caption: Supporters of deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya confront soldiers in an armored car near the presidential house in Tegucigalpa on Jun, 28, 2009. [Source: Orlando Sierra/AFP/Getty Images]
Honduran President Manuel Zelaya has denounced what he refers to as an attempted coup against his administration and calls on the people of Honduras to defend the rule of law.
The ruling oligarchy of Honduras is represented by the country's Supreme Court and Congress, and it is defended by the armed forces. These forces are in conflict with the democratically elected president, Manuel Zelaya, because he supports major constitutional reforms that would give more voice to the poor majority. A referendum vote to be cast Sunday asks the population if they want to vote on reforms this November. However, oligarch-owned media in Honduras say Zelaya wants to change the constitution to allow his reelection.
This week Zelaya fired the head of the armed forces when the military refused his demand to distribute 15,000 ballot boxes for Sunday's referendum. The Supreme Court ordered Zelaya to reinstate the general even though they do not have the constitutional mandate to do this; Zelaya refused, and the Congress began investigating him for this refusal.
But Zelaya enjoys popular support in the country since raising the minimum wage, eliminating the monopoly on petroleum imports and joining The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, a fair trade and solidarity alliance that includes Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua.
US State Department spokesman PJ Crowley stated they are "concerned" about the breakdown in the dialogue among Honduran politicians over the proposed June 28 poll.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called on parties in Honduras on Friday to show restraint in this situation. Ban expressed concerned about the 'political and institutional tensions' in one of Latin America's poorest nation and called for restraint by all concerned in order to prevent further escalation.
The capital Tegucigalpa saw hundreds of troops deployed last week in an attempt to avoid potential disturbances, a move that some feared indicative of a possible military coup. They have since returned to their barracks.
This weekend will mark a critical moment in the country's political future.
-------------------
UPDATE: 12:00 pm, 6/28/09, The military arrested Zelaya this morning. He seeks asylum in Costa Rica. For updated information: A Call for Prayers from Honduras. Military Arrests President. He Seeks Asylum. http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3555070-a-call-for-prayers-from-honduras-military-arrests-president-he-seeks-asylum
there have been innumerable assaults on the constitution- pretty much from its inception. the john adams contingent has not been pleased that 'the great unwashed' was given any say whatsoever in their own governance. those descendants we see today splashed all over fox noise, hate radio, state and local governments, tea parties, and now..... million militia marches. guess that's why they are stock piling all that ammo.
but i just don't know what to say about the torture issue. i have been a strident voice for years- pushing and pushing for people to realize that free societies take the risk of being 'less secure' in order to remain free. pushing for people to realize that we, the people, were losing the document that gave us our freedoms- legally- in america. and people were afraid. they were afraid of muslim extremists who may bomb our cities or unleash biological terror in 'the homeland.'
but the people were wrong. the terrorists lived amongst us- called themselves americans. and willfully and gleefully stripped civil liberties away at a rate unprecedented in our history. and always my question was- why? why are they doing this? when is enough money and power enough? and i didn't have a good, tangible answer. i still don't. the closest i get is simply- because they could.
because they knew going in what they wanted to do- they created 9/11 to shock america into swallowing their lines of bullshit about the country being vulnerable. they created the crisis in order to go into war mode- special presidential war powers indefinitely. they manufactured reasons to go to war with iraq and decimated and tortured people and ruined the lives of millions of people.
torture is arguably the worst thing you can do to a person. it effects them physically- and mentally- and if they survive- it effects them for the rest of their lives. and their families and neighbors and fellow countrymen- and it does not work for information. and americans authorized this- and carried it out. now, i realize that we have been doing this for years- at the very least training operatives on how to carry it out. but these folks planned to torture other folks to send a message loud and clear- that they were in charge and that's it.
over the last 8 years or so, folks like me have been called traitors, conspiracy theorists, crazy, etc.- and while it generally came from the right, much came from the left too. folks simply didn't want to believe that fellow americans could carry out what bushco and the rubber stamp legislative and judicial branches did. this couldn't happen in america- we are the land of the free. but it did.
and i guess what my purpose in writing this post is- to say simply this- the people on the right are wrong. period. they are the traitors and the unpatriotic people. i don't consider them americans at all. the people on the left who have been complicit and who have gone along with the right- in the name of power or blackmail or whatever- and didn't stand up- same thing. there is nothing patriotic about stripping civil liberties away from a democratic republic in the name of security. there is nothing noble or patriotic or brave in advocating torturing another human being. these people are cowards.
for all of the grandstanding and pretending to give a damn about the founding fathers and the constitution- and apparently, the boston tea party- these folks have not actually read the documents. they didn't listen to saint ronnie about america being an example to the world- 'a shining city' and blah, blah, blah- we were set up as the beacon of hope to the world- and we have no right to the title. so, it is time to let the people who claim to be americans know- you aren't. the rest of us are going to have to grow a set- because if we want any semblance of the country we believed in- we are going to have to fight for it. the right is arming itself- and if you pooh pooh that off- well, you may end up in a detention facility right here in the us of a.
sorry shep- we do torture- did torture- probably still do torture. the next question is- will be hold onto our principles and hold folks accountable? or perhaps the better question is- do we have any principles left?
Obama Administration quietly expands Bush's legal defense of wiretapping program
In a stunning defense of President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, President Barack Obama has broadened the government's legal argument for immunizing his Administration and government agencies from lawsuits surrounding the National Security Agency's eavesdropping efforts.
In fact, a close read of a government filing last Friday reveals that the Obama Administration has gone beyond any previous legal claims put forth by former President Bush.
