Law, Politics, and Commentary

2011-05-26T14:49:00.001-07:00

It has been a loooong time since I posted anything. I got up in the election fever of 2008 and had hoped for quite a bit more change than we got. While I have been pleased with Mr. Obama's foreign policy overall his domestic policies have been disappointing. The first clue that the economy was not going to handled well was when he did not include a single economist that had predicted the meltdown but instead filled the posts with folks that had helped it occur. That may still sink him if he cannot get the economy to turn around and of course for the Republicans, they do not want to turn the economy around since their friends (the Koch brothers come to mind) are doing just fine. Between the oligarchy's money and the general public's discontent, they make still get significant majorities so that they can dismantle everything leaving everyman for himself, everyone else be damned.

2008-08-02T16:29:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite music videos on tube is Weezer's Pork and Beans. It is full of references in the world of youtube. All of these videos have been seen at least over a million times. Here is a list for you enjoy:

It starts immediately with One Man Band.

Chocolate Rain by Tay Zonday

Numa Numa - fun watching this frumpy guy get completely into it.

Dramatic Prairie dog. There is the 5 sec version most people of have seen and the original 40 some second context - both of which are in the Weezer video.

Ninja try-outs completely hysterical. The afro ninja is who is featured in the Weezer video.

I think that the star wars kid must be related to the wandabe ninjas above. Here is the original version which is also funny.

Some animation: GI Joe Gay. Too funny but it a stereotyped way. And this one based on a Sega game, All Your Base Are Belong To Us - The bad translation is what gives it entertainment value.

Then there is the hysterical (not in a funny way - then again it is so exaggerated it is funny) about a guy who rants "LEAVE BRITTANY ALONE!" After 45 seconds into this video you get the idea. It has been viewed some 7 million times.

And speaking of Brittany - Kevin Federline makes an appearance talking about Brazilian music - Popozao. I thought this was obscure and it is because it is only video in the group that has been viewed less than a million times.

If you have not seen the most fantastic blenders in the world, you are missing out on "Will it Blend?" Anything from light bulbs, to iphones, to glowsticks, to cds, ecetera.

Then there is the Guiness World Record for most T-Shirts worn at one time - 155 of them, 100 pounds set to soaring music.

The Evolution of Dance has got to be one of the most popular videos on the web. It has been viewed some 94 million times.

Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger: Daft Hands (seen over 20 millions times) - which inspired Daft Dancers (over 5 million).

Crank That Soldier Boy! Three white boys in oversized cargo shorts dancing

Then there is the Miss Carolina for Teen USA pageant who flubbed an answer so badly it was incredible. (seen over 27 million times). Got to give her credit for her good grace and humor.

Just one word: SHOES!
(parental warning - there are some f-bombs. Kelly is foul mouthed and has anger issues)

Then there is all those Mentos experiments.Fun!

The most annoying song of all time - at least in my opinion. It's Peanut Butter Jelly Time!!!

Charlie, the cynical unicorn makes an appearance. Shun the unbeliever of Candy Mountain.

Then there is Kicesie - Question and Answer regarding what is the best sex ever.

I think that the flying spaceship refers to this video of purported UFO seen in Haiti.

If you look carefully there is the mother panda and her cub featured in this video.

I think that the pile of rubik's cubes refers to this solution video by Dan Brown.

The laser saber fight going on behind the band is Ryan vs. Dorkman - a beautifully done fight.

Lastly the trio of computer animation of dancing Donald Duck, gorilla, and what I believe to be an alien. This was the only one that I could not find.

I am sure that I missed some. There are so many references and so little time.

2007-04-03T14:06:00.000-07:00

MONICA GOODLING MUST APPEAR AND TESTIFY

Representative Conyers, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Lawhas send this excellent letter to Ms. Goodling's attorney demanding that she appear before the committee. Mr. Conyers and Ms. Sanchez are absolutely correct about the need to testify and underlying grounds required for a person to use the Fifth Amendment as a shield.

Dear Mr. Dowd:

We are in receipt of your letter of March 30, 2007, requesting that we communicate with you, rather than the Department of Justice, regarding the House Judiciary Committee's interest in questioning your client, Monica Goodling, Esq.

On behalf of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, we write to request that your client, Ms. Goodling, voluntarily appear to be interviewed by our staff in the next week and to discuss the justification for her apparent decision to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege to questions relating to her role in the termination of several United States Attorneys and the Department's response to requests by the Congress for information relating to the terminations.

We have reviewed Ms. Goodling's declaration and the letters you sent to us and Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we are concerned that several of the asserted grounds for refusing to testify do not satisfy the well-established bases for a proper invocation of the Fifth Amendment against self- incrimination. In addition, of course, the Fifth Amendment privilege, under long-standing Supreme Court precedents, does not provide a reason to fail to appear to testify; the privilege must be invoked by the witness on a question-by-question basis.

The interview we seek could obviate the need to subpoena Ms. Goodling and require her to appear at a public hearing and require her to invoke the privilege to specific questions. We believe that such a proceeding, consistent with the Constitution and Supreme Court precedents, would permit the public to see and hear the specific questions to which Ms. Goodling is asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and to permit the Congress and the public to draw appropriate inferences from her invocation of the privilege and the Department of Justice's failure to insist that she waive the privilege. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976); Brinks, Inc. v. City of New York, 71 7 F.3d 700 (2d Cir. 1983); United States v. District Council of New York City, 832 F. Supp. 644 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) [where the court upheld the position of the Department of Justice that adverse inferences should be drawn in a civil case against an employer for the invocation by its employee of his Fifth Amendment privilege]. Most of the assertions in your letters to Sen. Leahy and in Ms. Goodling's declaration do not constitute a valid basis for invoking the privilege against self-incrimination.

The fact that a few Senators and Members of the House have expressed publicly their doubts about the credibility of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General in their representations to Congress about the U.S. Attorneys' termination does not in any way excuse your client from answering questions honestly and to the best of her ability. Of course, we expect (as we are sure you do) your client to tell the truth in any interview or testimony. The alleged concern that she may be prosecuted for perjury by the Department of Justice for fully truthful testimony is not only an unjustified basis for invoking the privilege and without reasonable foundation in this case but also so far as we know an unwarranted aspersion against her employer.

Even with full Court-ordered immunity, a witness is required, under penalty of perjury, to tell the full truth. As we are sure the Department of Justice, in particular, would agree, it would be extremely poor public policy if a witness were permitted to be excused from testifying simply on the basis of her concern that truthful testimony would not be credited by responsible prosecutors and that she could be subject to an unwarranted perjury prosecution. Neither the Department nor the Congress could operate properly if witnesses were free to disregard their duty to provide truthful testimony on this basis. In any event, it is particularly inappropriate in this situation, where the Congress makes no prosecutorial decisions and any decision to prosecute would have to be made by the Department of Justice, which employs your client.

The references in your letters to Mr. Libby and Mr. Safavian are particularly unwarranted and inappropriate. Both of those individuals, former high-ranking officials in the Bush Administration, were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by juries of their peers, in cases brought by Presidentially appointed U.S. Attorneys, of knowingly and intentionally lying or providing false information primarily to Executive branch agents or officials. Neither matter involved truthful testimony by the defendants. Both of them were found to have deliberately misrepresented facts, which we are confident you do not expect Ms. Goodling to do. If her testimony is truthful, she will have nothing to worry about in terms of a perjury prosecution, which, of course, rests in the exclusive control of the Department.

Based in part on what we believe are inappropriate considerations for the invocation of the Fifth Amendment, we seek an opportunity to have the staff question Ms. Goodling, in your presence, in order to make a determination of whether there is any valid basis for her to invoke the privilege in response to specific questions. We note that Mr. Kyle Sampson, the Attorney General's former chief of staff who worked closely with Ms. Goodling on these matters, advised the Senate recently under oath that he knew of no valid basis for her assertion. If there is no valid basis, we will want to afford her an opportunity (as several other Department employees have agreed to take) to answer in a straight-forward fashion in a private, confidential setting all questions relating to her knowledge about the firings of the U.S. Attorneys, the role in these terminations of the White House with which she served as liaison and the Department's explanation about these matters to the Congress.

We look forward to your prompt reply so that we can make the necessary arrangements for the early interview we request, or if there is no agreed interview, to consider the follow-up steps the Committee should take. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

JOHN CONYERS, JR. LINDA T. SÁNCHEZ
Chairman Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law

2007-03-28T12:43:00.000-07:00

DON'T HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE? NO PROBLEM!

There is a tendency by the Bush administration to put people without any experience in key positions (Brownie anyone?) Experience? We don't need any stinking experience! What we want is ideology!

Apparently the only qualifications needed to rise to a high level in the Bush administration is being a true believer by which I mean early indoctrination into The Party early before the real world can interfer and show that 1) you really know nothing about how the world works, and 2) not everything you have learned is true. As we well know Reality has a liberal bias. Actual competence is not necessary. Should one of these unqualifed and inexperienced individuals make a monumental error, a Medal of Freedom will be bestowed.

There are not one but two examples in the thick of the U.S. Attorney Purge: Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson. Both had less than ten years experience before they were put in positions of power.

Monica Goodling graduated in 1999 from a low ranked law school called Regent University "Christian Leadership to Change the World" after attending Messiah College. How can such an individual get appointed to the high level and profile job of Department of Justice Spokesperson in the first place? A spokesperson for a cabinet level agency needs to have extensive experience in dealing with the public and the media. This position also requires experience in the actual practice of law so that the events occuring within the Department of Justice can be communicated effectively to the public. Ms. Goodling has neither.

Then there Kyle Sampson. Here is an excerpt from today's Washington Post. I believe the article was meant to be flattering.

Sampson coveted the U.S. attorney's job in Salt Lake City and twice approached the man who still had the job, Paul Warner -- now a federal magistrate -- to ask him when he'd be stepping down. The first occurred in a conference room in Utah, Warner said, and the second took place during a lunch in Washington on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Though they shared the same home state, Warner and Sampson followed different public service narratives. A former JAG attorney, Warner had spent 17 years in various capacities in the U.S. attorney's office, saying it "was where I wanted to be, not where I wanted to be from."

In speaking to the eager Sampson, Warner asked him to slow his motor.

"I let him know he would be helped with practical experience as a prosecutor," Warner said. "I told him he should spend some time as an assistant U.S. attorney. If you're going to be chief surgeon, it's nice to do some surgery."

2007-03-28T12:03:00.000-07:00

CAN WHITE HOUSE ADVISERS BE MADE TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS?

I just read the Congressional Research Service's report of April 14, 2004 concerning Presidential Advisers' Testimony Before Congressional Committees. Here is my take:
Both Carter and Bush have raised the separation of powers arguments in refusing to allow one of their advisers to testify. However, Congress does have a constitutionally rooted right to access information it needs to fulfill its Article I legislative and oversight functions. McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 177, 181-82 (1927), Watkins v. United States, 354 178, 200 note 33 (1957).

Another reason raised by Presidents has been executive privilege, which Bush, as his predecessor Richard M. Nixon raised. While the Supreme Court has found that a constitutional basis for executive privilege, it is not absolute for the president's need for confidentiality must be balanced with need for materials for the other branch of government to fulfill its constitutional duty. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 708, (1974). The a case that did involve a senatorial subpoena , a court found that presumption that the public interest favor confidentiality in presidential communications can be defeated only by a strong showing of need by another institution of government. Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F.2d 725, 730 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

Executive privilege has two components. One is communications privilege and the other is deliberative process privilege. In my research at the Oregon DOJ, I found the state had very similar distinctions for government officials and agencies. The communications privilege is based on the constitutional separation of powers for it relates to direct decisionmaking by the President. The deliberative process privilege is based on common law and is applicable to decisionmaking of executive officials generally. In Re Sealed Case (Espy), 212 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997). As neither of these privileges are absolute, court must balance the public interest involved and assess the need of the party seeking the information.

