitors.

Who's Been Held Accountable for the Crimes of Bush's "War on Terror"? Four Italians ... Sort of
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 5, 2009 at 11:53 AM.

I may be wrong, but setting aside a handful of low-level prison guards convicted for brutalizing or killing detainees, I think that despite many well documented violations of both international and various countries’ domestic laws committed in the “war on terror”, the total number of people who have been prosecuted -- not counting those tried in absentia -- is now 4 (correct me in the comments if I’m overlooking something!).  

All were Italians. Two were convicted yesterday in an Italian court and sentenced to three-year terms for kidnapping a man named Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr off the streets of a liberal democracy, depriving him of any semblance of due process despite its fully functional judiciary and sending him to a country that would torture him for information they believed he was holding. 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

MSNBC's Brewer Adopts Anti-Gay Rhetoric
Posted by Jamison Foser, Media Matters for America on November 4, 2009 at 2:53 PM.

"America's Toughest Dictator"? FBI Investigating Joe Arpaio for Using Office to Bully Opponents
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 3, 2009 at 12:27 PM.

Fox News' show-boating Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a thuggish right-wing clown with aspirations to higher office and a police force of his own (he's reportedly weighing a run to become Arizona governor next year). His use of the latter to advance the former may just prove to be his undoing.

According to local CBS affiliate KBHO (via TPM):

The FBI is looking into accusations that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is using his position to settle political vendettas.

Over the past year, 5 Investigates examined more than two dozen complaints against the sheriff from business owners, government workers, mayors and law-enforcement officials.

They claim they spoke out against Arpaio, and shortly after, deputies paid them unwelcome visits.

Arpaio has gotten into hot water before as a result of his harsh, publicity-grabbing campaign against undocumented immigrants. There was a very public fracas with then-Governor Janet Napolitano in 2007, and his office lost a chunk of funding as a result. Earlier this year, in a high-profile spat with the DHS, he lost some of his federal immigration enforcement powers.

But this is different -- here he's charged not only with abusing the powers of his office to go after marginal groups like unauthorized immigrants, but citizens who dare criticize his actions, including political opponents and the media -- influential members of the community. As such, this might not end as well for the sheriff as his earlier controversies.

Consider a few of the people on whom he's reportedly sicced his deputies ...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Joe Lieberman: Swine Flu is Either with Us or the Terrorists!
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 3, 2009 at 5:42 AM.

I wish the exact quote were available, but for now we have this from Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard's blog:

... a source who was present at the scene reports: 

In the stakeout after Face the Nation, Joe Lieberman excoriated the decision to give the vaccine to GITMO terrorists and not to pregnant women.

Really, Joe? Best you can do?

Yeah, we're giving swine flu vaccine to Guantanamo prisoners.

Can't think of a reason why, Joe? I won't even bother bringing up the Geneva Conventions, or our military's long tradition of humane treatment of prisoners -- I know you don't believe in any of that crap, Joe.

Still can't come up with a reason? Here, I'll give you a big fat hint:

Who's guarding Gitmo prisoners?

Right: our troops.

I know you think the prisoners are subhuman scum, vile worms who can't be compared to decent human beings on any level whatsoever. But guess what, Joe?

Viruses don't give a crap.

A virus can easily spread from your scum to our brave youth. Vaccinating these prisoners is a way of protecting our men and women in uniform.

Hey, Joe, why do you hate the troops?

Immigration: There's a Human Rights Crisis Within Our Borders
Posted by Jill Garvey, Imagine 2050 on November 2, 2009 at 4:47 PM.

Treatment of immigrant detainees tells of the shameless brokenness of America’s immigration system. Even the valiant efforts by some to lessen the suffering of families caught in the immigration web are stymied by the lack of rational immigration reform.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Cops Murder Drunk Trying to Avoid Tasering
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on November 2, 2009 at 3:17 PM.

A drunk man tries to get away from the tasering and so they shot him dead:

“We’re really concerned about a guy leaving the parking lot of Chuckwagon [Inn] on Evergreen Way — in a white Corvette, he’s extremely intoxicated,” Tribble told the dispatcher.

Several officers from the Everett Police Department soon arrived; among them were Troy Meade, an 11-year-veteran, and Officer Steven Klocker. Meade arrived at about 11:39 PM; Klocker reached the scene a little less than five minutes later.

At the time Officer Meade arrived, Meservey was hedged in by cars on either side of his Corvette, and cut off by a parking lot fence in front of him. Meade pulled up behind Meservey’s car, effectively boxing him in.

Joanne Hancock, who was smoking outside the Chuckwagon Inn when the police arrived, went inside to tell others concerned about Meservey that “They’ve got him!” The news prompted a small group of people to go outside to watch the arrest.