Responding to a lawsuit filed by a civil liberties group, the Justice Department argued that the government was protected by "sovereign immunity" from lawsuits because of a little-noticed clause in the Patriot Act. The government's legal filing can be read here (PDF).
For the first time, the Obama Administration's brief contends that government agencies cannot be sued for wiretapping American citizens even if there was intentional violation of US law. They maintain that the government can only be sued if the wiretaps involve "willful disclosure" -- a higher legal bar.
"A 'willful violation' in Section 223(c(1) refers to the 'willful disclosure' of intelligence information by government agents, as described in Section 223(a)(3) and (b)(3), and such disclosures by the Government are the only actions that create liability against the United States," Obama Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz wrote (page 5).
Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing the government over the warrantless wiretapping program, notes that the government has previously argued that changes to the Patriot Act protected the government from lawsuits surrounding eavesdropping. But he says that this is the first time that they've made the case that the Patriot Act protects the government from all surveillance statutes.
"They are arguing this based on changes to the law made by the USA PATRIOT Act, Section 223," Bankston said in an email to Raw Story. "We've never been fans of 223--it made it much harder to sue the U.S. for illegal spying, see an old write-up of mine at: http://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/223.php --but no one's ever suggested before that it wholly immunized the U.S. government against suits under all the surveillance statutes."
Salon columnist and constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald -- who is generally supportive of progressive interpretations of the law -- says the Obama Administration has "invented a brand new claim" of immunity from spying litigation.
"In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad 'state secrets' privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they 'willfully disclose' to the public what they have learned," Greenwald wrote Monday.
He also argues that the Justice Department's response is exclusively a product of the new Administration, noting that three months have elapsed since President Bush left office.
"This brief and this case are exclusively the Obama DOJ's, and the ample time that elapsed -- almost three full months -- makes clear that it was fully considered by Obama officials," Greenwald wrote. "Yet they responded exactly as the Bush DOJ would have. This demonstrates that the Obama DOJ plans to invoke the exact radical doctrines of executive secrecy which Bush used -- not only when the Obama DOJ is taking over a case from the Bush DOJ, but even when they are deciding what response should be made in the first instance."
"Everything for which Bush critics excoriated the Bush DOJ -- using an absurdly broad rendition of 'state secrets' to block entire lawsuits from proceeding even where they allege radical lawbreaking by the President and inventing new claims of absolute legal immunity -- are now things the Obama DOJ has left no doubt it intends to embrace itself," he adds.
Both the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union say the "sovereign immunity" claim in the context of the case goes farther than any previous Bush Administration claims of wiretap immunity.
Writing about the changes to the Patriot Act last year, the EFF asserted that revisions to the Act involved troubling new developments for US law.
"Unlike with any other defendant, if you want to sue the federal government for illegal wiretapping you have to first go through an administrative procedure with the agency that did the wiretapping," the Foundation wrote. "That means, essentially, that you have to politely complain to the illegal wiretappers and tip them off to your legal strategy, and then wait for a while as they decide whether to do anything about it before you can sue them in court."
Moreover, they said, "Before PATRIOT, in addition to being able to sue for money damages, you could sue for declaratory relief from a judge. For example, an Internet service provider could ask the court to declare that a particular type of wiretapping that the government wants to do on its network is illegal. One could also sue for an injunction from the court, ordering that any illegal wiretapping stop. PATRIOT section 223 significantly reduced a judge's ability to remedy unlawful surveillance, making it so you can only sue the government for money damages. This means, for example, that no one could sue the government to stop an ongoing illegal wiretap. At best, one could sue for the government to pay damages while the illegal tap continued!"
In this older post, I brought attention to the NSA (under the Obama administration) seeking to expand its powers regarding matters of cybersecurity.
The point I reiterated then is that police and security agencies will always demand more and more spying powers in order to fullfill their self-ascribed "mission". And said mission is the following:
Because any activity may or may not - immediately or at some point in time or never at all - lead to acts which may or may not "threaten the safety and security of citizens or the integrity of the country's critical infrastructure", then monitoring, surveying and spying on the citizenry constitute the only means to keep the nation safe.
Director of FBI Urges Renewal of Patriot Act
Portions of Law to Expire This Year
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III urged lawmakers yesterday to renew intelligence-gathering measures in the USA Patriot Act that are set to expire in December, calling them "exceptional" tools to help protect national security.
The law, passed shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, created divisions between proponents, who said it was necessary to deter terrorism, and privacy advocates warning that it tramples on Americans' civil liberties. Portions of the law are up for reauthorization this year.
Mueller told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee he hopes that the reauthorization of two provisions would be far less controversial than in previous years. One of those provisions, which helps authorities secure access to business records, "has been exceptionally helpful in our national security investigations," he said.
In response to a question from Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), Mueller said that his agents had used the provision about 220 times between 2004 and 2007. Data for last year were not yet available, he said.
The measure allows investigators probing terrorism to seek a suspect's records from third parties such as financial services and travel and telephone companies without notifying the suspect. The American Civil Liberties Union has criticized the provision, saying it violates the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.
Another provision, permitting roving wiretaps of terrorism suspects, was used 147 times and has helped eliminate "an awful lot of paperwork," Mueller said. In the past, authorities had to seek court approval for each electronic device carried by a suspect, from a cellphone and a BlackBerry to a home computer. But under the provision, one warrant can cover all of those machines.
The ACLU issued a report this month describing "widespread abuse" of government authority under the Patriot Act.
News of the ACLU's report can be found here (and the report in pdf format can be downloaded by clicking this link). In short, the report demonstrates that while surveillance steadily increased between 2002 and 2008 (such as through FISA orders - 2370 total in 2007 alone -, national security letters - 49425 total in 2006 alone -, and suspicious activities reports - 1250439 total in 2007 alone -), such massive increment of data collection actually ran contrary to a steady drop of prosecutions of FBI international terrorism cases (only 34 in 2008), yet paralleled by an gradual increase in the percentage of FBI international terrorism referrals declined for prosecution by the DOJ (a staggering 87% in 2006 alone).
In other words (again): increased, indiscriminate domestic spying powers (or abuses of) and consequent trampling of constitutional civil rights do not increase security, nor do these result in catching and prosecuting more terrorists.
However, what these do result into is an increment of innocent people being snared by such wide surveillance nets, and consequently tagged as potential security threats by the always paranoid-driven security agencies, for nothing more than exercizing their most basic civil rights. As a reminder of this tragic fact of reality, here are previous APOV posts which describe numerous examples of such resulting abuses and injustices (including Canadian examples) - all in the sacro-saint name of Security:
Proof again that no one is safe - because police and security agencies will always abuse any domestic spying powers granted to them, due to their pathological (non)reasoning that anything must be viewed through the narrow, paranoid prism of criminality, terrorism and threats to security.
And it is now all-too-evident that "anything" means anything.
From blogging to writing a dissenting letter to a newspaper editor to a journalist trying to do investigative work to gathering at a coffee shop to rant about politics to reading "suspicious" stuff (books, blogs) to organizing/participating in activist actions (letter/phone/email campaigns, peaceful protests), etc., etc., etc.
It is in the nature of police and security agencies to view such ordinary, mundane exercizes of civil rights as suspicious activities.
So why are we ever willing to grant them such powers?
Maybe you remain unfazed by all of this, your smug reasoning reassuring you that nothing like that could ever happen to you, that it is inconceivable that some "tracker" has been listening (or may yet still) to your most private conversations on the phone, or parsing through your emails, or credit card/bank statements, and so on.
Or maybe you remain approving of indiscriminate domestic spying, confident that such setting aside of constitutional rights serves the ultimate purpose of catching them evul ter'rists (which, as it turns out, is a false premise), while also being of the mind that such "accidental" abuses happen to others - never to you. In other words, you are one who would gladly proclaim "Security - Hallowed Be Thy Name" with much gratitude, patriotic fervor and conviction.
But regardless, how would you know whether or not you have been caught in the "wide-net" approach to electronic surveillance already adopted by Police and Security Agencies?
How would you possibly become aware that some faceless "tracker" is sharing all that was caught of your most private, intimate conversations - all the while sharing laughs with colleagues in so doing? That complete strangers have become quite familiar with your private life?
That faceless, shadowy men and women have been endowed with the power to act as nothing more than peeping toms, all-too-eager to watch and listen into every and all facets of your privacy, of your intimacy?
And how would you know whether or not you will be branded a security threat just because you went on strike, or because someone "out there" has decided that some of the books/newspapers/magazines that you read may be suspicious, or simply because you were overheard complaining about the government?
That is the question, isn't it?
(...)
All of the above once again demonstrate the harsh, ugly reality in this post-9/11 world driven by fear and the willingness to accept the ludicrous fallacy that we need to surrender "some" of our basic constitutional rights in order to improve security against terrorist attacks.
Better wake up fast on your own and now, instead of being awaken by the thundering sound of jackboots just outside your home ... mere moments before your door is crashed open and you get picked up in a "pre-emptive security sweep".
Do you get it now?
Hence, it still remains to be established indeed whether we, Americans and Canadians alike, will stand up for our constitutions, our democracy-based societies, or let fear and paranoia sweep them away in lieu of authoritarianism - as we keep allowing our elected representatives to grant vast powers to security agencies.
More than ever, we better wake up before it is too little, too late ...
If it isn't already.
Update 03/27/2009: As is yours truly did not need further evidence to prove the point herein - well, there you go, folks (emphasis added):
The Missouri Department of Public Safety has retracted a controversial profiling memo which linked libertarian activists, Christians, constitutionalists, supporters of Congressman Ron Paul and other traditionally conservative groups to underground militias.
It also specifically cautioned police to be on the lookout for bumper stickers advertising third party candidates, or people with copies of the United States Constitution.
"[Lt. Gov. Peter] Kinder called on Nixon to place Department of Public Safety Director John Britt on administrative leave pending an investigation of how the report came about," reported the Springfield News-Leader. "[Gov. Jay] Nixon's office did not comment on Kinder's demand, but said it backed Keathley's plans to reform the process of releasing [Missouri Information Analysis Center] intelligence reports.
"In a lengthy statement, Keathley expressed remorse for the lack of oversight in the creation and distribution of the report, but he did not apologize for its contents. Keathley said his office 'would undertake a review of the origin of the report by MIAC.'"
"Due to the current economical [sic] and political situation, a lush environment for militia activity has been created," the memo reads. It goes on to cite possible militia members as people who talk about the New World Order conspiracy, express anger with the Federal Reserve banking system, resist paying taxes, warn other citizens about the percieved dangers of radio frequency identification (RFID) or lobby for a return to strict constitutionalism as possible threats to law enforcement.
While the memo does offer something of a lopsided summary of many of the various groups which swelled enormously following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it also links individuals who are otherwise peaceful with the Ku Klux Klan and other violent organizations.
It also specifically highlighted former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr as icons of the militia movement.
Could someone tell me how I can get back to my world - you know, the one whereby laws against torture are not ignored and torture itself is viewed as something barbaric, savage and uncivilized? I seem to have wandered accidentally into the present, hypocritical one ...
... for someone who is supposed to know law and who has repeatedly pledged to respect not only the rule of law of your country but also internationallaws and treaties, you and your administration are definitely acting like two-faced, mendacious, incompetents.