The likely outcome is that advisers, whose sole purpose is to is to advise the President, will not be forced to testify. This would include Karl Rove and likely Harriet Miers. Other officials who have operational duties such Albert Gonzales, can certainly be made to testify though not necessarily about their advisory duties. Now, here is the problem for the White House, Rove and Miers by interjecting themselves into the function of the Justice Department, so they should be compelled to testify as to their actions regarding the purge of the U.S. Attorneys. Not only that but apparently, they were using e-mail accounts at the Republican Party's headquarters. The use of those e-mail accounts clearly put them outside their advisory role to the President. Additionally, the use of those e-mail accounts for official White House Business violates the Presidential Records Act. According to the National Journal, about 95% of Karl Rove's email traffic has been on the Republican National Committee email accounts.

However, the courts, have historically been reluctant to involve themselves in separation of powers issues. (We will ignore the aberration of Bush v. Gore). Considering that and especially the current bench which is filled with Bush appointees it is a near certainty that the judicial branch will refuse to intervene. Impeachment may be the only effective remedy for the Senate to bring this administrations action to the light of day.

2007-03-28T11:45:00.000-07:00

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY PURGE

YES, IT WAS ILLEGAL

Some people are arguing that Alberto Gonzales and the White House staff did not actually break any laws when dismissing the eight U.S. Attorneys. While it is true that that the attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the president," the oath of office that these men and women take is to the U.S. Constitution, not to the president himself. (Article VI . . . all executive and judicial Officers, . . . shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.) The required independence of prosecutors so that they can unbiasedly pursue cases for the good of their communities is a necessity, not a luxury. Nonetheless, Alberto Gonzales, White House and Justice Officials and even members of Congress and others involved in the attorney purge may have in fact violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1520, the federal obstruction of justice statute. Adam Cohen specifies what violations may have occurred.

Some crimes that a special prosecutor might one day look at:

1. Misrepresentations to Congress. The relevant provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, is very broad. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and also to “impede” it in getting information. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty indicated to Congress that the White House’s involvement in firing the United States attorneys was minimal, something that Justice Department e-mail messages suggest to be untrue.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made his own dubious assertion to Congress: “I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons.”

The administration appears to be trying to place all of the blame on Mr. Gonzales’s chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, who resigned after reportedly failing to inform top Justice Department officials about the White House’s role in the firings. If Mr. Sampson withheld the information from Mr. McNulty, who then misled Congress, Mr. Sampson may have violated § 1505.

But Mr. Sampson’s lawyer now says other top Justice Department officials knew of the White House’s role. Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, said last week that “Kyle Sampson will not be the next Scooter Libby, the next fall guy.” Congress will be looking for evidence that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty knew that what they told Congress was false or misleading.
Convictions of this kind are not common, but they happen. Just ask former White House aide David Safavian, who was convicted last year of making false statements to a Senate committee.

2. Calling the Prosecutors. As part of the Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, Congress passed an extremely broad obstruction of justice provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” including U.S. attorney investigations.
David Iglesias, the New Mexico United States attorney, says Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, called him and asked whether he intended to bring indictments in a corruption case against Democrats before last November’s election. Mr. Iglesias said he “felt pressured” by the call. If members of Congress try to get a United States attorney to indict people he wasn’t certain he wanted to indict, or try to affect the timing of an indictment, they may be violating the law.

3. Witness Tampering. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses. Michael Elston, Mr. McNulty’s chief of staff, contacted one of the fired attorneys, H. E. Cummins, and suggested, according to Mr. Cummins, that if he kept speaking out, there would be retaliation. Mr. Cummins took the call as a threat, and sent an e-mail message to other fired prosecutors warning them of it. Several of them told Congress that if Mr. Elston had placed a similar call to one of their witnesses in a criminal case, they would have opened an investigation of it.

4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.

Let’s take the case of Carol Lam, United States attorney in San Diego. The day the news broke that Ms. Lam, who had already put one Republican congressman in jail, was investigating a second one, Mr. Sampson wrote an e-mail message referring to the “real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.” He said it made him think that it was time to start looking for a replacement. Congress has also started investigating the removal of Fred Black, the United States attorney in Guam, who was replaced when he began investigating the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Anyone involved in firing a United States attorney to obstruct or influence an official proceeding could have broken the law even the President. No one is the above the law. Should that we so, we are not a democracy ruled by, for and of the people.

2007-03-19T17:51:00.000-07:00

There appears to be some confusion about the performance of the outsted U.S. Attorneys. Here is a handy reference for you.

Here is the list of U.S. Attorneys and their performances:

1. Carole Lam (CA-SD) overaw the successful prosecution of Duke Cunningham and indicted two others including the #3 man at the CIA. Excellent performance review dated Feb. 7-11, 2005 which concluded that she was “an effective manager and respected leader in the district.”

2. David Iglesias (NM) received an excellent performance review in 2005: "Experienced in legal, management and community relations work and was respected by the judiciary, agencies and staff. ... Had a well conceived strategic plan that complied with department priorities."

3. John McKay (WA) oversaw prosecution of the Millenium bomber among other cases - also received an excellent review in 2006. "An effective, well-regarded and capable leader ... (who) established strategic goals that were appropriate to meet the priorities of the department."

4. Paul Charlton (Ariz) received positive performance review in 2003: "Well respected by the (U.S. attorney's office) staff, investigative and civil client agencies, local law enforcement community, Native American nations, and judiciary regarding his integrity, professionalism and competence." In fact, the suggestion that Charlton was asked to leave for performance-related reasons stunned one former supervisor, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey. Comey was McNulty's predecessor in that job, leaving in August 2005. Charlton "was one of the stars of the U.S. attorney community," Comey, now general counsel for Lockheed Martin, said Friday. "His office handled a staggering caseload and number of crimes."

The issue appears that Charlton wanted to decide on a case by case basis when to pursue the death penalty rather than have the national office decide. Considering the bloody legacy Gonzales and Bush left in Texas, this does appear to be a matter a principle. Another posibility for the ouster is that the U.S. Attorney's office was actively investigating Republicans. It is reported that his office was looking into Arizona Congressman Rick Renzi's involvement in a land swap deal, even though no formal investigation or charges were announced. Charlton's office also was investigating former Tucson Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe's interaction with male congressional pages.

5. H.E. "Bud" Cummings (Ark) Mr. Cummings also received an excellent review in 2006. "Very competent and highly regarded by the federal judiciary, law enforcement and civil client agencies. ... Established strategic goals that were appropriate to meet the priorities of the department." McNulty conceded that H.E. "Bud" Cummins, the former U.S. attorney in Arkansas, wasn't fired because of how he handled his job. Rather, McNulty said, administration officials wanted to make room for Timothy Griffin, a former aide of presidential adviser Karl Rove, who has neither trial nor prosecutorial experience.

6. Daniel Bogden (Nev) - considered a capable leader who was highly regarded by the judiciary and was given an overall positive evaluation. When he was told to step down, he was told by seven Justice officials that his performance was not the issue. His office boosted firearms prosecutions, secured the convictions of dozens of violent gang members and oversaw the cases against four former Clark County commissioners convicted of taking bribes. Interestingly enough he have been "looking into campaign law violations by at least one member of the state's Congressional delegation. However, his staff suffered from low morale and three cases that unraveled during his tenure. Nontheless the last time he received a performance review in 2003: "Highly regarded by the federal judiciary, the law enforcement and civil client agencies, and the staff of the (U.S. attorney's office). He was a capable leader."

7. Kevin V. Ryan (CA- SF) oversaw the investigation into steriod use by professional atheletes - particularly baseball players. He brought diversity to the San Francisco office and succesfully prosecuted a number of cases. He was also named one of the top 100 attorneys of California. Nonetheless, there are allegations of management and morale problems at the United States Attorney office in San Francisco. Please note that no performance review has been produced and he did not testify before Congress.

8. Margaret Chiara (MI) Allegedly, had poor management skills according to the Justice Department. No performance review has been produced and she did not testify before Congress. Nonetheless, U.S. District Judge Robert Holmes Bell, the chief judge in Michigan's Western District, who was appointed to the bench during the Reagan administration, said in an interview on February 22, 2007, that Ms. Chiara " is a very classy, distinguished, highly regarded public servant." She's one of the best United States attorneys we've had in this district, and all of my colleagues agree. . . . To have her suddenly disappear without warning catches us all flat-footed."

There is also a handy guide that constrast the testimony before Congress and the performance reviews. http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=78&sid=1080444. See also: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7777925

2007-03-19T16:39:00.000-07:00

There seems to be alot of hyperbole running due to the the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys. Here are some facts that should set the issues to rest. Please feel free to send this information along :

"Clinton Did it too"

Yes, Clinton did indeed ask for the resignation of all GHW Bush political appointees when he entered office in 1992. Whenever there is a change of administration, the political appointees are asked to leave but if there is a pressing reason that they be allowed to remain, they can argue their case. A small numbers of GHW Bush's appointees did stay on at the DOJ to wrap up some business. One of these is who someone seems to have forgotten that he was originally appointed by GHW Bush and not Clinton.

Presidents, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush as well as Clinton, asked for the regisnation of the U.S. Attorneys upon the start of their respective administrations. George W. Bush was not different. (letter dated March 14, 2001 discussing replacement of all U.S. Attorneys by the current Bush Administration). This, however, is not the issue behind the firings in in the winter of 2006-2007.

What About Dismissals of U. S. Attorneys During An Administration's Tenure?

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service did a survey of the U.S. Attorneys appointed since 1981. This report was released on February 27, 2007, and is available on line for review. Of the total of 486 appointees since 1991, fifty-four left their office before their term was up. Out of these fifty-four, 45 left to pursue other career paths such as federal judgeships, other positions in the executive, elected office or more lucrative opportunities in the private sector and one died. That leaves only eight United States Attorneys who left their office before completing a four year term without a change in presidential administration.

Of these eight U.S. Attorneys, two were dismissed by President Reagan. One was William Kennedy, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California was dismissed in 1982 for "charging that the Justice Deparment, at the request of the CIA was blocking his attempt to prosecute key informant on Mexican and Central American affairs." Another was J. William Petro, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, who was dismissed in 1984 because the the Departmentof Justice was investigating him for disclosure about a pending indictment for which he was ultimately convicted.

The third U.S. Attorney appointed by President Reagan that did not complete his term was Frank L. McNamara. Mr. McNamara resigned on January 30, 1989, when he as the target of an Justice Deparment's internal probe. The probe sought learn "whether he had lied to federal officials when he accused his predecessor of smoking marijuana. Mr. McNamara also admitted to experimenting with the drug. It was reported that if Mr. McNamara had not resigned, he would have been suspended by Attoney General Richard Thornburgh.

There were two Clinton Appointees that resigned before the expiration of their term due to "questionable conduct." One of them was Larry Colleton, U.S. Attorney for Middle District of Florida who was videotaped grabbing a television reporter by the throat. Then there was Kendall Coffey, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida who was accussed of bitting a topless dancer on the arm during a visit to an adult club after losing a big drug case.

That leaves us with three U.S. Attorneys who resigned before the expiration of their term for unknown reasons. These three are all G.W. Bush appointees. They are: Roscoe Conklin Howard, Jr. of District of Columbia, who left May 28, 2004; Thomas M. DiBiagio of Maryland, who resigned in 2005; Humberto S. Garcia of Puerto Rico, who left in January of this year.

In conclusion, it does not appear that Clinton administration dismissed any of the U.S. Attorneys it got appointed, thought it did allow two to resign rather than be dismissed. In constrast, Reagan clearly dismissed two and allowed another to resign rather be suspended and perhaps dismissed. No U.S. Attorneys were dismissed by G. H.W. Bush, nor did any leave under a cloud. Under the current administration, we have three dismissals whose reasons are unknown in addition the the eight that have been the subject of congressional hearings.

2007-01-05T10:48:00.000-08:00

More ETA Explosives Found

A backpack holding more than 60 kilos (140 pounds) of various types of explosives was found today in the province of Vizcaya, part of the Vasque Country. With the backpack, there was 20 kilos of amonium nitrate and two bags, each holding half a kilo of chloate and various bomb making manuals. This is close to the same area where a 100 kilo bomb was found yesterday, ready but missing its detonator. This is the third cache and second bomb found within three weeks.

ETA is back on the march . . .

2007-01-05T09:58:00.000-08:00

The Body of the Second Victim of ETA Has been Found

A robotic camera saw an arm and forearm so there is confirmation of a body in the vehicle. However, the rescue workers cannot access the car, which is still buried under tons of rubble. There is also a high risk that the rubble could dislodge, causing further damage and perhaps injury to the workers. The car shows no signs of fire, so it appears that the Mr. Estacio did not burn to death but likely was crushed or died of suffucation like Mr. Palate. El Mundo has an excellent graphic of the recovery of the body of Mr. Palate.

It was reported that there were three telphone warnings - Two of these calls occured shortly after 8 a.m. and were made to the Vasque authorities in Guipúzcoa and San Sebastián. It was reported that a third call was made to the Madrid Fire Department. El Pais reports that there were approximately 20,000 people at the airport at that time. Emergency services immediately activated to evacuate people out of the airport and perhaps it was their quick action that not more people were injured.

The two victims were asleep in their cars, one from driving most of the night and the other from having stayed out too late with his friends the night before. Probably neither heard the warnings over loudspeakers. Nonetheless, such civilian deaths are foreseeable. An international airport is not a military target and can hardly be considered an arm of an oppresive government. ETA cannot claim to be freedom fighters and international law is clear that such acts are to be considered murder.

2007-01-04T14:17:00.000-08:00

The Car of the Second Victim has been located and Thousands of Spaniard Demonstrate against ETA.

A car damaged by the blast.

Unfortunately, the car identified by its license plate, is so crushed that the rescue workers cannot open it to see if there is a body inside.

The body of Carlos Alonso Palate, the first victim has been transported back to his family in Ecuador. The National Organization of the Spanish Blind (ONCE) is assisting his sight impaired brother in finding a job. Additionally Spain has paid Mr. Palate's family 225,000 euros in restitution for his death caused by terrorists. Hopefully this will help, though it is not enought to fill the gaping hole left by ETA in Mr. Palate's family.

Throughout Spain, mostly in the Vasque Country, hundreds of citizens gathered in silent protest against ETA. These demonstation were attended by members of all political parties, except for the leftist Abertzale. People also gathered in solidarity in front of the homes of the two known victims, Mr. Palate's in Valencia and Diego Armando Estacio's in Madrid.

2007-01-04T10:10:00.000-08:00

Another ETA Cache Found

The Vasque police found another ETA cache, this time holding 100 kilos (220 pounds) of explosives, all ready to be used - the only things missing were the detonators. This is the third one found within the past week.

This yet another piece of evidence that ETA had no intention on maintaining its truce of last March. It is also speculated that perhaps the unilateral declaration of truce may have been a ploy to buy the ETA more time. However, the government continued to arrest members while engaging in dialogue which upset many of its proponents. This fall the negotiations hit a critical point with frustrations on both sides. Jailed ETA members went on hunger strikes and restrictions were imposed on protestors and ETA supporters.

However, the acquisitions of arms, could not have happened solely in the past four months but must have taken some planning. The unilateral truce of March of 2006 was the ninth one that had taken place over the forty years of ETAs existance.

2007-01-03T14:17:00.000-08:00

The Body of One Victim has Been Recovered

The body of Carlos Alonso Palate, 35 years old, was found yesterday under a mountain of rubble. He had driven a friend to the airpot from Valencia to pick the friend's wife who was flying into Madrid from Ecuador. He was resting in the car from the long trip, when the ETA's explosion went off, killing him, nineteen year old Diego Armando Estacio, and perhaps another person who was supposed to catch a flight to Uruguay. Mr. Palate provided economic support to his disabled mother and his brother who suffers from eye problems. An autopsy found that Mr. Palate suffocated to death under the five stories of rubble that fell on him.

The family of Mr. Estacio saw the explosion as their airplane neared the airport, not realizing that it had taken the life of someone they loved. It has been three years and seven months since ETA took someone's life. On May 30, 2003, a car bomb took the life of two policemen from Navarra. It is believed that Mr. Estacio's car may have been parked ion the third floor next to or near the Reanault Van full of explosives. Mr. Palate was parked on the bottom floor, directly underneath the car bomb. Mr. Palate is considered the 818th victim of ETA campaing of terror that has lasted 40 years.

2007-01-03T09:22:00.000-08:00

For the First Time A Koran will be used to Swear in a Representative to the House of Congress

After Representative Elect Keith Ellison will take the official oath of office in a mass ceremony along with all the other incoming members in the House chamber,he will use the Koran in his individual, ceremonial oath with new Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "Keith is paying respect not only to the founding fathers' belief in religious freedom but the Constitution itself," said Ellison spokesman Rick Jauert

But this will be no ordinary Koran, but one that was owned by Thomas Jefferson himself. This book will be loaned by the rare book and special collections division at the Library of Congress. The Library of Congress has loaned rare Bibles to high ranking politicians for inaugurations and other special occasions.

It is significant that the official oath taking does not involve any religion so that separation of chuch and state is maintained. A private ceremony that is meaningful to each individual office holder by not means violates the constitution. What each person chooses to swear upon for a private ceremony should be up to them. It should also be perfectly acceptable to not have a private ceremony as the official oath should be binding enough.

2007-01-02T14:15:00.000-08:00

A SAD NEW YEAR AS ETA KILLS TWO AND ITS OWN CEASE FIRE

The cease fire is over with the bombing of a parking garage at Madrid's airport on December 30, 2006. It was a car bomb, a stolen Renault van that was parked in the middle floor of the parking garage, as close as possible to the terminal. It is estimated that it carried over 200 kilos of explosives. Rescue and emergency teams worked instead of celebrating the New Year. As the bells rang at midnight, the workers embraced and cried rather than celebrated.

Here some photographs of the destruction taken by the emergency crews. In one, you can see the dog they were using to try to locate the missing. In addition to the damage to the parking garage and terminal, 961 vehicles were damaged. It has been reported that 20 were injured, 5 serious requiring hospitalization and two are presumed dead. This was not unexpected.

In addition to the injured, five severely, it is also believed that two Ecuadorians, Diego Armando Estacio Civizapa, 19, and Carlos Alonso Palate, 35 — had been killed. They were believed to have been waiting in their vehicles for a flight when the bomb exploded. Under international law, the killing of innocent civilians distinguishes freedom fighters from terrosists. The murder of these two was a foreseeable consequence of the bomb and the ETA must be held responsible.

Diego Armando Estacio

The President of Spain, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero has suspended all dialogues with ETA while the Minister of the Interior, Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba, grimly declared that the peace process is broken and cannot be saved. The goverment will be meeting with the various political parties, including its arch-rival the PP to forge a united front and consistent message in dealing with the ETA.

2006-12-30T16:28:00.000-08:00

HASSEIN IS DEAD BUT WAS JUSTICE SERVED?

A mass murderer, a thug, a torturer - so why his death so appalling? Wasn't Justice served? It depends on the definition of Justice. Here are the definitions from the Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged of the English Language:

The quality of being just, ie: guided by truth, reason and fairness.

Like the problematic trial of another head of state, Slobodan Milošević by the United Nations special tribunal for the War Crimes of the Former Yugoslavia, Sadam Hussien's was really conducted by a foreign power. Everything since Hussein's capture - it is alleged that he had been captured earlier then planted in the "spider hole" for maximum media effect - has been conducted to gain political capital for the United States. It is telling that the Hussein's was in U.S. custody until his execution. Was his trial guided by truth? Perhaps, there is little to no question that he killed or ordered killed all those people. However, The first judge, an ethnic Kurd, resigned because of government interference in the trial; the judge who took his place was also Kurdish and had personal grievances against the accused, so hardly an impartial arbiter. Three of Saddam's defense lawyers were shot down. The process was severely compromised so no justice could be served.

Additionally, will those who aided and provided Hussein with the tools to kills hundreds at one time also be brought to justice? Unlikely if they are Americans. Those who assisted are namely ex-President George H.W. Bush, Rumsfeld, and others from the Reagan administration. They will not be brought to justice for their part so Hussein's trial is exposed in his lack of justice. Clearly the motivations for bringing Hussein to justice, were not to do right, but for political expediency. Justice was not blind during Hussein's trial and sentence.

Let us constrast this with the Truth and Reconciliation hearings in South Africa after the fall of apartheid. It was conducted by the powers of the country - henious crimes were exposed, including many senseless murders. No one was executed nor prosecuted. Why? Because it was important for the nation to confront the perpetrators who had to sit and take the rants of their accusers and then move on. South Africa is by no means healed and still has long way to go before the scars fade, but it has at least started down that road. No such future is available to the people of Iraq now.

2006-12-29T14:21:00.000-08:00

MEANWHILE ETA STIRS AGAIN

This has been a bad few months for the Spanish (and French) efforts to combat terrorism. Two erratas (as they are called in Spain) escaped while they were being transported in France.

A poll released today shows that 64% of Basques expect that the ETA will kill again. Another 35% have completely lost confidence that the cease fire in March and the events since then were a prelude the demise of this organization. ETA has not only killed soldiers and policemen, but also targeted academics, politicians, journalists, department store shoppers, and cafe customers.

The bad news begins in October in France, when 300 rifles, 50 handguns and various municions were stolen by 5 individuals confirmed to be members of the ETA. Also in October, the french authorities discovered a munitions lab in Saint-Etienne-de-Baigorry, near the Spanish borders.

About a week ago there was a dramatic escape by two erratas, who shot at two gerdames at a checkpoint who tried to stop them. They were able to elude the gerdames, but one of them kidnapped a woman at gunpoint and forced her to driver him to Nogaro, a town near Tolouse.

On December 24th, an off-duty Basque policeman found a hiding place that contained 50 kilos of explosives. This hiding place had been used recently and was near Bilbao. Another hiding place, but abandoned was found by the Guardia Civil in the province of Guipuzcoa. Just a week before, the Guardia Civil dismantled a homemade bomb on the train tracks in the province of Navarra.

A few days ago, Rajoy, the head of right leaning party, the Partido Popular or PP, demanded that the political arm of the ETA, Batasuna no be allowed to run for office until the ETA is disolved. The ruling party, PSOE headed by Zapatero wants to continue having a dialogue with the ETA.

The King called for unity in dealing with the terrorist organization and all parties agree (except for Batasuna) that there cannot be a normal political life, if one political party has a violent and armed organ to effectuate its wills.

In the United States, We have already seen want can happen when one party has a slime machine to give it an edge (McCain and Murtha can tell you all about Rovian tackits and the machinery that made it posible). What would happen, if armed attacks would happen? It would be death of liberty, the death of democracy. That is why there can no referendum in the Basque Country while ETA continues to exists.

2006-12-28T09:41:00.000-08:00

James Russell Lowell, Revisted

James Russell Lowell was an American poet, editor, satist who lived during one of this nation's great political crises that was not resolved until the Civil War. Make no mistake, we are in the mist of a constitutional crises again, far worse than Watergate and perhaps as serious of the one that precipitated our Civil Ware more than a hundred and fifty years ago. Once again we have a nation deeply divided with human rights and liberties being at the heart of discussions. Hopefully it will not take a bloodbath to regain our lost liberties.

Here are a few of Mr. Lowell's quotes that still ring true:

Once to every person and nation come the moment to decide. In the conflict of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side.

I believe that this is as true today as it was in the mid-nineteeth certury. We need to opt for the truth, however ugly it may seem and return to the roots of our liberties, which means a renewal of the Constitution and an elevation of our Bill fo Rights.

The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinions.

What does tell us about the Bush/Cheney Cabal? That Gerald Ford, who supervised both Rumsfield and Cheney thought they had both committed a grave error in invading Iraq, cannot be dismissed. He knew both men, knew the consequences of abuse of presidential power, so his opinion carries some weight. Certainly, they are foolish, but perhaps they also dead, their hearts and minds numb and deaf to what they choose not to know and worse yet, choose not to face.

The greatest homage we can pay to truth, is to use it.

A handpicked bipartisan group, the Iraq Study Group, spoke a watered-down truth to power a few weeks ago. This administration clearly wishes to ignore it. Bush and company ignore Truth when it comes visiting and attempt to dress her to suit their own selfish purposes. But Truth goes naked for she has nothing to hide and those that ignore her, do so at their own peril.

2006-12-21T16:37:00.000-08:00

The Constitution Above All

Newly elected Representative Keith Ellison was given a chance to respond to Dennis Prager's and Representative Virgil Goode's fear mongering bigoted rants against American Muslims today. He clearly has a better idea of what it means to be an American and more significantly, an American in public office. Following are excerpts from his interview today on CNN's Situation Room:

. . . when I'm officially sworn in, I will do it the same, exact way as every congressperson-elect who is sworn in. We will all stand up and, in unison, lift our hand and swear to uphold that Constitution.

And then later, in a private ceremony, of course, I'll put my hand on a book that is the basis of my faith, which is Islam. And I think that this is a beauty. This is a wonderful thing for our country, because Jewish members will put their hands on the Torah, Mormon members will put their hand on the Book of Mormon, Catholic members will put their hand on the book of their choice. And members who don't want to put their hand on any book are also fully free to do that. That's the
American way.

That is the American way and Mr. Ellison is about as American as they come. He traces his family back to 1742 on the Cane River, Louisiana. There is no religious test to be in public office as that would be contrary to our nation's fundamental philosophy as articulated in our Constitution. It appears that Mr. Ellison has a greater understanding of about his duty to his country than his critics. All, even the uncrowned royalty of the Bush family must bow to the law of the land.

2006-12-20T15:45:00.000-08:00

There Can be No Freedom of the Press if Journalists are Being Murdered.

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists the murder of journalists is on rise everywhere, with unsurprisingly, the dealilest place being Iraq.

Thirty-two journalists lost their lives in Iraq in 2006, which is the largest number of members of the media killed in a single country since the organization started keeping track 25 years ago. Among the casualties this year were Atwar Bahjat, one of the best-known TV reporters in the Arab world who was murdered on February 22 along with her crew. Like Bahjat, 30 of the 32 journalists killed were Iraqis.

Since the U.S.-led invasion, the death toll in Iraq for journalists is now up to 92. This number exceeds the death toll in 20 year Vietnam engagement or World War II according to Reporters San Frontiers. In addition to the reporters and cameramen, an additional 37 people who worked with the media, such as interpreters, drivers, fixers and office workers, have also been killed.

Those numbers may not sound that high considering the overall bloodshed in the country, but this year the overwhelming majority of the journalists who died there were murdered. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, only four of the 32 killed in Iraq in 2006 died as a result of crossfire or acts of war. The other 28 were murdered, of which half were threatened beforehand.

The Executive Director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, Joel Simon, said in a statement:

"The deaths in Iraq this year reflect the utter deterioration in reporters' traditional status as neutral observers in wartime. When this conflict began more than three and half years ago, most journalists died in combat-related incidents. Now, insurgents routinely target journalists for perceived affiliations -- political, sectarian, or Western. This is an extraordinarily alarming trend because along with the terrible loss of life, it is limiting news reporting in Iraq -- and, in turn, our own understanding of a vital story."

However, this glosses over what appeared to be deliberate attacks by the U.S. forces on unembeded journalists during the invasion. There was the targeting of the Palestian Hotel in Bagdah, which was full of journalists and was well known to the invasion forces. The attack killed two journalists, Jose Couso from Spain's Telecinco and Taras Protsyuk from Rueters as well as wounding others. The Spanish government is now proceeding with an investigation. It should not be forgotten that the United States also shelled the building that housed many Middle Eastern news agencies, killing reporter Tariq Ayoub from Al-Jazeera and wounding three others. (If you have not seen the documentary Control Room - do it now). Let us not forget that the status of this building, as well as The Palestian Hotel had been given to the invanding allied forces. These attacks at least appeared to be deliberate and may have given the signal that murdering journalist is an acceptable. How will this terrible trend be stopped and the freedom of the press restored?

2006-12-13T14:57:00.000-08:00

Yes! to a NON-RELIGIOUS Military

On December 13, 2006, Salon.com's headline article was about the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. The MRFF seeks to enforce the all the regulations that expressly forbid military members from endorsing any political, religious, or business interest as representatives of military or government. This organization was founded by a retired Air Force Jag Officer, Michael L. Weinstein after one of this son's was harassed by evangelicals students and officers at the Air Force Academy in 2005. The Weinsteins are Jewish, but the foundation cites that the majority of military personnel seeking assistance are Christians. http://www.mrff.org/

The reasoning behinds these military rules and regulations is sound. Our armed forces are to serve and protect all Americans, not just those of a particular belief structure. This goes back to the the sharp division of church and state mandated by the nation's founders. The use of authority or official representation to assert religion is inappropriate, degrades the order and discipline of the force, and is in violation of the uniform code of military justice.

Additionally, the military mandates an equal opportunity and harassment-free environment for all its members and, has at least with respect to race, succeeded. The interjection of evangelism into the workplace is an infringement of a First Amendment Right to exercise ones right of religion.

This is not to say that Evangelical Christians cannot be members of the armed forces. The issue is that they are infringing on other people's right to be in the military and not be Evangelical Christians. It has been reported that rank and taxpayer funds are being used to proselytize or pressure subordinates to convert by among other things, conditioning promotions on conversions and or being evangelical, seeking to exclude non-evangelical others from activities because of their faith, and to top it all, prevent others from doing the same thing they are doing. If it is wrong for them to do it, it is wrong for all.

To quote Capt. John Smith "It's about the insidious and pernicious social pressure to adopt a particular religion-- in this case, evangelical Christianity. It's pretty common knowledge that if you want your career to advance inside the Air Force, you have to at least pretend to adhere to these beliefs. So, in a sense, Evangelical Christianity becomes the unofficial official religion of the armed services. That goes well past simply "praying." It's religious coercion, and it's evil, and, oh yeah, un-American."

This is yet another step toward a theocracy. While a theocracy can be considered a wonderful thing as long as it's your clergy that control the authorities including the police and the judicial branch. It is also very helpful if you are on good terms with those in power in such regimes. If not, bad things happened to you and yours. Just ask anyone that had had the misfortune to live under one such as a moderate Irani or Afghani.

2006-12-13T14:34:00.000-08:00

THE ACLU PROTECTS ALL RELIGIONS (and yes, most definently Christianity)

The Christian Right is told that the ACLU is Anti-Christian and Pro-Satan. I believe that the root of this is, at least in part, due to the efforts of the ACLU to keep religion, which is this country is primarily Christian, out of the public schools.

The ACLU believes and fights for the strict separation of Church and State and anything that perserves the Bill of Rights. No religion in goverment, and no government in religion. To this end the ACLU has fought to preserve government from interfering from religion as well. Here is a list of most recent cases that ACLU has taken on to defend the religious rights of christians: The ACLU of New Jersey (2006) filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking a federal court to uphold an elementary school student's right to sing "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show for which students selected their own material. http://www.aclu.org/%20religion/schools/25799prs20060605.html

The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) filed a lawsuit defending the free speech rights of a Christian who was protesting based on his religious beliefs. The man was chased away from the front of a Wal-Mart store where he was carrying a sign that read: "Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Marriage and Gay Lifestyles. Don't Shop There." www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/27266prs20061027.html

The ACLU of Rhode Island (2006) filed an appeal in federal court on behalf of an inmate who was barred from preaching during Christian religious services, as he had done for the past seven years under the supervision and support of prison clergy. The prisoner, Wesley Spratt, believes his preaching is a calling from God. Prison officials cited vague and unsubstantiated security reasons for imposing the preaching ban on Mr. Spratt. The ACLU argued that the ban violates the religious freedom guaranteed to Mr. Spratt under federal law. http://www.riaclu.org/20060111.html*

The ACLU of Georgia (2006) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Tabernacle Community Baptist Church charging that the city of East Point, Georgia violated a federal religious discrimination law when it denied the church a zoning permit needed to establish its house of worship. www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/25518prs20060419.html

There are of course, cases in which the ACLU has also helped Buddists, Muslims, Jews, and Wiccans (I can only think of one or two of those latter). The principal is the same, to freely allow person to exercise their believes within the law. (no underage marrigages, torture or murder, or use of illegal drugs, ect.). Clearly the ACLU does not favor any religion over any other but takes what cases comes its way that it violate the Bill of Rights. Since Christians are the clear majority of believers in the United States, minority religions are sometimes the ones with the most claims, but as illustrated above, not always.

Please recall that our representatives in government are supposed to represent all Americans, not just those of the Christian faith. Sometimes politicians need reminders such as this one last spring by Jamie Raskin, professor of law at American University, who testified before Congress. At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The room, by the way, errupted in applause.

The fear that you mention is that of religious state that endorses and promulgates a particular brand of religion. While to you, as member of the majority, it will appear to venial, to those that do not share your religious beliefs, it is oppressive and against their cherished beliefs (or disbeliefs). The separation between church and state has been severely threaten by the current administration and people of both sides of the aisle are alarmed by it. Again, please refer to the writings of our nation's founders as well as others in France, Spain and elsewhere who struggled against imposition of a State Religion.

2006-12-13T14:18:00.000-08:00

Thank you ACLU for Maintaining the Division Between Church and State

I recently had the opportunity to respond to an e-mail that suggested that it was appropriate to bombard the American Civil Liberties Union with Christmas cards to clog up their operation. It was a mean spirited suggestion by those to clearly do not understand what is the mission of the ACLU. My responses are as follows:

Nice - clearly someone does NOT understand the ACLU. You can send all the religious cards you want - that is precisely the point about a country in which the government does not endorse any particular religion. That is also what the ACLU is trying to protect. Do you want a country (much like Spain under Franco) that a specific religion, in fact a specific branch, sect or denomination dictates policy and personal expression of religious belief? If you want to have prayer in the school then send your children to a school run by the religion of your choice - that is your choice. And no one, not the ACLU or anyone else will keep you educating your children or practicing your religion as you see fit.