By the time Klocker arrived to provide “backup,” Meade had spent perhaps five minutes trying to convince Meservey to get out of the car. Klocker would later report that Meade’s tone and attitude toward the intoxicated man were “belligerent,” and that he “used language which made him [Klocker] uncomfortable because of the nearby civilians.”

“I don’t know why the f**k I am trying to save your dumb ass,” Meade snarled at Meservey, according to Klocker’s account.

Both Meade and Klocker withdrew their portable electro-shock torture devices (more commonly called Tasers). Meade, who was closest to the driver, shot Meservey with his Taser through the open driver’s side window, inflicting two separate strikes — one five seconds long, the other six seconds’ duration.

“Why in the f**k did you do that?” muttered the drunken man, who — predictably enough — didn’t want to stick around for any more abuse. He reached for his keys and started the car, but he had nowhere to go: It lurched over a concrete curb and ran into an unyielding chain-link fence.

Bear in mind, once again, that Meservey was entirely boxed in. It was possible, albeit with some difficulty, for Officer Meade to reach through the window and seize the car keys, rather than escalating the situation by using potentially deadly force.

But Meade’s pointless escalation didn’t stop with the two Taser strikes. After Meservey’s brief attempt to drive away, Meade — according to the official police account — took up a position near the left rear wheel of the Corvette, and pulled his gun. “Time to end this,” bellowed Meade, according to Klocker. “Enough is enough.” From a distance of six to seven feet, Meade fired eight shots into the car, murdering Meservey.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Packed Supreme Court Likely to Allow MORE Corporate Money in Politics
Posted by Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future on November 2, 2009 at 2:12 PM.

The Supreme Court may decide as soon as tomorrow on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case involving a corporate-funded anti-Hillary smear ad. It is likely the conservative-dominated activist court will overturn precedent and rule in favor of removing restrictions on corporate spending in elections, with terrible consequences. The 5-4 ruling will say that large companies injecting vast sums to sway election results is “free speech.” Imagine, vocal cords on a Cayman Islands post office box!

Common Cause has a report out, titled, Corporate Democracy: Potential fallout from a Supreme Court decision on Citizens United. "Lifting the ban on corporate political spending could unleash a flood of money into the political system and further diminish the public’s voice," the report says.

Really, imagine regular people trying to run for office while competing with the massive aggregated financial power of the biggest corporations. And imagine what will happen to anyone who dares to try to go up against their interests when they are able to openly spend any amount needed to get their way. I have come up with some examples of what to expect:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Rape Victim Confronts Vitter Over Vote for Impunity for Contractors
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 2, 2009 at 1:06 PM.

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones’ Halliburton/KBR co-workers gang-raped her while she was working in Baghdad. The company then detained her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would be heard in private arbitration only.

Last month, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts if companies “restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Although the amendment passed, 30 Republican senators voted against it.

One of the Republicans singled out for especially harsh criticism following the vote was Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), who has a track record of siding against women’s rights. The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that at a town hall meeting this past weekend, a constituent confronted Vitter about his vote. The woman, a rape victim, demanded that he explain why he opposed Franken’s amendment. Vitter refused to give her a straight answer:

WOMAN: It meant everything to me that I was able to put the person who attacked me [behind bars]. And what allowed me to do that was our judicial process. I showed up in court every day to make sure that happen

VITTER: And I’m absolutely supportive of any case like that being prosecuted criminally to the full extent of the law. [...]

WOMAN: But how can you support [a law] that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself?

VITTER: Ma’am The language in question did not say that in any way shape or form.

WOMAN: But it is unconstitutional to have a law that says a woman does not have a right to defend herself.

Vitter then tried to deflect blame to the Obama administration, saying that it was also against the amendment. When the woman replied, “But I’m not asking Obama. I’m asking you,” Vitter retorted, “Do you think he’s in favor in rape?”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

400,000 People Landed on FBI's Terrorism 'Watch-List'?
Posted by Steven D., Booman Tribune on November 2, 2009 at 9:30 AM.

The FBI has a Terror Watch List of 400,000 names on it. Does that seem extreme to you? Because it seems absolutely insane to me.

Newly released FBI data offer evidence of the broad scope and complexity of the nation's terrorist watch list, documenting a daily flood of names nominated for inclusion to the controversial list.

During a 12-month period ended in March this year, for example, the U.S. intelligence community suggested on a daily basis that 1,600 people qualified for the list because they presented a "reasonable suspicion," according to data provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the FBI in September and made public last week. [...]

The ever-churning list is said to contain more than 400,000 unique names and over 1 million entries. The committee was told that over that same period, officials asked each day that 600 names be removed and 4,800 records be modified. Fewer than 5 percent of the people on the list are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. Nine percent of those on the terrorism list, the FBI said, are also on the government's "no fly" list.

I have to wonder if we are slowing turning our "security forces" into the equivalent of East Germany's notorious Stasi where everyone informs on everyone else and thee FBI keeps a record on everyone for any possible "anti-government" comment or association.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »