|
Zebra 3 Report by Joe Anybody
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
Why Ralph Nader Should Run in 2008
Mood:
bright
Now Playing: Z3 Readers sign the draft - we want Ralph Nader
Topic: NADER
The following was copied from a link I found on URL above 2008 Why Ralph Nader Should Run for President in 2008 *** Sign the DraftNader.org online petition! *** Statement from the Twin Cities Branches of Socialist Alternative Within the next few months, the Democratic and Republican nominees for president will be decided. Regardless of who wins, the two major presidential candidates will both support continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely, the expansion of the military by 90,000 more troops, the disastrous for-profit healthcare system, and a host of other policies that benefit Corporate America at the expense of the majority of the population.
A year ago the Democrats were voted into power in Congress on a wave of mass anger in U.S. society at the war in Iraq, economic polarization, and the policies of the Bush administration. However, the Democrats have quickly betrayed their electoral base on every major issue. The Democratic Congress has handed over hundreds of billions more dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now has an approval rating of 20 percent – lower than Bush! None of the major Democratic presidential candidates – Clinton, Obama, and Edwards – promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of their first term – in 2013. In an election awash in corporate cash – 2008 will be the first $1 billion election in U.S. history – the top Democrats have received millions of dollars more in big business donations than their Republican counterparts. While 48 million Americans lack healthcare, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, is the leading recipient of money from the for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical companies. In July, Fortune magazine, one of the leading mouthpieces of the rich elite, even ran a cover story titled, “Business Loves Hillary!” Neither party’s candidate will give voice to the millions of Americans fed up with the war in Iraq, the lack of affordable housing, health care and good-paying jobs, the mass poverty, under-funded education system, the racist criminal injustice system, and environmental devastation at the hands of corporate polluters. A USA Today/Gallup poll from July 20 showed that 58% think that a third party is needed and that both the Democrats and the Republicans do an inadequate job representing the American people. A record number of voters (25%) are registered as independents. These facts show that millions of Americans are disillusioned by the two major parties, and that many would be responsive to an anti-war, anti-corporate voice in the 2008 elections, independent of the big business-dominated two party system. Socialist Alternative in the Twin Cities calls on Ralph Nader to run for president again in 2008 to provide a voice to the millions outraged at the brutal war in Iraq and corporate domination of our society. For tens of millions of Americans, Nader’s name remains synonymous with an independent, left-wing challenge to the Democrats and Republicans. He is a reference point who immediately brings to mind the key question facing workers and youth in the U.S. – is it justified, strategic and possible to break from the two-party system and run independent candidates against big business and their two parties? Or should we continue to support the politics of “lesser-evilism,” which means limiting ourselves to what is acceptable to Corporate America? In 2000 and 2004, Nader’s campaigns for president reached millions with radical demands, including: • A universal single-payer healthcare system • Full withdrawal of U.S. troops and personnel from Iraq • A $10/hour minimum wage • An expansion of workers’ rights and repealing the Taft-Hartley Act • Public works programs to create millions of jobs and end unemployment • A progressive tax system that makes big business and the rich pay • Rigorous environmental protection and a sustainable energy policy • Repealing the Patriot Act • Same-sex marriage rights • Abolition of the death penalty • An end to the failed war on drugs Nader is not a socialist, instead wrongly believing that the major social problems we face can be solved through greater regulations on business. Nevertheless, his presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004 were extremely important developments because they popularized the idea of building a left-wing alternative to the two-party corporate stranglehold over U.S. politics. We campaigned for a Nader vote, but on an independent, socialist basis (see links below for our previous material on Nader). Socialist Alternative believes the antiwar movement, the labor movement, and other social struggles can effectively challenge the two corporate parties if they unite and use their powerful resources to build a new mass party of working people that fights for our interests in the streets, the workplaces, and the electoral arena. We have criticized Nader for not using the authority he built up to clearly call for the formation of such a new political party. In 2004 we also made clear our opposition to Nader taking the ballot line of the right-wing, anti-immigrant Reform Party in several states. If Nader does run, it should be on a clear, principled, and left-wing basis. However, if Nader does not run, it will likely be a setback to challenging the Democrats and Republicans and preparing the basis for a mass left-wing, working class political alternative in this country. Owing to his prominence in 2000 and 2004 and his many years of consumer activism, Nader has become a household name and a symbol of resistance to the corporate domination of politics. More than any other foreseeable left independent candidate in 2008, a Nader campaign has the potential to reach the largest number of workers and youth and get the largest vote. This is important, because the larger the campaign and vote for a left independent in 2008, the greater the confidence ordinary working people will have in our ability to build a powerful, lasting political challenge to corporate rule. It is precisely the fear of this development that explains the uniquely vitriolic, well-funded attack campaigns directed at Nader by apologists for the Democratic Party. In reality, it is a mistake that Nader has not declared he is running already. This would have allowed activists to be out campaigning against the Democrats and Republicans and channeling support into an independent left-wing alternative, rather than allowing a lot of anti-war, anti-establishment sentiment to get sucked into the campaign of right-wing libertarian Ron Paul or left-wing Democrats like Dennis Kucinich. Despite Kucinich putting forward a platform essentially similar to Nader’s, he ultimately acts as a vehicle to channel progressives back into the corporate-dominated Democratic Party. We also welcome the declaration by former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney that she has broken from the Democrats and is seeking the Green Party’s nomination for president. McKinney has been outspoken against the occupation of Iraq, calling for “troops home now,” and is a leading critic of Bush and Congress’s attacks on civil liberties. With her base in the working class African American neighborhoods of Atlanta, McKinney has fought against racist and anti-worker policies and championed the fight to rebuild New Orleans in working peoples’ interests. Her program of far-reaching reforms within capitalism is fundamentally similar to Naders.’ While McKinney is much less well-known, if Nader fails to run in 2008 the McKinney campaign will likely be the strongest independent antiwar, anti-corporate electoral challenge for the White House. We feel that a united Nader-McKinney ticket in 2008 would be the strongest challenge to the two-party system and be a pole of attraction for millions fed up with the two parties of war and big business. Nader has said that he will decide soon whether or not to run for president, depending on the number of activists he feels will get involved in actively building his campaign. We urge everyone who agrees that Nader should run to show your support by signing the Draft Nader petition at www.draftnader.org. – Previous Socialist Alternative Material on Nader: 2004 Statement: Support Nader’s Campaign for President: It’s Time to Break From the Two-Party System http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=279 Review of An Unreasonable Man: New Documentary About Ralph Nader http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article21.php?id=517 Assessing the Nader Challenge in 2004 – Was It Worth Voting for Kerry After All? http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/printerfriendly/148.html Learning from Nader’s Mistakes – We Need a Workers’ Party http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=147 The Nader Factor in the 2000 Elections: http://socialistalternative.org/oldjustice/justice22/3.html Growing Cracks in the Two-Party System http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=151
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 5:52 PM PST
Monday, 7 January 2008
Mother Jones Interviews Iran Activist About Being In Prison
Mood:
sad
Now Playing: This is a sad article about a girl who went to prison in Iran for 30 days
Topic: HUMANITY
Thirty Days in Iran's Worst Prison http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2008/01/fashion-victim-full.html?src=email&link=hed_20080107_ts4_Thirty%20Days%20in%20Iran%27s%20Worst%20Prison Zarah Ghahramani, an Iranian student, was sent to Evin prison for exposing her head in public in 2001. Seven years later, she talks about what happened next. Kiera Butler January 04 , 2008 In autumn of 2001, 20-year-old college student Zarah Ghahramani broke the law by pulling her headscarf back a few inches on the streets of Tehran. Her crime didn't go unnoticed—she was picked up by the police and hauled off to spend 30 grueling days in Iran's infamous Evin prison. There she endured interrogations, beatings, and solitary confinement. At the end of her sentence, the authorities dropped her off in a distant suburb and left her to find her way back to her home—and to figure out how to readjust to life outside prison walls. After Evin, Ghahramani stopped giving political speeches on campus—the risk of getting arrested again was too great. She now lives in Australia, working and attending university. She tries to keep up with her activist friends back home, but in Iran, staying in touch is a dangerous business, since the simple act of contacting an old friend can be enough to get him arrested. "[My friend] Arash chose to stay in Iran, even though he knows they're watching him," she says. "He has to be really careful about everything, even the friends he chooses. So many times, I've done a Google search and found out who's been arrested lately. I'm always thinking, 'Am I going to see his name?'" In her new memoir, My Life as a Traitor, Ghahramani chronicles her time in prison and describes her liberal upbringing under an increasingly conservative regime. At home, Ghahramani recalls, she was encouraged to express herself, but in public, she was forced to obey the oppressive rules of the mullahs. "In school, I was taught that my greatest loyalty must be to God, then to the father of the Islamic Republic, the Ayatollah Khomeini, then to the nation itself," writes Ghahramani. At home, though, "Iran, my country, was the captive of sinister, inflexible people who saw the world in black and white, no color permitted, no shading, no nuances, no tolerance of beauty outside of Islamic spirituality." Mother Jones talked with Ghahramani about her time inside Evin—and how her life changed when she was released. Mother Jones: How did you pass the time in prison? Zarah Ghahramani: This might sound a bit weird, but it's unbelievable—human nature actually adapts itself to anything that we face. You just wake up at whatever time of the day or night, you sit there, and you keep thinking, because there's absolutely nothing else to do. If I was strong enough and I wasn't in pain, I would try to do some exercise. I would think, or talk with the guy who was above my cell, or cry, or be angry, or. . .I don't know. You just sit there and do nothing. You try to keep yourself alive and happy all day with whatever you have. Anything that you're left with is a blessing. The fact that you're not dead yet, or the fact that you can move your feet and breathe—it's good. You don't really think you're going to be free again, so you just deal with the situation at the time. MJ: What was the hardest part of being in Evin? ZG: When they shaved my head. I never thought it would mean so much, but for me it was such a big thing. It was my womanhood. It was my dad who loved my hair. It was me. These guards know exactly what makes you really depressed. They are really good at what they do. MJ: When the book ends, you've been dropped off in a distant suburb of Tehran and you've called your father to come pick you up. What happened next? ZG: He came, and we hugged and cried and all that, and then we went home. My sisters came over, and my father made breakfast for us, like when we were kids. It was all really normal. I was expecting them to ask me what had happened, where I had been, but we just had normal, everyday breakfast. Then I went to have a shower and I saw my face for the first time after a month. It was really scary. I hardly stopped myself from screaming, wondering what my family was going through seeing me like that, and not even saying anything. It was really frustrating for me—I really wanted to talk. But when I think about it now, it was the best thing they did. It was hard enough for them, what happened to me. I'm sure they didn't want to know any more. MJ: What was it like readjusting to life outside? ZG: I sort of hated myself for being depressed. I said to myself, "How dare you be depressed? You've put your family through so much, and now you're going to be depressed?" So I would actually try to cheer them up—I would act like, "I'm over it; it's fine; you guys should get over it, too." But there was always an unspoken fear between us that they would take me again. Sometimes I would come back a little bit late, and I would find my mom shivering and screaming, "Where have you been? Why didn't you call me or pick up your phone?" She would basically freak out. So it was really hard to go back to a normal life. There was always that paranoia for them and for me, and it stopped us from living life like we used to. MJ: Was that a real possibility, being arrested again? ZG: I wasn't giving any speeches or writing anything, but I would see my other friends arrested again and again, and I thought eventually that would happen to me, too. Even if you've just contacted an old friend, that could be a reason to get arrested if you have a previous record. MJ: What made you choose to go to Australia? ZG: I met [my coauthor] Robert [Hillman] and his wife [Ann] in Tehran, and we became friends. After they learned about my story, Robert kept telling me, "They're going to take you again." I wasn't planning to leave Iran, but it just became clear that it's not possible to live a normal life, so I decided to do it. Robert and Ann were the only people I knew overseas, so I decided to go to Australia. MJ: In the book, you criticize Iranian American TV channels, saying the Iranian American community is urging people in Iran to become martyrs. ZG: In Iran, we get those channels through satellite. When there were protests in the street, [Iranian Americans] would be like, "Oh, get out there into that street." For them it's really easy to say, because they don't know what it's like when you're taken to prison. For me, it would be a very difficult thing to do—sitting here in the sunshine in Australia telling people to go kill themselves. I would never give anyone advice to do that, and in fact, in my interviews I've been telling people not to do it. MJ: After being in Evin, do people generally give up activism? ZG: Not everyone. Some of them, even after their release, they still do things, and they keep taking them back again and again. Some of them actually die in prison. I decided that I wanted to have a normal life, and I don't want to put my family through any more than I already have. To be honest, I feel like I've paid my share. I've done whatever I could as a woman in Iran in the political scene. MJ: Are you worried about the book's effect on your family? ZG: Of course. I want everyone to know that what has happened to me has absolutely nothing to do with my family. If there's anyone to be blamed, it's me. I wrote the book to inspire other people, because I know a lot of people go through really tough times and they end up being depressed for the rest of their lives. I believe that you can get over something and get on with your life, no matter how much of a bad experience you've been through. Kiera Butler is an associate editor at Mother Jones.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 1:35 PM PST
Updated: Monday, 7 January 2008 1:41 PM PST
Thursday, 3 January 2008
Saudi Blogger Arrested 1/2/07
Mood:
don't ask
Now Playing: Blogger who dared to expose Saudi corruption is arrested
Topic: MEDIA
January 2nd, 2008 9:09 pm Blogger who dared to expose Saudi corruption is arrested By Claire Soares / The Independent http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=10636 Fouad al-Farhan knew they were coming for him. A few days before Saudi security forces swooped on his offices, he sent a letter to friends telling them he was a wanted man. "They will pick me up any time in the next two weeks," he predicted. His crime? Writing one of the most widely read blogs in Saudi Arabia. Mr Farhan, 32, who describes his online mission as "searching for freedom, dignity, justice, equality, public participation and other lost Islamic values", had already broken ground by refusing to hide behind a pen-name as he vented his spleen about the rampant corruption blighting political life. Now he has clocked up another first – the first blogger to be arrested in the kingdom. The blogger was picked up on 10 December from the offices of his computer company in Jeddah, but it was not until this week that the interior ministry finally confirmed his arrest. Blogging has seen something of a boom in Saudi Arabia, allowing dissident voices a space in a society were the media is kept on a tight leash and where political parties and public gatherings are banned. There are an estimated 600 bloggers in Saudi Arabia, male and female, conservative and liberal, writing in English and Arabic. The arrest of Mr Farhan has sent shock waves around internet users in Saudi Arabia. "Although we have seen bloggers in Bahrain, Kuwait and Egypt arrested and jailed, I thought this wouldn't happen here," said Ahmed Al-Omran, 23, a student in Riyadh who blogs under the name Saudi Jeans. He added: "Saudi Arabia doesn't usually jail journalists (they ban them, but they don't throw them in jail), and I thought those arresting citizens who exercise their right of free speech would be wise enough to choose their battles." The Saudi interior ministry said Mr Farhan was being held for "interrogation for violating non-security regulations" and declined all further comment. But in the letter he wrote before he was detained, Mr Farhan offers some more specifics: "The issue that caused all of this is because I wrote about the political prisoners here in Saudi Arabia and they think I'm running a online campaign promoting their issue." A group of 10 academics were arrested by the authorities last February. They were accused of supporting terrorism but have yet to be charged. Their campaigners say that the terrorism story is a charade and the men are being punished for their political activism. Mr Farhan said he had been asked to issue an apology. "I'm not sure if I'm ready to do that," he said. "An apology for what? Apologising because I said the government is [a] liar when it accused those guys of supporting terrorism?" His decision to stick to his guns may have cost him his liberty. The Committee to Protect Journalists described his arrest as deplorable. "Detaining writers and holding them for weeks without charge is appalling," said its director, Joel Simon. "We call on Saudi authorities to release him at once." Until that happens, Mr Farhan will be hoping that people pay attention to the closing words of his pre-arrest letter: "I don't want to be forgotten in jail."
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 5:54 PM PST
Missing Torture Tapes - Bush pretends he cares(sic)
Mood:
quizzical
Now Playing: Imagine, watching hundreds of hours of USA-Done-Torture
Topic: TORTURE
Bush "strongly" (sic) supports CIA tapes probe By Tabassum Zakaria http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSWAT00862120080103?sp=true WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Thursday he strongly supports a Justice Department investigation into the destruction of CIA videotapes depicting the harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects. The White House would cooperate, he said. "I strongly support it. And we will participate," Bush said in a Reuters interview. It was his first public comment since the Justice Department said on Wednesday it had launched a criminal investigation into the CIA's destruction of the tapes. Asked whether he had any concerns the probe might raise questions about his counterterrorism policy, Bush replied: "See what it says. See what the investigation leads to." The Central Intelligence Agency last month disclosed that in 2005 it destroyed hundreds of hours of tapes from the interrogations of two al Qaeda suspects, prompting an outcry from Democrats, human rights activists and some legal experts. The CIA interrogations, which took place in 2002, were believed to have included a form of simulated drowning known as waterboarding, condemned internationally as torture. Bush has said the United States does not torture but has declined to be specific about interrogation methods. He has previously said he had no recollection of being briefed on the tapes or their destruction before last month. Reports have said that White House lawyers were involved in discussions on whether the tapes should be destroyed. Bush also called on Congress to pass a new version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which sets rules for electronic surveillance in terrorism cases. The effort to renew the legislation is stalled by battles over enhanced privacy protections some Democrats want and Bush's push to shield telephone companies from lawsuits if they participated in a program of domestic spying without warrants after the September 11, 2001, attacks. "The Congress needs to pass FISA, and they need to do it quickly," Bush said. "FISA expires, but the threat to America doesn't." The Justice Department investigation is expected to focus on the destruction of the tapes and not whether the interrogation practices were legal. The probe could last well beyond Bush's term in office, which ends next January, said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law school expert on the federal legal system. U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat, released a copy of a letter she wrote to the CIA in 2003, after receiving a briefing on the interrogations, urging the agency not to destroy the tapes. "Even if the videotape does not constitute an official record that must be preserved under the law ... the fact of destruction would reflect badly on the agency," she said. The CIA says it acted lawfully in destroying the tapes, but critics including some top congressional Democrats say the agency flouted court orders and investigators' requests that it hand over evidence in various terrorism cases. Congressional intelligence committees have said they would continue their investigations into the destroyed tapes despite the federal probe and warnings from the Justice Department that Congress could undermine that investigation by compromising witnesses. (Additional reporting by Randall Mikkelsen, Editing by Joanne Kenen and Frances Kerry)
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 2:53 PM PST
Updated: Thursday, 3 January 2008 2:54 PM PST
Monday, 31 December 2007
The Airport Security Follies
Mood:
d'oh
Now Playing: TSA trummed up fear ....flying safe? I doubt it!
Topic: FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT
Six years after the terrorist attacks of 2001, airport security remains a theater of the absurd. The changes put in place following the September 11th catastrophe have been drastic, and largely of two kinds: those practical and effective, and those irrational, wasteful and pointless. The first variety have taken place almost entirely behind the scenes. Explosives scanning for checked luggage, for instance, was long overdue and is perhaps the most welcome addition. Unfortunately, at concourse checkpoints all across America, the madness of passenger screening continues in plain view. It began with pat-downs and the senseless confiscation of pointy objects. Then came the mandatory shoe removal, followed in the summer of 2006 by the prohibition of liquids and gels. We can only imagine what is next. To understand what makes these measures so absurd, we first need to revisit the morning of September 11th, and grasp exactly what it was the 19 hijackers so easily took advantage of. Conventional wisdom says the terrorists exploited a weakness in airport security by smuggling aboard box-cutters. What they actually exploited was a weakness in our mindset — a set of presumptions based on the decades-long track record of hijackings. In years past, a takeover meant hostage negotiations and standoffs; crews were trained in the concept of “passive resistance.” All of that changed forever the instant American Airlines Flight 11 collided with the north tower. What weapons the 19 men possessed mattered little; the success of their plan relied fundamentally on the element of surprise. And in this respect, their scheme was all but guaranteed not to fail. For several reasons — particularly the awareness of passengers and crew — just the opposite is true today. Any hijacker would face a planeload of angry and frightened people ready to fight back. Say what you want of terrorists, they cannot afford to waste time and resources on schemes with a high probability of failure. And thus the September 11th template is all but useless to potential hijackers. No matter that a deadly sharp can be fashioned from virtually anything found on a plane, be it a broken wine bottle or a snapped-off length of plastic, we are content wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and untold hours of labor in a delusional attempt to thwart an attack that has already happened, asked to queue for absurd lengths of time, subject to embarrassing pat-downs and loss of our belongings. The folly is much the same with respect to the liquids and gels restrictions, introduced two summers ago following the breakup of a London-based cabal that was planning to blow up jetliners using liquid explosives. Allegations surrounding the conspiracy were revealed to substantially embellished. In an August, 2006 article in the New York Times, British officials admitted that public statements made following the arrests were overcooked, inaccurate and “unfortunate.” The plot’s leaders were still in the process of recruiting and radicalizing would-be bombers. They lacked passports, airline tickets and, most critical of all, they had been unsuccessful in actually producing liquid explosives. Investigators later described the widely parroted report that up to ten U.S airliners had been targeted as “speculative” and “exaggerated.” Among first to express serious skepticism about the bombers’ readiness was Thomas C. Greene, whose essay in The Register explored the extreme difficulty of mixing and deploying the types of binary explosives purportedly to be used. Green conferred with Professor Jimmie C. Oxley, an explosives specialist who has closely studied the type of deadly cocktail coveted by the London plotters. “The notion that deadly explosives can be cooked up in an airplane lavatory is pure fiction,” Greene told me during an interview. “A handy gimmick for action movies and shows like ‘24.’ The reality proves disappointing: it’s rather awkward to do chemistry in an airplane toilet. Nevertheless, our official protectors and deciders respond to such notions instinctively, because they’re familiar to us: we’ve all seen scenarios on television and in the cinema. This, incredibly, is why you can no longer carry a bottle of water onto a plane.” The threat of liquid explosives does exist, but it cannot be readily brewed from the kinds of liquids we have devoted most of our resources to keeping away from planes. Certain benign liquids, when combined under highly specific conditions, are indeed dangerous. However, creating those conditions poses enormous challenges for a saboteur. “I would not hesitate to allow that liquid explosives can pose a danger,” Greene added, recalling Ramzi Yousef’s 1994 detonation of a small nitroglycerine bomb aboard Philippine Airlines Flight 434. The explosion was a test run for the so-called “Project Bojinka,” an Al Qaeda scheme to simultaneously destroy a dozen widebody airliners over the Pacific Ocean. “But the idea that confiscating someone’s toothpaste is going to keep us safe is too ridiculous to entertain.” Yet that’s exactly what we’ve been doing. The three-ounce container rule is silly enough — after all, what’s to stop somebody from carrying several small bottles each full of the same substance — but consider for a moment the hypocrisy of T.S.A.’s confiscation policy. At every concourse checkpoint you’ll see a bin or barrel brimming with contraband containers taken from passengers for having exceeded the volume limit. Now, the assumption has to be that the materials in those containers are potentially hazardous. If not, why were they seized in the first place? But if so, why are they dumped unceremoniously into the trash? They are not quarantined or handed over to the bomb squad; they are simply thrown away. The agency seems to be saying that it knows these things are harmless. But it’s going to steal them anyway, and either you accept it or you don’t fly. But of all the contradictions and self-defeating measures T.S.A. has come up with, possibly none is more blatantly ludicrous than the policy decreeing that pilots and flight attendants undergo the same x-ray and metal detector screening as passengers. What makes it ludicrous is that tens of thousands of other airport workers, from baggage loaders and fuelers to cabin cleaners and maintenance personnel, are subject only to occasional random screenings when they come to work. These are individuals with full access to aircraft, inside and out. Some are airline employees, though a high percentage are contract staff belonging to outside companies. The fact that crew members, many of whom are former military fliers, and all of whom endured rigorous background checks prior to being hired, are required to take out their laptops and surrender their hobby knives, while a caterer or cabin cleaner sidesteps the entire process and walks onto a plane unimpeded, nullifies almost everything our T.S.A. minders have said and done since September 11th, 2001. If there is a more ringing let-me-get-this-straight scenario anywhere in the realm of airport security, I’d like to hear it. I’m not suggesting that the rules be tightened for non-crew members so much as relaxed for all accredited workers. Which perhaps urges us to reconsider the entire purpose of airport security: The truth is, regardless of how many pointy tools and shampoo bottles we confiscate, there shall remain an unlimited number of ways to smuggle dangerous items onto a plane. The precise shape, form and substance of those items is irrelevant. We are not fighting materials, we are fighting the imagination and cleverness of the would-be saboteur. Thus, what most people fail to grasp is that the nuts and bolts of keeping terrorists away from planes is not really the job of airport security at all. Rather, it’s the job of government agencies and law enforcement. It’s not very glamorous, but the grunt work of hunting down terrorists takes place far off stage, relying on the diligent work of cops, spies and intelligence officers. Air crimes need to be stopped at the planning stages. By the time a terrorist gets to the airport, chances are it’s too late. In the end, I’m not sure which is more troubling, the inanity of the existing regulations, or the average American’s acceptance of them and willingness to be humiliated. These wasteful and tedious protocols have solidified into what appears to be indefinite policy, with little or no opposition. There ought to be a tide of protest rising up against this mania. Where is it? At its loudest, the voice of the traveling public is one of grumbled resignation. The op-ed pages are silent, the pundits have nothing meaningful to say. The airlines, for their part, are in something of a bind. The willingness of our carriers to allow flying to become an increasingly unpleasant experience suggests a business sense of masochistic capitulation. On the other hand, imagine the outrage among security zealots should airlines be caught lobbying for what is perceived to be a dangerous abrogation of security and responsibility — even if it’s not. Carriers caught plenty of flack, almost all of it unfair, in the aftermath of September 11th. Understandably, they no longer want that liability. As for Americans themselves, I suppose that it’s less than realistic to expect street protests or airport sit-ins from citizen fliers, and maybe we shouldn’t expect too much from a press and media that have had no trouble letting countless other injustices slip to the wayside. And rather than rethink our policies, the best we’ve come up with is a way to skirt them — for a fee, naturally — via schemes like Registered Traveler. Americans can now pay to have their personal information put on file just to avoid the hassle of airport security. As cynical as George Orwell ever was, I doubt he imagined the idea of citizens offering up money for their own subjugation. How we got to this point is an interesting study in reactionary politics, fear-mongering and a disconcerting willingness of the American public to accept almost anything in the name of “security.” Conned and frightened, our nation demands not actual security, but security spectacle. And although a reasonable percentage of passengers, along with most security experts, would concur such theater serves no useful purpose, there has been surprisingly little outrage. In that regard, maybe we’ve gotten exactly the system we deserve.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 11:24 AM PST
Wednesday, 26 December 2007
Bush wont have a chance (HAHA) to appoint while Congress is on recess
Mood:
celebratory
Now Playing: "pro forma" sessions (Congress Keeps Running)
Topic: SMILE SMILE SMILE
Copied from - WASHINGTON (CNN) http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/26/senate.pro.forma/index.html?iref=topnews The U.S. Senate was called to order for 11 seconds on Wednesday as the last political scuffle of the year between the White House and the Democratic-led Congress played out. Democratic senators will hold short "pro forma" sessions over the holiday break to prevent recess appointments. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, opened and then immediately gaveled the Senate session to a close. He spent 57 seconds in the chamber. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, announced December 19 that he would keep the Senate open with a series of "pro forma" sessions through mid-January. Talks had just broken down with the White House on a deal that would have allowed the president to make dozens of those appointments if he agreed not to appoint one controversial official, Steven Bradbury, as the permanent head of the influential Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. Bush declined to accept the Democrats' offer, and Reid refused to approve Bradbury because of concerns about his involvement in crafting legal opinions for the administration on interrogation techniques of terrorism suspects. Similar sessions were conducted over the Thanksgiving recess. Webb also did the duty Friday, but he won't be the only senator tasked with presiding over the shortened sessions. Other Democrats -- including Sens. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Cardin of Maryland and Chuck Schumer of New York -- will share the duty.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 5:17 PM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 26 December 2007 5:18 PM PST
Sunday, 23 December 2007
FBI (J.Edgar Hoover) Sought Authority To Detain Thousands
Mood:
irritated
Now Playing: to "protect the country against treason, espionage and sabotage,"
Topic: CIVIL RIGHTS
FBI Sought Authority To Detain Thousands Declassified Papers Detail
Hoover Plan During Korean War
The following post was copied from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/22/AR2007122201487.html?sub=AR Associated Press Sunday, December 23, 2007; A16
Former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover had a plan to suspend the rules against illegal detention shortly after the Korean War began and arrest as many as 12,000 Americans he suspected of being disloyal, according to a newly declassified document. Hoover sent his plan to detain suspect Americans in military and federal prisons to the White House on July 7, 1950, but there is no evidence to suggest that President Harry S. Truman or any subsequent president approved any part of the proposal. Hoover had wanted Truman to declare the mass arrests necessary to "protect the country against treason, espionage and sabotage," the New York Times reported yesterday in a story posted on its Web site. The plan called for the FBI to apprehend all potentially dangerous individuals whose names were on a list that Hoover had been compiling for years. "The index now contains approximately twelve thousand individuals, of which approximately ninety-seven percent are citizens of the United States," Hoover wrote in the now-declassified document. "In order to make effective these apprehensions, the proclamation suspends the Writ of Habeas Corpus." Habeas corpus, the right to seek relief from illegal detention, is a bedrock legal principle. All apprehended individuals eventually would have had the right to a hearing under Hoover's plan, but hearing boards composed of one judge and two citizens "will not be bound by the rules of evidence," he wrote. The details of Hoover's plan was among a collection of Cold War-era documents related to intelligence issues from 1950 to 1955. The State Department declassified the documents Friday.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:38 PM PST
Updated: Sunday, 23 December 2007 12:42 PM PST
Protestors Drive Blood-spattered Car onto Blackwater Property
Mood:
loud
Now Playing: Blackwater Protest
Topic: PROTEST!
Blackwater Protest: Protestors Drive Blood-spattered Car onto Blackwater PropertySeven activists are arrested after driving onto Blackwater's property to protest the military contractor's presence in Iraq. 50 others vigil along road. At almost noon on Saturday, October 20th, an old silver Subaru, pock-marked with mock bullet holes, spattered in psuedo-blood and spray-painted "handiwork of Blackwater", pulled up in front of a large sign displaying a big bear-paw--the logo of Blackwater Worldwide. The sign sits just inside the property line of the private military contractor's 7,000 acre facility in the Great Dismal Swamp of North Carolina. Six "blood"-stained passengers emerged from the car, marked two signs with red hand-prints and "died" in and around the battered car, while a supporter read a description of the Nisour Square Massacre of Sept. 16th, in which Blackwater employees had killed 17 Iraqi civilians.
As an independent film-maker followed the gruesome re-enactment, Blackwater employees and eventually police officers arrived on the scene, demanding that demonstrators leave Blackwater property. Within ten minutes, 50 additional protestors had arrived, lining the street leading up to the Blackwater property sign with banners and posters: "Blackwater: Shoot First, Ask No Questions", "Blackwater, USA, Out of Iraq".
It took police about an hour to arrest the six people from the car: Bill Streit from Louisa, VA, Steve Baggarly from Norfolk, VA, Beth Brockman and Laura Marks from North Carolina, Peter Demott from New York and Mark Coleville from Connecticutt. Before they were all in the sheriff's van, they'd been joined my Mary Grace of Madison, VA, who crossed onto Blackwater property to kneel in prayer.
All seven were taken to Currituk Count Jail. Mary Grace was charged with second-degree tresspassing and the others were charged with trespassing, injury to real property and resisting arrest. The North Carolina residents were released with a December 5th courtdate. The rest are being held on bail ($500 for Mary Grace, $1,000 for the rest), at least until their arraignment on Wednesday.
For more info. and updates, call Little Flower Catholic Worker at 540-967-5574.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 1:25 AM PST
Updated: Sunday, 23 December 2007 1:30 AM PST
Tuesday, 18 December 2007
About Time Some Common Sense & Decency is Afforded to us Citizens
Mood:
amorous
Now Playing: White House "tries" to block "public records" - Sorry Boys!
Topic: CONSPIRACY
Judge Rules White House Visitor Log is Public Information
12/18/07 -- Posted by Catherine Morgan
http://www.care2.com/politics/judge-rules-wh-visitor-log-public.html
Federal Judge Smacks Down on White House Log Secrecy
Why in the world do White House visitor logs need to be a national secret? Well, when all else fails the Bush administration usually plays the "Threat to National Security" card. No surprise here, that is exactly what they did. However, on Monday, a federal judge rejected the Bush administration argument for secrecy, and ruled that the visitor logs are subject to the Freedom of Information Act and are public information. This is from The Carpetbagger Report...
For several years now, White House visitor logs have been a major point of contention with the Bush gang.
About a year ago, for example, when Dick Cheney insisted that his visitor logs remain classified, the WaPo sued the administration for access. A federal judge eventually ruled that the logs were public information, prompting Cheney to direct the Justice Department to block the decision on national security grounds.
But that’s just the start of the Bush gang’s log problem. In June, Cheney instructed the Secret Service to destroy copies of visitor logs. A few months prior, the White House told the Secret Service that while it maintains the visitor logs, the logs don’t actually belong to the Secret Service, which means FOIA doesn’t apply.
Other bloggers are talking about this latest triumph over secrecy... The FOI Advocate
Blue Girl, Red State
Jason Daley has a post on what the secret service log looked like on one particular day.
So, what do you think about this? Should the White House visitor log be public? Do you think it's a threat to national security? Would you vote for a presidential candidate that intended to maintain such a high level of secrecy?
Z3 Readers click here to go to the original post and to read the comments that have been posted there. |
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 7:10 PM PST
Monday, 17 December 2007
YouTube suspends Egyptian blog activists account
Mood:
smelly
Now Playing: Egyptian blogger exposes torture, now his video blog site is closed
Topic: MEDIA
Kevin Anderson Latest blog postsYouTube suspends Egyptian blog activist's accounthttp://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/11/youtube_suspends_egyptian_blog.html Egyptian blogger Wael Abbas has been using YouTube to expose torture in his country, but now his account has been suspended. Bloggers accuse YouTube of double standards. November 28, 2007 6:25 PM YouTube has suspended the account of Egyptian blogger Wael Abbas, who has been posting videos of cases of torture in his country. One of the videos he posted, of a Cairo man being beating and sexually assaulting, was credited with helping bring pressure on Egyptian authorities. That pressure led to three-year jail sentences for two of the policeman involved in the assault. Abbas has called the suspension of his YouTube account "by far the biggest blow to the anti-torture movement in Egypt", according to Amira Al Hussaini on Global Voices. Technorati Tags: Egypt, Google , human rights, YouTube Amira has collected a good sample of reaction by Egyptian bloggers. Blogger Hossam El Hamalawy called the move by YouTube "un-bloody-believable" and said: Wael's videos have been central in the fight against police brutality, and YouTube should be proud the Egyptian anti-torture activists have been using its channels in the current War on Torture He predicted that activists would move the videos to other sites. The move has already started. A video showing scenes of torture in Egypt on the Global Voices post is hosted on the popular French video sharing site, DailyMotion. But in a comment on Hamalawy's post, Mostafa Hussein said that YouTube's terms of service prevent the posting of such videos: Well, the message from youtube is that waelabbas violated their terms of use.
This is actually true if you take a look at it. It states that content should follow the community guidelines[1]. In these community guidelines, there is this statement saying "Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it." He suggested that activists use other sites, not just commercial sites like DailyMotion but "activist friendly" sites like IndyMedia. Well-known Egyptian blogger Big Pharaoh has called on readers of his blog to protest YouTube's decision. These videos are the only mean to expose what happens in our police stations, without them the cry of people who were subjected to torture will go unheard. Outside of Egypt, Stan Schroeder writing on Mashable, a site which covers social networking, questioned why Abbas' account was suspended when other videos of violence are on the site: OK, why then can I find dozens of videos of people getting tasered by the police? If you ask me, a video of someone getting shocked with a high voltage weapon can definitely be described as graphic violence. And many will argue that the violence in such videos cannot be qualified as gratuitous. ... This is an ongoing problem with practically all sites which aggregate user-submitted content: double (or simply unclear) standards. The question for Schroeder was whether showing police brutality qualified as 'gratuitous' violence. One of the commenters pointed out the Witness' Hub was created specifically to host videos of human rights abuses. But another commenter said that the audience at the Hub is much less than YouTube, and many of the videos on the Hub are in fact hosted elsewhere on sites like YouTube. On the blog Mideast Youth, Esra'a from Bahrain says that this is pattern of YouTube and parent company Google giving into state pressure, saying that it recently gave into pressure from Turkish authorities.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 5:45 PM PST
Updated: Monday, 17 December 2007 5:47 PM PST
Newer | Latest | Older
|
« |
January 2008 |
» |
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|