However, when it an arena, that is sanctioned by the government (and paid for by all our tax dollars) that is different matter. The religion must keep out of the government and government must keep out of the religion. Therefore, no religion in publicly funded schools.

Why is it so important to keep the division? Our founding fathers had been ruled under a system where there was no separation of church and state. Recall that the King of England was also the titular head of the Church of England. Our founders felt strongly that both the state and religious organizations would benefit from the separation. The church would be free from the corruption of politics (Jefferson's words) and the state would not become a tool for religious intolerance and repression. Madison felt so strongly about the separation that as a senator he voted against the creation of a Senate Chaplaincy. Trust me, it was no accident that one of the first acts of Adolph Hitler assume power was to enact a law creating a state religion (note that there was none under the Wiemar Republic).

Yes, go ahead and send the ACLU a Christmas card if you send with the holiday spirit of goodwill. They are not a government agency and the Christians there will appreciate that you thought about them. Better yet, include a donation. Myself, I will send them a card as well with the renewal of our membership to thank them their service for keeping our Constitution strong and protecting the Bill of Rights.

2006-12-13T12:30:00.000-08:00

The wheels of Justice Continue to Turn

No even death will cheat justice. There are approximately 300 suits filed against Augusto Pinochet. There is also 30 million dollars held by Riggs Bank in New York in his name. Isabel Allende, a solialist representative in the Chilean Congress and daughter of the deposed and murdered President Allende, has been assured that the legal matters filed will continue. It is highly unlikely that a military general could come by that huge amount of money through legitimate means and Ms. Allende has held that it belongs to the Chilean treasury and is needed to compensate the thousands of General Pinochet's victims.

It appeared from the photographs (ap and elmundo.es) that anti-funeral was more heavily attended than Pinochet's military funeral. It also has been reported that the Chilean Army will be disciplining the grandson of Pinochet, Augusto Pinochet Molina, an officer in the Army for the comments he made at the funeral lauding his grandfather's acts and deriding the judges that have ruled against his grandfather's immunity. The Chilean Military, like our own, is absolutely forbidden to make political statements - especially in uniform for it can construed to be the opinions of the military branch itself.

2006-12-11T11:08:00.000-08:00

Pinochet, the terrorist of the Chilean People is dead. Long Live Free Chile.

In a public statement, Isabel Allende, the daughter of the murdered and democratically elected president, Salvador Allende, "Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, the general who betrayed his president, Salvador Allende, is dead. Ms. Allende, a congressperson, commented that the 17 years during which Pinochet trampled human rights have left a painful wound in Chilean society which could not heal because Justice had not been done, as many of the Disappeared have not been found and there are still many corpses left to find and identify. Ms. Allende was however positive in her hope that there would "never again be an overthrow of the government, never a violation of the constitutional order and never again violations of human rights." It was her opinion that the best part of the inheritance of this chapter of history was that Chile "had painfully learned that democracy itself was the valuable thing which much be preserved."

Later, Ms. Allende commended that the children of Pinochet should not inherit the 30 million dollars with which the general retired. Ms. Allende did not not doubt that that money belongs to the Chilean people and would help reparation to Pinochet's victims.

The A.P. headline today is that "Hundreds Pay Respect to Pinochet." I am sure that is true but I am equally sure that thousands are happy that he is not breathing the same air they are. There are approximately 300 Disappeared; tens of thousands subjected to imprisonment and torture, and more than 30,000 Chilean exiled. These actions have resulted in more than 300 criminal complaints, in Chile and in other countries. A state funeral would be singularly inappropriate for a man who overthrew a democratically elected government and throw out the constitution he has sworn to uphold. However, the Chilean Army Academy has opened its doors so that mourners can view his body and say good-bye. This helps diffuse the tension, and perhaps once he is buried Chile can finally start to heal.

2006-12-06T11:42:00.000-08:00

I recently wrote to Professor Brinkley of Tulane, in response to his article in his December 3, 2006 in The Washington Post entitled: "Move over Hoover" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101511.html

Professor Brinkley it was with great interest that I read your article, "Move over Hoover," as well as the other articles by historians about the George W. Bush published by the Washington Post. However, I was surprised by this statement:

"I also believe that he is an honest man and that his administration has been largely void of widespread corruption."

We will not even mention all the deceipts of George W. Bush himself (55 misleading statements about Iraq or Sadam Hussein's involvement in attack on September 11, 2001 according to the report by Henry Waxman http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/index.asp?Speaker=President+George+W.+Bush), there has been in fact widespread corruption within George W. Bush's administration, as the following list from tpmmuckraker.com attests:

Indicted / Convicted/ Pled Guilty

* Scooter Libby - Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff - resigned after being indicted for Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and Making False Statements in connection with the investigation stemming from the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

* Lester Crawford - Commissioner, FDA - resigned after only two months on the job. Pled guilty to conflict of interest and making false statements.

* Brian Doyle - Deputy Press Secretary, DHS - Resigned in wake of child sex scandal. Pled no contest to 32 criminal counts.

* Claude Allen - Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy- resigned, pled guilty to shoplifting from Target stores.

* David Safavian - former head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget - convicted of lying to ethics officials and Senate investigators about his ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

* Larry Franklin - intelligence officer, Defense - resigned, pled guilty to passing secrets to Israel.

* Roger Stillwell - desk officer, Interior Department - pled guilty to failing to report Redskins tickets and free dinners from Jack Abramoff.

* Frank Figueroa - senior DHS official, former head of anti-sex-crime Operation Predator - pled no contest to exposing himself to 16-year-old girl in Florida mall. Girl says he fondled himself for ten minutes. Figueroa forfeited his badge, gun, and access to databases; employment status pending internal DHS review.

* Darleen Druyun - senior contracting official, U.S. Air Force - pled guilty and sentenced to nine months in prison for her role in the Boeing tanker lease scandal.

* John Korsmo - chairman, Federal Housing Finance Board - pled guilty last year to lying to the Senate and an inspector general. He swore he had no idea how a list of presidents for FHFB-regulated banks were invited to a fundraiser for his friend's congressional campaign. On the invites, Korsmo was listed as the "Special Guest." Got 18 months of probation.

Resigned Due to Investigation

* Carl Truscott - Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau - resigned. A report by the Justice Department's Inspector General found that Truscott wasted tens of thousands of dollars on luxuries, wasted millions on whimsical management decisions and violated ethics rules by ordering employees to help his nephew with a high school video project.

* Joseph Schmitz - Inspector General, Defense - Resigned amid charges he personally intervened to protect top political appointees.

* Steven Griles - Deputy Secretary at the Interior Department - resigned, currently under investigation by the Justice Department for his ties to Jack Abramoff.

* Susan Ralston - assistant, White House - resigned amidst revelations that she had accepted thousands of dollars in gifts from Abramoff without compensating him, counter to White House ethics rules.

* Dusty Foggo - Executive Director, CIA - stepped down following accusations of corruption in connection to the Duke Cunningham scandal. Under investigation.

* Janet Rehnquist - Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services - resigned in the face of allegations she blocked a politically dangerous probe on behalf of the Bush family.

* Ken Tomlinson, Board Chairman, Corporation for Public Broadcasting; member, Broadcasting Board of Governors - resigned at the release of an inspector general report concluding he had broken laws in spending CPB money to hire politically connected consultants to search for "bias" without consulting the board. At BBG, a separate investigation found he was running a "horse racing operation" out of his office, and continuing to hire politically-wired individuals to do "consulting" work for him. He's still there.

* George Deutsch - press aide, NASA - resigned amid allegations he prevented the agency's top climate scientist from speaking publicly about global warming.

* Richard Perle - Chairman, Defense Policy Board - resigned from Pentagon advisory panel amid conflict-of-interest charges.

* James Roche - secretary, U.S. Air Force - resigned in the wake of the Boeing tanker lease scandal, after it was revealed he had rather crudely pushed for Boeing to win a $23 billion contract.

* Marvin Sambur - top contracting executive, U.S. Air Force - Druyun's boss, Sambur resigned in the wake of the scandal. Investigations cleared him of wrongdoing.

* Philip Cooney - chief of staff, White House Council on Environmental Quality - a former oil industry lawyer with no scientific expertise, Cooney resigned after it was revealed he had watered down reports on global warming.

* Thomas Scully - Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services - shortly after Scully resigned in 2003, an investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General found that Scully had pressured the agency's actuary to underestimate the full cost of the Medicare reform bill by approximately $100 billion until after Congress passed the bill into law. Scully was also charged with conflict of interest allegations by the U.S. attorney's office for billing CMS for expenses incurred during a job search while he still headed the agency. He settled those charges by paying $9,782.

* Michelle Larson Korsmo - deputy chief of staff, Department of Labor - Helped her husband (see Frank Korsmo, above) with his donor scam. Quietly left her Labor plum job in February 2004, about two weeks before news broke that she and her husband were the targets of a criminal probe.

Nomination Failed Due to Scandal

* Bernard Kerik - nominated, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security - withdrew his nomination amidst a host of corruption allegations. Eventually pled guilty to a misdemeanor relating to having accepted improper gifts totaling tens of thousands of dollars while he was a New York City official in the late 1990's.

* Timothy Flanigan - nominated, Deputy Attorney General - withdrew his nomination amidst revelations that he'd worked closely with lobbyist Jack Abramoff when he was General Counsel for Corporate and International Law at Tyco, which was a client of Abramoff's.

* Linda Chavez - nominated, Secretary of Labor - withdrew her nomination amidst revelations that an illegal immigrant lived in her home and worked for her.

This is not a short list and this is what has come to light without Congressional oversight. I suspect that this is only the tip of iceberg and more revelations are to expected over the next two years.

Additionally, while I agree with you that perhaps Mr. Bush did too much and in fact overstepped his constitutional mandate after 9-11, he also certainly did too little before disaster struck. He and his administration (namely Dick Cheney and Condalezza Rice) failed to heed warnings by Richard Clark and George Tenent, amongst others and in fact made it a point that terrorism was only something that Clinton administration was obsessed with and therefore beneath their notice. I just wish it had not been so.

2006-12-05T11:07:00.000-08:00

WAR DOES NOT GIVE A FREE PASS TO MURDERING JOURNALISTS

Today, according to El Mundo, a conservative Spanish newpaper, The Spanish Supreme Court unaminously held that Spain did have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute the murder of Spanish cameraman Jose Couso by the American military.

Jose Couso Permuy was one of the two journalists killed on April 8, 2003, when a tank fired on the Palestian Hotel in Bagdah, which the U.S. military knew was filled with journalists and supposedly not be fired upon. The American media attempted to portray the tank firing on the Palestian Hotel as unfortunate consequence of war. The complaint was originally filed in October of 2003, but the Spanish authorities put aside the investigation under pressure from the United States.

The family of the dead journalist have fought hard, characterizing the act, as a war crime for it was a deliberate act against the (unembedded) press. Mr. Couso's mother, María Isabel Permuy, marched with Cindy Sheehan on Washington, D.C. while his brother Javier Couso Permuy kept up pressure claiming that there is no free pass to murder jounalists during times of war.

According to the web site IRAQ: Journalists in Danger (http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/Iraq/Iraq_danger.html) 89 journalists have been killed in Iraq since the invastion of 2003. Compare this with the 66 journalists killed in Vietnam, and 69 killed during WW II. There must be real consequenses for those that target journalists if this is to end.