Obama Justice Dep. defends Rumsfeld in torture case
In a brief filed Thursday evening, Obama Justice Department lawyers extended many of the same arguments made by Bush attorneys – that top government officials have qualified immunity from prosecution and that Guantanamo detainees do not have constitutional rights to due process.
The Department of Justice has asserted that a Supreme Court ruling reaffirming the rights of Guantanamo detainees to habeus corpus does not apply to plaintiffs in a case against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld because the plaintiffs were released from prison four years prior to the SCOTUS decision.
“It is fair to say that the current brief that is filed by the new administration supports a lot of the arguments that were made by the previous administration,” said Kate Toomey, an attorney with Baach Robinson & Lewis who is representing the former detainees in an interview with RAW STORY. “They continue to assert that torture was in the scope of employment and could be reasonably expected. They continue to assert that these [top officials] be entitled to immunity. They also continue to argue that detainees at Guantanamo don’t have constitutional rights.”
Let me remind you of what I previously conveyed to your CIA director, Mr. Leon Panetta:
Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 4
Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
Article 5
Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.
Article 7
The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.
Article 12
Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.
Article 15
Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
Incidentally, I ended this previous reminder of the laws of the land of your country, Mr. President, with the following probing question (addressed then to Mr. Panetta):
Are you then saying that you, and therefore the Obama administration, repudiate such laws?
It would seem that I now have an unequivocal answer to this question.
Hence, Mr. President, you and your administration stand in utter contempt of the laws of your own country, as well as of your own constitution and all international laws and treaties signed by your country to this effect.
Just be reminded of your very own words (emphasis added):
"But what we cannot do is have the president of the United States state, as a matter of policy, that there is a loophole or an exception where we would sanction torture. I think that diminishes us and it sends the wrong message to the world."
Allow me to paraphrase what I conveyed already to your CIA director:
It should be obvious to you now, sir, that your demonstrated legal strategies so far not only constitute implied condoning of torture, but furthermore constitute a disavowal of the law of your country regarding torture - and consequently A) this makes you directly complicit after the fact of any and all acts of torture performed under the Bush administration; and B) this makes you directly complicit after the fact of the policies of torture sanctioned/approved/encouraged/allowed by the Bush administration.
All of which, under the same laws outlined above, render you and your administration equally guilty of criminal offences as outlined by said laws against torture.
Mr. President Obama - you are a sham and an incompetent - and a criminal one at that.
Just. Like. Your. Predecessor.
You, sir, are no change at all.
You are merely an extension - and continuation - of the crimes against Humanity, human rights and civil rights, that have been committed over the last eight years, and which are now still being committed under you and your equally criminal administration.
Consequently, you may consider yourself put on notice regarding such criminality.
After all - ignorance of the law is not an excuse to justify breaking the law ... as you should well know.
May you go down as much in infamy as your predecessor has.
That, at the very least, would constitute small comfort to those of us who genuinely and sincerely uphold human rights, human decency and civil rights - you know - the truly civilized ones.
An ideal that you, sir, and your damned administration, cannot claim to be anymore.
Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 4
Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
Article 5
Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.
Article 7
The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.
Article 12
Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.
Article 15
Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
Therefore, it should be obvious to you now, sir, that your aforementioned e-mail declaration not only constitutes implied condoning of torture, but furthermore constitutes a disavowal of the law of your country regarding torture - and consequently A) this makes you directly complicit after the fact of any and all acts of torture performed by CIA agents since 2001 (i.e. under the Bush administration); B) this makes you directly complicit after the fact of the policies of torture sanctioned/approved/encouraged/allowed by the Bush administration; and C) by extension due to the context of your nomination as CIA director by President Obama, this makes the Obama administration directly complicit after the fact (through your own implied condoning) of the policies of torture sanctioned/approved/encouraged/allowed by the Bush administration.
All of which, under the same laws, render you and the Obama administration equally guilty of criminal offence as outlined by said laws against torture.
Are you then saying that you, and therefore the Obama administration, repudiate such laws?
If that is not the case, then I strongly suggest to you, sir, that you seriously reconsider your position ...
I'm sort of weak in my enthusiasm for complicated legal matters, you know? So the title of the Prop 8 video immediately caught my eye: Proposition 8 Made Simple. If you haven't seen this, you have to.
Perhaps I am wrong (I always hope that I am on such matters) with regards to our democracies losing themselves beyond redemption. Just this week alone, some rays of hope have been shining brightly which leaves me to wonder if we are indeed on the road to reclaim our democratic, civil liberties and human rights values in order to hold onto them honestly and sincerely once and for all:
A federal judge ordered the release yesterday of a detainee at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ruling that the government's evidence is too weak to justify the man's continued confinement.
It is the second time that U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon has ordered the release of a detainee after examining government evidence, most of it classified. Leon said that the Justice Department failed to prove that Mohammed El Gharani, 21, is an enemy combatant because it relied heavily on statements made by two other detainees whose credibility is questionable.
"A mosaic of tiles this murky reveals nothing about this petitioner with sufficient clarity" to justify his detention, Leon ruled.
Gharani, a citizen of Chad, was picked up in Pakistan and turned over to the United States in 2002. Since then, he has been held at Guantanamo Bay.
The government alleged that Gharani traveled to Afghanistan and trained at an al-Qaeda-affiliated military camp, fought in the battle of Tora Bora and was a courier for high-level al-Qaeda members.
The government also accused Gharani of belonging to a London-based al-Qaeda cell in 1998, an accusation that Leon questioned. Gharani was 11 at the time, living with immigrant parents in Saudi Arabia, his attorneys said.
Case #2: Former Gitmo prosecutor rips military trials, calling interrogators' practices 'despicable' (also via here)
In a declaration submitted to a Washington D.C. District Court Tuesday, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, a former prosecutor in the Military Commission trial system, delivered perhaps the most blistering attack on the US military's detention program by a former member of the Pentagon's team to date.
Speaking of the man he was once tasked to prosecute, Vandeveld said prisoner Mohamed Jawad's continued detention is "something beyond a travesty," and urged that Jawad be released given a "lack of any credible evidence."
Some of this information was revealed in September 2008, after Vandeveld resigned as a prosecutor, complaining that "potentially exculpatory evidence" had "not been provided" to Jawad's defense team, and that his accidental discovery of information relating to Jawad's abuse helped convert him from a "true believer to someone who felt truly deceived."
Vandeveld's declaration today constitutes the most sustained criticism of the Bush administration's trial system for terror suspects since Col. Morris Davis, the Commission's former Chief Prosecutor, resigned in 2007. Col. Davis said he'd quit because of the politicization of the trial system, attempts to endorse the use of evidence obtained through torture, and the refusal of Pentagon chief counsel William J. Haynes II to accept that any planned trials could end in acquittals.
Vandeveld's statement, seen by Raw Story, explained that he joined OMC-P in May 2007, and described how, based on his civilian experience as a Senior Deputy Attorney General in Pennsylvania, he initially thought that Jawad's case "appeared to be as simple as the street crimes I had prosecuted by the dozens in civilian life."
Jawad, an Afghan national, was accused of throwing a grenade at a jeep containing two US Special Forces soldiers and an Afghan interpreter while the vehicle was stuck in traffic in a marketplace in Kabul in 2002. Vandeveld said he initially thought Jawad was guilty because he'd been arrested "almost immediately" by Afghan police officers and had purportedly "freely confessed" to throwing the grenade. In addition, he'd allegedly explained that he'd "claimed sole responsibility for the attack" and "that he would repeat the attack if given the opportunity."
According to the interrogation report, US soldiers took Jawad to an operating base, where, after initial denials, he "eventually confessed to his role in the attack, this time on videotape recorded by US personnel."
But as Lt. Col. Vandeveld began to investigate the evidence in Jawad's case, he was shocked to discover that locating relevant documents was extraordinarily difficult. He said the Commissions' prosecution department was in a "state of disarray" and "lack[ed] any discernable organization." He explained that he did not "expect that potential war crimes would be presented, at least initially, in 'tidy little packages,'" such as those that would be "assembled by civilian police agencies and prosecution offices."
"The evidence, such as it was," he wrote, "remained scattered throughout an incomprehensible labyrinth of databases... or strewn throughout the prosecution offices."
As a result, Lt. Col. Vandeveld was unable to locate crucial documents, such as Jawad's videotaped confession. Although he explained that it was "difficult" for him "to accept that the US military could have failed so miserably in six years of effort," he began to doubt "the propriety" of prosecuting Jawad.
Despite these misgivings, Vandeveld said he clung to a belief that the case could be prosecuted "ethically and successfully" until May 2008, when a succession of discoveries led to his dramatic departure.
Case #3: Air Force Major David Frakt of the Military Commissions defends Mohammed Jawad
Download | PlayDownload | Play
(h/t Heather)
This is just horrific. I was on a conference call yesterday with the ACLU and we talked about this very case. Via email:
We focused on the cases of Omar Khadr and Mohammed Jawad, both teenagers when they were captured, and how their cases speak to the larger problem of the military commissions and why Guantanamo must be closed immediately.
Bush administration is appealing a Guantánamo military judge's decision to throw out evidence against Jawad that was tainted by torture.
When Obama is sworn in I believe this trial is set to begin a week later. Major props goes to Air Force Major David Frakt for his work on this issue.
MADDOW: The big problem at Guantanamo is not that we locked up hundreds of people in an American-run prison in a foreign country without charges or trials or rights, the problem is that other countries won‘t help us out with that?
Joining us now is an Air Force Major David Frakt. He is defense counsel with the Office of Military Commissions which administers the tribunals at Guantanamo. He is defending a young man named Mohammed Jawad. He was a teenager when he was arrested and is still at Guantanamo Bay.
MADDOW: If today‘s reports are correct that President-elect Obama is getting rid of the military tribunal system, would that put you out of a job? And, in your eyes, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
FRAKT: Absolutely, Rachel. In fact, the defense counsel with the Office of Military Commissions have been trying from day one to do precisely that. That is put ourselves out of a job. My belief, I believe it is shared by my fellow co-counsel, is that this is an unfair, rigged system.
You know, we took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, and we‘re doing that by serving as defense counsel and assuring that our clients are not tried in an unconstitutional system.
Case #4: Holder breaks with Mukasey, says ‘waterboarding is torture.’ (see also here)
In October 2007, during his confirmation hearings, Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused to call waterboarding torture and to this day has not called it torture. In his confirmation hearing today, Attorney General nominee Eric Holder clearly said that he believes waterboarding is torture:
HOLDER: If you look at the history of the use of that technique, used by the Khmer Rouge, used in the Inquisition, used by the Japanese and prosecuted by us as war crimes. We prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, waterboarding is torture.
In another break with Bush administration officials, Holder said other countries would be violating international law if they waterboarded U.S. citizens. Watch it:
Holder also said that the President cannot immunize officials who committed acts of torture. “No one is above the law,” he stated.
(Keep reading ...)