2006-06-20T16:03:00.000-07:00

IT TAKES TRUE INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION TO EFFECTIVELY FIGHT TERRORISM

Today in coordination, Spain and France arrested twelve persons that ran an organization of extorsion to fund ETA. Five were arrested in Spain and seven other in France. All were older persons, one seventy-two years old, another with a doctorade from Cambridge, that had created and ran this organization involved in terrorizing, kidnapping and threating, more often than not, fellow Basques in order to obtain funds. These arrests were fruit of two years of investigation directed by two judges, one from each nation. These proceedings are a direct result of Judge Baltasar Garzón in 1998. Judge Garzón became known internationally when he ordered the arrest of Pinochet for human rights violation during a visit to England. The investigation is still open and more arrests are pending.

There are many examples, for the history of ETA is full of extorsions, including the kidnapping of the father of international known signer Julio Iglesia, and a popular Basque factory owner. In the last case a ransom of four American Million Dollars was demanded. The family, even if they sold the factory would not have the amount required. There were manifestations by the employees, the town, the citizenry of nearby cities and at the capital, by politicians of all political persuasions who both publicly and privately begged that the ETA release this man. They did not, and somehow through incredible fund raising and borrowing the man’s family and friends came up with the four million. The man was released after months and months of captivity in poor health. The only motivation for this kidnapping was to raise money to finance yet more killings. Just this 13th of April, Basque businessmen received threatening letters demanding money. Bear in mind that this is after the declared cease fire by ETA on March 22, 2006.

2006-05-31T15:54:00.000-07:00

There are Some Parts of the World that Still Value Privacy and Reject Government Intrusion in the Name of Security.

versus
The high court of the European Union, The Court of Justice of the European Communities has held that the two agreements that provided the United States government with passenger name records which include 34 different types of data on each person, to be null and void. The justices held that there was no legal justification for such personal information to be given another government. The case was reviewed on request by the European Parliment that the high court review the the two agreements made with the United States by the European Commission and the European Council of Ministers.

2006-05-31T15:42:00.000-07:00

For Truth Time . . .

The old Spanish adage, Para la Verdad, el Tiempo, para Justicia Dios, may be proving to true yet again. Central America was convulsed with violence during Reagan administration. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala all suffered mightenly from sectarian violence. Tens of thousands were killed, displaced, tortured. Disgracefully, the United States alined itself with the wealthy and powerful against those seeking democracy and social justice.

Also disgracefully, the Catholic Church in Rome (not Monseñor Romero and other men and women of the cloth who worked to help the disenfranchised, the poor, the maligned, que descansen en paz) also stiffled the voices of social justice within the Latin American Church because it feared communism, ignoring that if it Revolution Theology was arising from its own ranks, it could hardly be anti-religious like the old Soviet block.

Earlier this week, a Spanish Judge flew to interview seven men held prisoner, including a former Guatemalan president, for their role in the genocide that occurred in Guatemala in 1982 and 1983. Specifically, it was part of an ongoing investigation and criminal proceedings for the murder of, among others a priest, who was a Spanish Citizen.

Would our own nation watch over us, seeking justice, even after our deaths . . .

2006-04-24T13:01:00.000-07:00

The Road to Peace is a Difficult One

Obviously, not all of the Basque separatists are happy with ETA's cease fire declaration. Two incidents occurred over the weekend in the Basque Country. A hardware store in a town next to Pamplona that was owned by a member of the town council and member of a regional party called Unión del Pueblo Navarro (UPN). The UPN opposes independence.

This fire caused more than damage to a store. It is in in the ground floor of the tall building. Fifty-six households were displaced, four persons, including a ten month old baby, were hospitalized for smoke inhalation and three cars there were parked next to it on the street were a total loss. The ground floor of the twelve-somthing story building is a total loss and the four flats on the first floor are uninhabitable.

In another town, Getxo, near the city of Bilbao, four masked individuals threw several molotov cocktails at an insurance agency. While the damage was minimal as they were unable to set the building on fire, it is believed this attack was done in retaliation for for the arrest of Ibon Meñika on April 18 in Vizcaya. She was transporting 90 "bonds" with ETA's initials on them, each valued at 60 Euros a piece. It is believed that they were supposed to have been distributed to ETA sympathizers in appreciation for their financial support of the terrorist organization.

Joseba Permach, the spokesman for Batasuna, the political arm of the ETA, has denounced the attacks. They consider them serious and an attempt to derail the peace process and what they hope to be the eventual independence. Batasuna has pointed out the behaviour of the executive government has been negative and that the mere association with ETA should not bring about reprecussions. It is important to note the Ms. Meñika was not transporting bombs or any other weapons. What she was arrested for was the association with ETA. If the government is serious about this cease fire, they should not have held her in custody. Arrest, yes, confiscate, yes, but then let her go. If Spanish government is serious about the peace process, then they also have to give a little for there is too much at stake. Ask the people living at #11 Calle de San Esteban in Barañaín, Navarra, Spain.

2006-04-12T12:33:00.000-07:00

Spain Reveales the Cost for its Participation in Bush' Iraq Misadventure

Today the Spanish government made public the costs of its participation in Iraq as a member of the "Coalition of the Willing." The cost is 259,55 Million Euros, 9 dead and 18 wounded. The Spanish forces suffered 90 attacks during which they killed 10 Iraqis and wounded 21. This is out of the 1300 deployed and does not include the other 1200 from the other Central American Nations (El Salvador, Honduras, Dominican Republic and Nicaragua) that were based with them. Recall that one of the Spanish bases was in Naraf. The US forces attacked Moqtada al-Sadr without warning the Spanish causing them to be trapped between hostile forces and suffering four wounded. With friends like the U.S. who needs enemies.

This information was in response to inquiries made by a group called Llamarez. However, other information was requested, including the details about the participation of the Spanish troops in the attack phase, as well as the conditions they labored under in their bases in hostile territory. The group is requesting that parliment intervene so that all information can be made public.

2006-03-31T11:18:00.000-08:00

On Wednesday, March 1, 2006, in Annapolis, Maryland at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at American University, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause.

Why does this matter? Because the law professor was reminding the Senator of her DUTY to uphold the constitution which clearly mandates a division between the church (religion) and state.

Why is it so important to keep the division? The founding fathers had been ruled under a system where there was no separation of church and state. Recall that the King of England was also the titular head of the Church of England. Our founders felt strongly that both the state and religious organizations would benefit from the separation. The church would be free from the corruption of politics (Jefferson's words) and the state would not become a tool for religious intolerance and repression. Madison felt so strongly about the separation that as a senator he voted against the creation of a Senate Chaplaincy.

I grew up under Francisco Franco. Under his dictorship, the Catholic Church and Spanish State merged. Generally, the Church did support Franco's uprising and eventual victory over the Spanish Republic.

Under his government, the role of the church was seen in all sorts of laws including how during the 1940s people had to wear bath robes to the beach and were only allowed to take them off at the water's edge in order to swim. The desire to promote turism of Spain's excellent beaches put an end to that absurd law. But then there were other effects. My mother learned all about the seven cardinal and seven venial sins along with her alphabet.

Another example is that into the 1980s, if a Spaniard wanted to marry a divorced foreigner (divorce was not allowed in Spain so there were no divorced Spaniards) the Spaniard had to go before the congregation of their parish (ie family, friends and neighbors since everyone went to the same church) and denounce their religion. This was a harsh and humiliating use of law to keep individuals within the same religion.

Another interesting fact is that when I was growing up, the churches were half full on Sundays (we Catholics have mass every day) and most of the congregation was made up of women and children. Obviously the Church suffered because the public viewed it with a cynical eye and the state suffered because its laws were considered absurd.

American Churches are full - the United States still has a reputation of a place of tolerance. Is that worth losing?

2006-03-30T15:43:00.000-08:00

They Torture because They Want To

An interesting perspective on torture, from a founder of Delta Force:"Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major of the U.S. Army, was afounding member of Delta Force, the military's elite covertcounter-terrorist unit. He culled his experiences for "Inside DeltaForce" (Delta; $14), a memoir rich with harrowing stories, though inan interview, Haney declines with a shrug to estimate the number oftimes he was almost killed. (Perhaps the most high-profile incident that almost claimed his lifewas the 1980 failed rescue of the hostages in Iran.) Today, he's doing nothing nearly as dangerous: He serves as an executive producer andtechnical adviser for "The Unit," CBS' new hit drama based on hisbook, developed by playwright David Mamet. As Mr. Haney has devoted his life to protecting the United States around the globe, one might assume Haney is sympathetic to the Bush administration policies concerning Iraq. (The endorsing cover blurb on his book is written by none other than Bill "Bush can do no wrong" 'Reilly).

However, when questioned about torture, this retired soldier had a not only a pragmatic view about its lack of effectiveness in gathering information, but also an outrage about the failure of the rule of the law:

"...Q: What do you make of the torture debate? Cheney

...A: (Interrupting) That's Cheney's pursuit. The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It's about vengeance, it's about revenge, or it's about cover-up. You don't gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It's worse than small-minded, and look what it does. I 've argued this on Bill O'Reilly and other Fox News shows. I ask, who would you want to pay to be a torturer? Do you want someone that the American public pays to torture? He's an employee of yours. It's worse than ridiculous. It's criminal; it's utterly criminal.

This administration has been masters of diverting attention away from real issues and debating the silly. Debating what constitutes torture: Mistreatment of helpless people in your power is torture, period. And (I'm saying this as) a man who has been involved in the most pointed of our activities. I know it, and all of my mates know it. You don't do it. It's an act of cowardice. I hear apologists for torture say, "Well, they do it to us." Which is a ludicrous argument. ... The Saddam Husseins of the world are not our teachers. Christ almighty, we wrote a Constitution saying what's legal and what we believed in. Now we're going to throw it away.

2006-03-28T14:31:00.000-08:00

On this Day in 1939, the Spanish Civil War ended when Franco entered Madrid.

March 28, 2006

This picture is of Republican fighters (those that wanted and fought for a democratic government, not the current US administration) fighting house to house in the Cuidad Universitaria district in Madrid. This was near where my grandparents and greatgrandparents lived. My mother had just turned three in January. My grandfather drove for the Republic and was shot up for his efforts. He was not sent to the front because he was the head of a family with a child (my mother, Maria del Rosario Calvo Mingote). Nonetheless, when Madrid fell, he was denounced by the barber on the corner and arrested. He was a handsome charming man who had friends on the Loyalist side (calling themselves loyalist - there is something about fascism and the cult of personality that props them up). My grandfather's loyalist friends vouched for him and he was released. Immediately after the war, thousands were executed for being on the wrong side. What followed was four decades in which the mention of democracy could land you in jail or worse. Politics were never discussed in my grandparents house though it was until I was much older that I understood why.

Spain's quest for democracy was stifled by the lack of formal international response. The informal response by the International Brigades are not forgotten. Below is a photograph of the Republican troops saying farewell to the departing foreigners who helped them.

Mil Gracias por vuestra ayuda, vuestra apoyo, vuestra sangre. No fue en vano.

Spain is now a democracy.

The war really did not end until the failed coup d'etat in 1981 when fascist sympathizers who wanted a return to a Spain that had a controlled society, government/church partnership and strong unity (no encouragement of Basque Catalan or other languages or other points of view that matter) took the Las Cortes - the Spanish Parliment hostage. King Juan Carlos acted swiftly - calling all the military generals to prevent a Franco-type uprising and telling the kidnappers when they threaten to shot the representatives, that they would need two bullets because he would be there to stop them. A true hero for democracy.

2006-03-22T09:38:00.000-08:00

ETA announces a "Permanent" Cease Fire

On March 22, 2006, Euskadi Ta Askatasuna announces a permanent cease fire. Since 1968, ETA has killed 851 people, about half civilians, and kidnapped 77 others, including a German Counsul whom they held for 25 days.