Case #5: The Turning Point - How the Susan Crawford interview changes everything we know about torture (also via here and here)
When Vice President Dick Cheney told the Weekly Standard last week, "I think on the left wing of the Democratic Party there are some people who believe that we really tortured," he probably wasn't thinking about Susan J. Crawford, convening authority of the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general, is hardly the kind of hippie moonbat Cheney would like to poke fun at. And that's why everything changed this morning when the Washington Post published a front-page interview by Bob Woodward, in which Crawford stated without equivocation that the treatment of alleged 20th Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed al-Qahtani at Guantanamo Bay was "torture."
You're wondering how it is that Crawford's claim that the United States authorized torture (not "coercive interrogation" or "enhanced interrogation" or other "nontorturous forms of interrogation" or "abuse," but torture) changes anything. After all, the Senate armed services committee issued a report just last month pointing the finger of responsibility for the military interrogations at then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his general counsel Jim Haynes. The committee did not use the T-word, however. And Crawford is hardly the first high-ranking military official to use the word. Alberto J. Mora, former general counsel of the U.S. Navy, wrote in a letter to the Navy's inspector general: "The interrogation techniques approved by the Secretary [of Defense] should not have been authorized because some (but not all) of them, whether applied singly or in combination, could produce effects reaching the level of torture." The 84-page log of al-Qahtani's interrogation has long been a matter of public record, and there is now little dispute that the treatment it describes rose to the level of torture. As described in Torture Team, London-based clinical psychiatrist and trauma specialist Dr. Abigail Seltzer studied the log and concluded that al-Qahtani had been tortured.
It's also not an accident that Crawford is a military lawyer. From the very outset of the Bush torture regime, it was the military attorneys who warned him—if they were given a chance—that his program was illegal.
What changes as a result of Crawford expressly using the word torture? First, the administration can no longer hide behind parsing the language of the Geneva Conventions and the torture statute. Whether or not Michael Mukasey is willing to call water-boarding torture—as the president-elect did on Sunday—a reputable senior military official has put that label on conduct that is arguably not as bad and has been widespread in Afghanistan and Iraq. In her interview, Crawford acknowledges that it was "the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health that led to her conclusion. 'The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. … This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him. … It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge' to call it torture." What Crawford has done here is astounding. She has repudiated the formalistic (and perennially shifting) definitions of torture as whatever-it-is-we-don't-do. She has admitted that there is a medical and legal definition for torture and also that we have crossed the line into it.
And ... Case #6: Ontario judge declares secrecy law unconstitutional
A secrecy law frequently invoked by the federal government in terrorism cases has been declared unconstitutional by an Ontario Superior Court judge, amid fears a sprawling Toronto conspiracy case risks “bogging down and becoming unmanageable.”
The landmark decision strikes down a portion of the Canada Evidence Act, a controversial law passed by Parliament after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The law effectively directed debates involving government secrecy claims away from open trials and toward specialized hearings in other courts.
The 94-page ruling made Thursday affects the case of 10 Toronto men accused of a 2006 conspiracy to train as terrorists and explode truck bombs. The highly anticipated case is only incrementally moving toward trial.
Finding that justice delayed is justice denied, Mr. Justice Fletcher Dawson, of the Ontario Superior Court, ruled that trial judges like him need to be ones who ponder questions related to government secrecy, to preserve the fair-trial rights of the accused.
Otherwise, “there is a danger this case will collapse under its own weight,” said Judge Dawson, who is now weighing preliminary arguments in the case. “The risk of it bogging down and becoming unmanageable is an ongoing concern.”
The effect of the ruling will be to bring the terrorism case closer to trial – though it's still unlikely to happen in 2009. The broader implications are that police and intelligence agencies will have a much tougher time keeping sensitive information away from open trials.
Since 9/11, Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act has been invoked in just about every Canadian national-security case of note, with the federal government arguing that it needs to shield intelligence related to the Khadr family, the Maher Arar affair, and the Mohammed Momin Khawaja terrorist trial.
These concerns stem from the possible disclosure of sources and methods used by Canadian agents and also from the intelligence received from foreign partners, such as the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, or Britain's MI6.
The invariable effect of the law has been to take secrecy arguments away from main-stage proceedings to a secretive side stage at the Federal Court of Canada, whose judges have specialized national security training and, until now, exclusive jurisdiction of all Canada Evidence Act matters. Judges pondering the overall cases have been forced to await the outcome of protracted Federal Court legal debates to determine what information would be in play.
Observers of the Toronto terrorism-conspiracy case have long dreaded the implications of this, especially given that defence lawyers push for disclosure and the Crown tends to guard sensitive intelligence. The fear was that Section 38 would create a never-ending legal ping-pong match that no jury could ever withstand: The Crown might shut down the Superior Court trial whenever a secrecy question arose, force debates into federal and appellate courts, and then, once matters returned to Superior Court, repeat the process as often as deemed necessary by the government.
Contemplating this, Judge Dawson drew a line in the sand.
“There can be no doubt that the liberty and security interests of persons on trial in the superior courts are at stake,” the ruling reads. “… By depriving them of the opportunity to enforce their rights to disclosure and to full answer and defence in the court of competent jurisdiction, all the ingredients of a Section 7 Charter violation are established.”
He took pains to point out that this was not a dig at his colleagues at Federal Court, and said it's “mug's game” to argue over which judges are better suited to weigh secrecy. He simply said Superior Court judges are also up to the job and need to see all the evidence.
And those who would rather "forgive and forget" are nothing more than tacit enablers which keep the gates wide open to "do it all over" should we ever find any quaint justifications to do so again.
This in turn brings me to repeat one of my mantras:
For the sake of our continued existence, we must strive to forget nevermore that rationalizations supporting the use of violence - other than the need for the rightful exercise of self-defense when set upon by a genuinely clear, present and immediate danger - invariably constitute deceitful fabrications meant to conceal, disguise or justify incompetence ...
... including our very own for embracing such mendacity.
For what is the point of holding onto noble ideals and principles when those who would defile them remain unaccountable? What does this say of the actual value and sincerity of said noble ideals and principles?
Thus we are setting ourselves to repeat history - yet again.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
these words are often forgotten in our daily lives. and we need to remember them today- and always- if we want to retain our democratic republic.for too long, americans abdicated control of our government to our 'duly elected representatives' but these representatives put self interest before our own- and then told us to put up and shut up- it was for our own good.and we let them get away with it.
now, we have the opportunity, nay, the responsibility, to take back our constitution and our country from the people who took both and ignored our will at every turn. we have the power of numbers and the power of the people. our founding fathers were imperfect- they only gave a small percentage of americans the right to vote. but 230+ years later, and we all have the right to vote. don't take no for an answer!!! you have the right to vote- and if you have issues- here is some useful info:
Whenever a civilian government either outsources its responsibilities in matters domestic and/or foreign affairs, whether to corporations, security agencies and/or the military, then it is safe to say that it is the beginning of the end of democratic governance - ultimately leading to authoritarian corporatocracy, security state and/or military junta ... or all of the above, also known as fascism.
In addition to the overwhelming assaults on the U.S. constitution, civil rights and human rights (i.e. military commissions, indiscriminate domestic spying, security sweep pre-emptive arrests, renditions, indefinite detentions, torture, etc.), including outsourcing of security and war efforts (Blackwater, anyone?), the U.S. government is now letting go of some of its people-empowered roles in diplomacy and foreign affairs. To whit:
(...) when did a four star general get handed the authority to act as if he were Secretary of State?
Gen. David H. Petraeus has launched a major reassessment of U.S. strategy for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and the surrounding region, while warning that the lack of development and the spiraling violence in Afghanistan will probably make it "the longest campaign of the long war."
The 100-day assessment will result in a new campaign plan for the Middle East and Central Asia, a region in which Petraeus will oversee the operations of more than 200,000 American troops as the new head of U.S. Central Command, beginning Oct. 31.
The review will formally begin next month, but experts and military officials involved said Petraeus is already focused on at least two major themes: government-led reconciliation of Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the leveraging of diplomatic and economic initiatives with nearby countries that are influential in the war.
All of this seems like a good idea to me. But, crucially, neither of those themes are military ones and the military shouldn't be leading the way on them. It's about separation of power and having the military subordinate to civilian policymakers rather than the other way around.
So where are the US ambassador, State Dept. and Condi Rice, who should be leading the way on them while the military man concentrates on military matters? For that matter, won't the leaders of other nations involved in the region wonder why America has appointed a de facto proconsul (again) and want their say?
"When you look at a lot of these problems, you see considerable regional connections," Petraeus said yesterday. The effort would embrace all of Afghanistan's neighbors and possibly extend to India, which has had a long-standing rivalry with Pakistan. "There may be opportunities with respect to India," he said.
An overview of the review team's mission obtained by The Post says that including other government agencies and other nations in the planning will "mitigate the risk of over-militarization of efforts and the development of short-term solutions to long-term problems."
Nevertheless, some experts questioned whether Petraeus will have the authority to carry out such a sweeping strategy.
"General Petraeus is not in charge of our diplomacy. He can't decide whether we try to form an international contacts group on Pakistan," said Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University.
Moreover, in dealing with Afghanistan at Central Command, Petraeus will face limitations that he did not encounter as the top commander in Iraq, such as the lack of a unified military command and serious resource shortages.
"We don't own it. It's been a NATO effort since 2006. He won't have the same sway with Karzai and the ambassadors and a bunch of other people that he had in Iraq," said a former senior military official with experience in Afghanistan.
Perhaps most worrying of all, Petraus' mini foreign policy is being described as "a policy bridge from one administration to the next" by one of his team members, Clare Lockhart, co-founder of the New York-based Institute for State Effectiveness along with former Afghan finance minister Ashraf Ghani.
"It's about separation of power and having the military subordinate to civilian policymakers rather than the other way around" - Cernig is spot on with this reminder.
However, I would amend this truism to include security agencies alongside the military.
For indeed, remember this, as but one example? (emphasis added)
Canada's spy agency has the green light to meet with Canadians detained abroad (as apart of a national security or terrorism case) before (Foreign Affairs) consular officials do when there are "urgent national security or terrorism-related considerations," says a newly disclosed federal agreement.
Which made me conclude the following (emphasis added):
In effect, Foreign Affairs will leave it up entirely to CSIS to make its own call - and defer to it.
Without any outside oversight whatsoever.
Plain and simple.
(...) This is how your Security State fully awakens, folks: when a country's secret security agency is given the power of life and death, of freedom and detention, over its citizens and whose judgement prevails over constitutional, civilian institutions supposedly mandated to deal in such matters.
Same thing with regards to human rights overall - whereby too many folks out there actually approve of the use of torture.
What we are now witnessing is the gradual deferment of responsibilities of our governments towards security agencies and the military - with the same mind set of needing to feel secure, which in turn has elevated security and military entities as preeminent Saviors in which We Trust implicitly.
Indeed, a sickening worship of all things authoritarian and/or military was gleefully on display at the RNC last September (for instance, whether it was about McCain, his wife or Palin, it was inevitably emphasised that either they have served, have as son currently serving and/or had a parent/grandparent who served during WWI, WWII or some othe conflict - the message being that they are from a "strong" bloodline of military service).