Hope is tempered with the experienced of other unilateral "cease fires" announced by ETA starting after the attempted coup d' etat in 1981 until the most recent in 1998.

I don’t know why but I feel that this ETA cease fire is different from other two. I am full of hope that the violence is truly over. I believe that the Madrid Bombings in March of 2004 by Al-Quada broke the back of ETA. The killing of almost 200 civilians who were just going about their daily lives, was so horrible an act of violence that not even the ETA wanted to go there. However, that was a possible future for their organization if they continue their violent methods. Organizations like Manos Blancas have also been arguing for years that independence must be achieved peacefully through the referendum process which is not possible in an atmosphere of terror that suppresses real dialogue.

ETA is at its weakest in its history. 160 members have been arrested over the past year. The assets of several related organizations including their political arm Batasuna have been frozen. Additionally, if ETA, already despised throughout Spain including the Basque Country, had continued with killing civilians, the outrage would have impeded any and all of their efforts.

This announcements comes on the heels of last Saturday's before manifestations around Spain against terrorism, including one in Bilbao that called for "Por la Paz, el Acuerdo, y la Consulta" (For Peace, agreement and in consultation"). The ETA set off a couple of bombs which only caused property damage last month. While an article by Bernardo Atxaga in the New York Times today is hopeful (Basque Spring in the Editorial Page), the expression of many Basque in the Spanish Press has been one of "wait and see." Spain's Deputy Prime Minister, María Teresa Fernández de la Vega told reporters "The government has to be more prudent now than ever, but our hope and desire is that this is the beginning of the end."

At the end of the Cease Fire Announcement, ETA stated that the objective of their decision to lay down their arms was to "advance the democratic process in order to construct a new framework that will recognize the rights that we as a people deserve. At the end of the process, the Basque citizens should have the final word and decision about their future."

Hard to argue with that.

2006-03-17T14:12:00.000-08:00

THE MAKE-UP OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY

By the time President Bush's term expires in 2009, about 1 in 3 federal judges will be selected by him. Bush is expected to fill about 200 more judicial vacancies before his term expires, bringing the total number of Bush judges to more than 400. That is considerably more than those appointment under Clinton, which number 350.

There are currently 207 Bush selections among the 1,267 sitting federal judges, some of whom might well be around until the middle of the century. More than 100 judges still sitting on the court were nominated more than 30 years ago, by President Richard Nixon and his predecessors.

Overall, 743 of the sitting judges -- about 6 in 10 -- were nominated by Republicans, and 526 federal judges were nominated by Democrats, according to the Federal Judicial Center.

What does this mean to the average citizen? It means, generally, that the courts are lobsided. While is untrue that most judges are "activists" in that they will not follow established law, the more recent nomminees have a track record of wanting to overturn settled law. Why should the anti-family faction want the Prisilla Owens and her ilk so badly? (The self-styled "pro-life" are fundamentality against the ability of individuals to take actions that affect their family). They are blinded by the possibility that Roe v. Wade will be overturned, and ignore all the other laws that flow from the same origin, namely the right of individuals to make decisions that are core to creating their lives, such as choosing professions, who can marry who, what state to live, and so on. Will those also be ripe to be overturned? Are we to return to days of segregation and back alley abortions? Apparently so.

2006-03-15T12:28:00.000-08:00

You could not have asked for a bigger gun than a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, albeit retired, to speak up for the judiciary. By speaking up for the judiciary, she spoke up for the legal system itself. She pointed out that without an independent judiciary to protect American Freedoms, our society and our country will disentigrate into a dictatorship. She pointed out that the Republicans that have attacked the judiciary ("Justice" Sundays come to mind) pose a direct threat to our contitutional freedoms.

Usually when judges or justices correctly decide a case or issue, neither of the parties are completely happy. Nonetheless, it is NOT the place for any judge to act as a rubber stamp for the government or for the rich and powerful. If we are all to be equal under law (and yes, that does includes you Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush) we need an independent and courageous judiciary to stand up for our freedoms. Justice O'Connor pointed that our nation's founders believed that an independent judicary was essential to protect individual rights from excesses of the other branches of government. Otherwise, those rights and privileges would amount to nothing.

Now, considering that O'Connor was one of the deciding votes in Bush v. Gore that handed the presidency to current administration, (in contradiction to all her previous rulings regarding right of each state to conduct its own affairs) I cannot help but feel that her speech may have come much too late to save this republic and to reverse her holding giving power to Bush and his cabal. Under this administration, the number of judges appointed to the federal bench is over 205 out of the 1,267 sitting federal judges. Right now, the federal juriciary is full of judges, including the last two appointees to the Supreme Court, that are beholden to corporations, the government, the rich and powerful. Both Roberts and Alito both have track records of consitently siding with corporations over the less powerful, often in contravention of settled law. Additionally, there have been times that ethics required that they should have recused themselves for conflict of interest by owning stocks or having other interests in a corporation that was a party to the case they were hearing.

We have returned to that Wilsonian "Golden Era" (for minority of the rich only, because the vast majority of Americans suffered in poverty during that time - unchecked pollution, child labor, no safety regulations, no social security, no pensions,no health care, ect.) in which in all suits against giant business interests such as the Railroad, always prevailed. In law school, all you had to remember in any case from that era that involved the railroad was that the railroad always won. That continued until a decision written by Benjamin Cardozo, a long time champion of the little guy, convinced his fellow Justices, that it was good idea that railroads put in warning devices at vehicular crossroads. That it was ridiculous to expect that it would be sufficient for indiviuals to stop and get out of their cars to see if a train is coming for when they got back into their cars, they may not see that train rounding the bend at a high speed. Benjamin Cardozo was also one of the jurists that eventually sided with FDR and ruled that Social Security was legal and that other matters could be regulated by the federal government. I hope there are still some judges sitting on the federal benches that recall that their duty is to the Constitution and to the balance of power that protect individuals from the abuses of the powerful.

2006-03-11T18:59:00.000-08:00

I judged a national moot court competition on Friday afternoon, March 10th at the King County Courthouse. I was part of a three person panel - all women - Judge Mary Yu and Beth Barrett Bloom - who heard arguments from two teams from law schools in Chicago. The competitors were excellent and I was pleased to learn that the one that impressed me the most, had only recently been arguing the side for the petitioner which showed versatility and deep understanding of the issues.

The problem the students were given was that of a fictitious driver/bodyguard of Osama Bin Laden who had been captured in Afghanistan in late 2001 by U.S. forces. He had been held at Guatanamo ever since. He had filed (like many real petitioners) a writ of habeus corpus. A Writ of Habeus Corpus was considered ESSENTIAL by our founders in that it would keep a government from imprisioning its citizens without due cause. Such write forces the government into stating exactly the reasons that it is holding the prisoner and move it toward a trial of those charges. This administration, by keeping these men prisoners for almost five years without charges and in fact claiming that they be kept indefinetely without charges to prevent unnamed prospective crimes, is precisely the abuses perpetrated by the British Empire and what our founders sought to prevent. Someone that the government simply did not like, or did not like the views they expoused would simply be arrested and thrown in prison and held there until King or minions felt like letting the person out.

The students arguing for the government had the most difficult argument and the first student that argued played fast and loose with the facts. While the accused may have transported weapons, she went too far when she suggested that he had transported weapons used on September 11th - I skeptically asked "What, box-cutters? Mr. Hasan personally transported box cutters that were then shipped to the United States and used in the attacks?" She retracted the comment as well as her sweeping the Hamid ruling another case that agreed with the President had broad powers, disregarding that the holding in Hamid had pointed out limitations to the executive power. Lastly, she had to admit that it was the view of the administration that it could hold a priisoner indefinently, for they were not going to charge him with anything as of yet, and lastly and bitterest pill to swallow was that the imprisonment was prospective, rather than for crimes already committed. Any crimes could be prospective and imprisoning someone for a crime they could possibly commit is anathema to the foundation of the republic.

But the petitioner also had problems wanting to call himself a POW and use the Geneva Conventions. For more on this interesting problems you can go to: http://www.hnba.com/documents/2006MootCourtCompetitionProblem.pdf

2006-02-23T10:14:00.000-08:00

Future American lawyers to be proud of ...

Alberto Gonzales spoke before law students at Georgetown on January 24, 2006, in a speach entitled "Intercepting Al Qaeda: A Lawful and Necessary Tool for Protecting America " justifying the unauthorized surveillance of US citizens. While it was announced late on January 20th, the student body was given only about 24 hours notice to digest the concept that he was going to give a policy speech at their school. Even with such short notice, the students did take action even though there two rows of Justice Department staff and three rows of media in a small room. During the course of his speech about thirty of the students in class got up from their seats and turned their backs to him. Others walked out before the speech was over. To make matters worse for Gonzales, additional students came into the room, wearing black cowls and carrying a simple banner, written on a sheet that quoted Ben Franklin, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

The protest was peaceful and the Gonzales was not interrupted. When the students’ placement of their banner obscured the view of the press cameras broadcasting the event, Law Center security personnel asked them to lower the banner—and the students did so. Because the student protest was within the bounds of courtesy, except for the request to move the sign, they were not stimined in any way.

One student who attended the speach stated:

Our protest was not about partisan politics; leading politicians and constitutional scholars of all political stripes have recognized the administration's arguments for domestic spying as flimsy at best. Our silent protest was about choosing the Constitution and our country's ideals over wrongheaded political rhetoric and surrender to a culture of fear. As graduate law students, we know for certain that adherence to the law must not be a passing consideration. Our government cannot dismantle the law for the sake of unfettered discretion in advancing national security policies or cling in vain to weak legal justifications. As the next generation of America's lawyers, our job is to stand up for the rule of law, not the rule of men. Jean Pasquarella of http://www.standupforthelaw.blogspot.com/

Hear! Hear! That was and is a fundamental principle of our republic and embraced by all political persuations. No ONE is above the law. Otherwise we slide into a system of priviledged aristocracy to whom the laws do not apply.

Fortunately for Alberto Gonzales, it was a brief speech after which he immediately left and did not participate in the panel discussion that followed. The panel was composed of national security law and constitutional law experts representing widely different views on the legal and policy issues, namely Georgetown Law Professor David Cole, Visiting Professor Martin Lederman, University of Virginia School of Law Professor Robert Turner and David Rivkin of Baker & Hostetler. Nonetheless, it was the consensus of the panel, there as no basis in law for Gonzalez's radical proposals.

And, as panelist said,

"When you're a law student, they tell you that if you can't argue the law, argue the facts. They also tell you if you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue either, apparently, the solution is to go on a public relations offensive and make it a political issue... to say over and over again "it's lawful", and to think that the American people will somehow come to believe this if we say it often enough.

In light of this, I'm proud of the very civil civil disobedience that was shown here today."

- David Cole, Georgetown University Law Professor

2006-02-17T15:29:00.000-08:00

WHAT IS THE BALANCE OF POWERS ANYWAY?

Since democracy requires an informed populace that understand how their government works as well as the issues of the day, civics is vitally important. It is apparent that standards cannot be set by the federal government, especially when there is an administration in power that requires an ignorant and scared population to rule. The cause of a solid civics education should be embraced by all parties as it is essential for a healthy democracy.

However, the individual States can take action. Yesterday the Washington State House of Representatives passed (83 to 15) House Bill 2579 which would school districts accountable for teaching the state's civics learning requirements by mandating they conduct classroom-based assessments at three grade levels. The bill has received broad bipartisan support and is supported by the Washington State Bar Association, the Board for Judicial Administration, Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington, and the League of Women Voters of Washington. It now before the Senate where it is expected to pass.

The impetus for this was a survey conducted just earlier this month by Seattle-based Elway Research which found that only 55 percent of Washington's registered voters are able to correctly identify the meaning of "separation of powers." Twenty-one percent think it means that different federal departments have different powers; 11 percent don't know; and 10 percent believe it means that the federal government does some things, like set postage rates, while state governments have other powers, like setting speed limits on state highways.

When asked to identify a responsibility of the judicial branch of government in addition to determining whether a law violates the U.S. Constitution, Washington voters fare poorly — just 53 percent chose the correct response: "determine how existing law applies to the facts of a case." Twenty-three percent think the judiciary "advise the President and Congress about the legality of action they intend to take in the future."

And almost one-third (31 percent) of registered voters do not know what is meant by the term "independent judiciary." Eleven percent think it means that "judges are not Republicans or Democrats," and eight percent believe it means that "judges can make decisions based on what they personally believe." Eight percent do not know, and four percent believe it means that "judges can make or change laws from the bench." Since Washington judges are elected by the people, voters' understanding of the role of the judiciary is especially important.

Making this lack of understanding even more troubling is that a full three-quarters of the Washington voters surveyed have at least some college education, with 48 percent having graduated from college. Income levels were also high — 45 percent reported an annual income of $50,000 or more.

Among those whose formal education stopped at high-school graduation, just 58 percent can correctly identify the three branches of government; this compares dramatically to 82 percent of college graduates. Sixteen percent of high-school graduates believe the three branches are Republican, Democrat, and Independent. Less than half (49 percent) of high-school graduates know the meaning of "separation of powers." More than one-third (38 percent) believe that the judiciary advises the President. And less than two-thirds (62 percent) know the correct definition of "checks and balances." These results clearly indicate that the role of our public schools in civics education is especially critical for those whose formal education does not go beyond high school.

Since 1999, the Washington State Bar Association has administered the Council on Public Legal Education, which promotes public understanding of the law and civic rights and responsibilities by conducting, coordinating, encouraging, and publicizing public legal education efforts in our state. The WSBA supports the Council with a full-time staff person. And there's now a wonderful resource of legal information — a website (http://www.lawforwa.org/) that provides the people of Washington easy access to information on the law, the courts, the government, and civic rights and responsibilities.

President Brooke Taylor of the WSBA announced that "I am calling on lawyers and judges across the state to reach out to their communities and look for teaching opportunities — after all, lawyers and judges are natural teachers. Our system of government is precious, and I believe that it is the duty of those of us who are privileged to work in the system to make sure that it is fully understood and never taken for granted."

2006-02-16T17:09:00.000-08:00

HISTORY OF SPANISH TERRORISM
February 15, 2006

A second bomb placed by ETA went off yesterday in Spain. This causes no end of sadness to me.

The situation in the Basque Country is complicated. Historically the Basque have never been independent, at least not within the past 2,000 years. However, even though they were part of a kingdom or a principality, they maintained their own language and customs. Generally, if they were left along in their mountains, they was little conflict. However, Francisco Franco is misguided attempt to "unify" a country which historically was made up several countries with their own languages (yes there are at least 3 with dialects on top of that) and customs moved to suppress all the native languages that were not Castilian, which would be Catalan, Vasco (or Euskadi), and Galego with related languages such as Asturiano and Valenciano. Additionally, much (though not all) of the Basque Country and much of Cataluna opposed Franco. After the Spanish Civil War, Franco was brutal in his suppression.

ETA was created in July of 1959. Its initials stand for Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (Vasque Country and Liberty). It is telling that its first victims were supporters of Franco who were on a train on their way to San Sebastian to celebrate the anniversary of the Franco's Uprising. Franco's rebellion against the Republic of Spain started the Spanish Civil War and brought fascism and dictatorship to the country. Without a doubt the efforts of ETA were against the repressive and fascist regime, the culmination of which was the spectacular assasination of Carrero Blanco in December of 1973 (he was in a car that was blown over a building that was six stories high). Even after Franco died in November of 1975, the attacks continued. In fact, only 45 persons were slain by the ETA during the dictatorship, but well over 700 have been killed while Spain has been a democracy.

I grew up in a terrorized Spain in the 1970s with the ETA blowing up buildings and attacking police precincts with submachine guns. You did not walk in front of a government building if you could help it, especially that of the infamous Guardia Civil, and you did not walk in front of a police station. If you saw an unattended parcel anywhere public – you ran away as fast as you could. I will never forget when, on a Sunday afternoon, the ETA set off a bomb in a crowded café on Claudio Coello causing 12 deaths and 80 injuries. I was waiting for my bus in the northern part of the city, La Plaza Castilla where the hospital of La Paz was, and watched ambulance after ambulance carrying the wounded.

A general amensty to members of the ETA who had been arrested during the Fransco regime was granded in 1977, but the attacks did not stop. Spaniards, unlike Americans have experienced terrorism over more than thirty years, and have a clear idea what it is like to live under that type of oppression.

Currently, the matters have become complicated and issues are no longer clear-cut. During the 1960s and 70s, the Basque Country became heavily industrialized and many Spaniards from other parts of the country moved to that region. Today, as much of a third of the population is not Basque. Additionally, over the past decades many Basque have moved into other regions of the country. I have an aunt by marriage whose Basque grandfather moved to the Province of Cadiz after the Civil War. His decendants are numerous - but are they Basque or are they Andaluz? Most of them, though not all, feel that they are Andaluzes and Spaniards, not Basque.

The PSOE came to power in the 1980s (Party of the Spanish Socialist Worker) and attempted to address the issues related to self-determination of the Regions. Spain was organized into semi-autonomous regions or Regiones, each with their own parliament. The Regiones were Andalucia (the largest to the south), Cataluña, Valencia, Castilla/Leon, Extremadura, Galicia, Asturias, Catabria, Las Vascongadas (The Basque Country). By right, not only could the inhabitants speak their regional language if they so choose (something completely prohibited under Franco), but the regional language was taught in the schools, and there were was guaranteed broadcast media in that same language.

There was also general amnesty given which many former fighters took advantage and became civilians trying to live normal lives. However, the more extreme members of the ETA did not take kindly to their members leaving, particularly those who were higher up the hierarchy. A member Dolores González Cataraín 'Yoyes', left the organization in 1980 and was living abroad. After she took the amnesty granted by the Spanish government, she returned home with her five year old child in 1986. Shorly after her return home, graffiti appeared proclaiming her a traitor. One morning when she when to market with her little child, she was gunned down, still holding her son’s hand. This horrified the general population and its many supporters.

Additionally, since the 1980s, ETA started behaving more and more like organized crime. They would kidnap businessmen and hold them hostage for huge sums of money. ETA kidnapped the father of Julio Iglesias, Dr. Julio Iglesias Pugo in 1982 and held him for a month. Another example, in 1995 or 1996, a Basque factory owner, well liked by his workers was kidnapped. A ransom of 4 American Million Dollars was demanded. The family, even if they sold the factory would not have the amount required. The employees demonstrated, the people of Bilbao and in other cities around the country demonstrated, politicians of all political persuasions publicly and privately begged that the ETA release this man. They did not, somehow through incredible fund raising and borrowing the man’s family and friends came up with the four million. The man was released after months and months of captivity. He had lots many kilos and was in poor health. The only motivation for this kidnapping was to raise money to finance more killings. These killings unfortunately involve more than soldiers or policemen of a no-longer repressive regime, but also professors, judges, elected officials, and even the head of Basque Socialist Party who was slain within 100 meters of the Basque Parliment. The ETA actively suppresses any dialogue or discussion that that does not fall within their boundaries of complete independence.

Those who criticize ETA or refuse to pay its "revolutionary tax" face harassment, kidnapping or even death. The campaign of terror ETA is waging for the independence of seven Basque provinces (the three comprising the autonomous Spanish region of the Basque Country, Navarra, and three French provinces). This inclusion of French territory makes a referrendum even more complicated.

The general population has reacted in opposition to ETA with various non-violent organizations, Elkarri, Manos Blancas, Basta Ya! and so on. They are argue that independence cannot be won by terrorizing the population and by killing civilians. Under the current climate, if a referendum were held could a terrorised people vote as they really want? Free dialogue is necessary so that the Basque can vote by understanding not only all the advantages and but also the disadvantages of being independent. If the ETA disbanded and the non-violent pro-independent groups continued, independence by referedum would certainly be legitimate.

2006-02-16T11:41:00.000-08:00

Keeping Prespective . . .
Keith Knight - one my favorite cartoonist who publishes every Wednesday on Salon.com has this wonderful view of the actions of this administration.

2006-02-16T09:34:00.000-08:00

Ah - the face of power. This was what Whittington saw when he took a face and chestful of shot.

As Scott Clemons explains in beautifully in his blog, this vicepresidency has grabed an unprecedent amount of power using secrecy to hide its own influence the most important being Bush's Executive Order 13292, of March 25, 2003.

Briefly, in the amended Executive Order, Dick Cheney and presumably future VPs are affected by this National Security Information order in the following ways:

The Vice President, in the context of his duties, has the authority to "classify" information;
The Vice President, in the context of his duties, can give a "top secret" classification to information;
The Vice President can give a "secret" or "confidential" classification to information;
Like in the previous 1995 Executive Order, the automatic, 25-year declassification of national security information can be preempted if it would impair the ability to "protect" the Vice President from physical harm;
Mandatory declassification review (by a designated process) is required of information originating from the Vice President;
Mandatory declassification review is required from the Vice President's staff;
Access to certain national security information can be provided to individuals who occupied policy-making positions appointed by the Vice President (or President of course)
Rules barring access to certain classified national security information will be waived for the Vice President;
Waivers to rules of access to classified national security information will only apply to Vice Presidential appointees in areas of their policy work while working as an Executive Branch appointee;
This mention of the VP only relates to the above line saying that access to classified national security information will only be provided to Presdidential and Vice Presidential appointees in the area of his or her policy work that was done during the tenure of that respective President or Vice President;
"'Original classification authority' means an individual authorized in writing, either by the President, the Vice President in the performance of executive duties. . ." This is a definitional item in the Executive Order.

What does this matter to the Average American? It matters because it puts a government, which is supposed to be by and for the People, unaccounatable, which of course affect who? Us, the People. There is a Oregon case in which the justices in interpreting the state law regarding public meetings and government documents stated "The Public Business is the Public's Business." As citizens in a democracy, we need hold our public officials accountable -that is why they are PUBLIC OFFICIALS. Right now, we unfortunately are relying on the Congress and Courts that should make them accountable. However, with Rubber-stamp Republicans in control of both the House and Senate and a federal court system that is now overwhelming conservative republican, the is little hope before the next election. However, what we can do now is make a record in sufficient numbers that cannot be ignored that WE the People do not agree with their actions.

2006-02-15T15:25:00.000-08:00

The lesson to be learned about situation the U.S. Vice President finds himself, is that candor is the better course than secrecy.

The secrecy that he has enveloped himself has opened the doors of speculation wide. Was he drunk? He admitted to having had a beer. What about the interaction between the alcohol and his numerous medications? Was the delay to notify the authorities and public based on a desire to hide a possible illicit double date?

The inconsistensies of the story told by the Ranch Owner/Hostest/White House Lobbyist make her account not credible and create more controversy.

Additionally, blaming the victim for what occured is the habit this administration. Right now the family is towing the party line. But if Mr. Whittington dies, or is permanently damaged, will that loyalty continue? We have only to look at Mr. Brown, whom the administration wrote off and hung out to dry to take the blame for the Katrina (late/non) response by the federal government.