The DNC likewise delved into this theme, albeit to a much lesser extent - nevertheless, that a past parent of Obama served and Biden's son being deployed to Iraq were emphasised as well.
That is creeping and already well entrenched militarism for you - case in point:
If I could be granted one small wish about our political discourse, it would be that reporters and pundits would accept -- as disappointing and unglorious as it is -- that, under our Constitution and basic government design, people who aren't in the military don't have a "Commander-in-Chief." The President isn't your "commander," and the "Commander-in-Chief" power, now synonymous in our political culture with "President," is actually extremely limited (Art. II, Sec. 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States").
This endless festishization of "President as Our Commander-in-Chief" is one of those small but pernicious reflections of how militarized we've become, of how we are a society in a state of perpetual and endless war.
Punditman likewise expressed herein his concerns last year over the same phenomenon apparently slowly sinking into Canada's own consciousness:
Wearing camouflage used to signify one of two things: the person was either in the armed forces or was setting out on a different sort of mission that involved drinking tons of beer and killing furry creatures in a forest somewhere. But nowadays, the whole idea of hunting (humans or animals, that is), has been demoted by those who dress like G.I. Joe just because they are out hunting for a latte or an Ipod.
Grow a brain, people. This is all about the militarization of our culture.
(...) Along with camouflage, Canada is now beset by an overabundance of “Support Our Troops” ribbons, t-shirts, bracelets and mugs. You can’t go anywhere without seeing the telltale yellow ribbon on cars. Come to think of it, some are camouflaged. It is high time that the elephant in the room is asked the obvious question that polite Canadians would rather avoid: What does “Support Our Troops” really mean?
Those who decorate their vehicles thusly would have us believe that the decals are politically neutral symbols of support for soldiers overseas. This is nonsense and they know it. The intended audience are those of us who forego yellow ribbons. If you think about it, the phrase “Support Our Troops” is sort of bossy, like a drill sargent’s snarl. This is known in grammatical circles as the “imperative mood.” Therefore the directive to “Support Our Troops” comes off like an order, but with a somewhat fuzzy meaning: What exactly am I supposed to do? Buy a ribbon, I guess.
Yet the context is obvious. This is all about the Afghan War and nothing else. The yellow ribbon campaign has succeeded in convincing at least eighteen Canadian municipal and local governments to affix the decals to police cars, ambulances, fire trucks, buses and other municipal vehicles. Since this is all public property, this is a divisive move, not an inclusive one. Why this cause, but no others? Why not “Support Our Cancer Patients” or “Support Our Single Moms”? Are they less worthy?
(...) One may well ask: where should Canada’s foreign policy priorities be right now? Tied down in Afghanistan, begging NATO allies for more help in what looks more and more like an intractable military stalemate? Or, working through diplomatic channels to try to prevent a global conflagration between the US and Iran that could even go nuclear?
It’s time to ditch the camouflage and put on your thinking caps.
(...) Rwanda was there, desperately needing help to prevent a genocide. Dallaire even knew what to do. But the rest of the world, Canada's government included, opted to do nothing. They let "traditional peacekeeping" fail in a grand and horrible way, with 800 000 dead, so they could pretend that "traditional peacekeeping" was itself dead.
And now the Canadian Press is helping them with this pretence. And at the end of article they're going to lament how little we trust journalists.
Referring to failed Bosnia-Serbia intervention, the article continues:
That frustrating experience shaped the attitude of a generation of soldiers, who were eager to shed the United Nations blue beret, which they saw as a symbol of weakness and indecision.
Really? The soldiers saw it as a sign of weakness? Who is writing this article? Where is the survey that demonstrates this? Is this the infantry or the military brass? Besides which, it doesn't matter what the soldiers think. It is the civilian population that selects the missions. If those enrolled don't like peacekeeping, they don't have to stay enrolled.
Yet the public clings to the romanticized notion of brave soldiers standing between belligerents.
Yeah. We stupid, ignorant Canadians have these stupid, romantic morals and values. God, we're so fricking naive, aren't we?
(...) The fact is that Canadians should be in charge of what their military is doing. At this time, we are not. The Liberals failed to steer the military in to the post Cold War peacekeeping force that we wanted. The Conservatives are taking that military force and using it aggressively.
Once again - it all goes back to the fact that Americans and Canadians are sill gripped by the all-encompassing fear of terrorism - which is used whenever convenient to further push more authoritarian security measures, increased militarization/military interventionism, or simply to win elections.
History has clearly shown that fear-driven radical interpretations of the separation of powers within a republic, or any democracy, along with the slow erosion of the rule of constitutional law and the clamor for a single strong and powerful leader in times of crises, have lead to the downfall and de facto end of said republics/democracies - the fall of the Roman republic constituting an obvious, ancient example.
Fear + Need for security + Erosion of the rule of Law + Religious fundamentalism + Militarism + Intolerance for opposing/dissenting opinions and beliefs + Calls for a strong and powerful leader = A democracy facing possible overthrow in favor of despotism.
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy; 2. Create a gulag; 3. Develop a thug caste; 4. Set up an internal surveillance system; 5. Harass citizens' groups; 6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release; 7. Target key individuals; 8. Control the press; 9. Dissent equals treason; and 10. Suspend the rule of law.
As the saying goes - one must remember and understand history in order not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
It remains to be established whether we, Americans and Canadians alike, will stand up for our constitutions, our democracy-based societies, or let fear and paranoia sweep them away in lieu of authoritarianism - as we keep allowing our elected representatives to defer their entrusted powers and responsibilities to security agencies and the military.
We better wake up before it is too little, too late ...
Meanwhile, in other news ...
Then go read Glenn Greenwald.
Any questions?
(sigh)
(Cross-posted from APOV)