COMMENTARY
SHOCKING REVELATION: A FEDERAL JUDGE ACTUALLY KNOWS THE 4th AMENDMENT EXISTS. APPARENTLY NOT EVERY LAW SCHOOL TUITION WAS WASTED.
Every once in a while a judge does something right. While militant leftists have no illusions in the bourgeois judicial system, as such, we will grasp in both hands every little minor victory, even if temporary, that comes our way. In this case a federal district court judge, Judge Diggs Taylor, has held that the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping of every piece of information not nailed down and that the agency can get its hands on is unconstitutional. Judge Diggs Taylor will not be getting invited to any Federalist Society seminars or other such cozy affairs any time soon.
Naturally, the Bush Administration, normally slow to act when democratic rights are to be enforced, has ordered the Justice Department to appeal this decision- immediately, "with all deliberate speed". When the 6th Circuit Appeals Court or the Supremes get this one you know its fate. I will take bets, even up, on a 5-4 quashing of this decision even though I have it on good authority that Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy et. al are all unaware that there IS a Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Now for the politics. Yes, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are pretty faded as working documents for any kind of just society today. But, damn, something like the Fourth Amendment against general searches and seizures even though its parameters are getting narrower and narrower with virtually every new court decision is something militant leftists defend. WE WOULD WANT THIS SAFEGUARD UNDER A WORKERS GOVERNMENT- WE DESPERATELY NEED IT NOW.
We are the best defenders of that right if for no other reason that it makes our work easier. Hell, what do you think the original American revolutionaries, particularly those the plebian elements, were fighting against? That very same prohibition against general writs that the National Security Agency and the Bush Administration are more than happy to flaunt in our faces. Do we really want to give 'big brother' the right to look at everything we do. On the other hand we are not Pollyannas. We are not blinded by a mistaken believe in the “sweet” rule of law that gets bandied amount by the media, judges, and politicans. And honored more in the breech than the observance. If this government wants to get information (even if no usable in court) it will find a way to get it warrant or no warrant. Nevertheless we will savory this decision a little for now.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Friday, August 18, 2006
*WRITE-IN LYNNE STEWART FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK ON NOVEMBER 7TH
Click on the title to link to the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee.
FORGET HILLARY “HAWK”-NEW YORK NEEDS A REAL ANTI-WAR, PRO-WORKER CANDIDATE
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
In light of the recent defeat of pro-Iraqi War Senator Joseph Lieberman by post-Yuppie Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic primary, in large part due to his anti-war stance, I got to thinking about what a real anti-war, pro-worker and oppressed minorities candidate would look like against pro-war Hillary “Hawk” Clinton in New York. Convicted (for “materially support for terrorism”: read zealous lawyerly advocacy) New York Attorney Lynne Stewart (unfortunately, currently disbarred) came naturally to mind.
For those unfamiliar with Lynne Stewart or her case the following is a note from the Partisan Defense Committee which supports the efforts to get her conviction overturned:
“On June 19, Lynne Stewart's counsel filed court papers seeking to discover if any warrantless or illegal electronic surveillance was conducted on her or anyone involved in her case. Then on July 5, Lynne's attorneys filed a Sentencing Memorandum on her behalf asking for a non-custodial sentence, i.e., one involving no jail time. As you are aware, Lynne Stewart was falsely convicted of material support for terrorism for her work representing an imprisoned client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, a direct attack on the right to an attorney and First Amendment rights for all. She is also recovering from surgery for breast cancer and subsequent radiation and hormone therapy. Currently she awaits sentencing on September 25 to be preceded by a rally at Riverside Church in New York on September 24. We say again her conviction and those of her co-defendants were an outrage. Hands Off Lynne Stewart, Mohamed Yousry and Ahmed Abdel Sattar!”
For further information contact the PDC, P.O. Box 99, Canal Street Station, New York, NY 10013-0099, The Lynne Stewart Defense Fund or see my blog, dated June 13, 2006.
Some will say, no matter how meritorious her candidacy Ms. Stewart has been convicted of a serious federal felony. Grow up! If we counted all the indicted felons, unindicted co-conspirators, and those waiting for or in fear of indictment hanging around Washington the Congressional pages would be the only ones left to run the government. Hell, maybe, they are? Besides, think about this- imagine the respect Ms. Stewart would get from those federal district court judges and appeals court judges if she had the power to vote on their nominations and impeachments.
Let me motivate the Stewart candidacy a little further.
While no one sheds tears over Lieberman’s lose we militant leftists have a problem. The anti-war surge expressed in the Lamont vote got channeled back to the same old politics-as-usual Democratic Party rather than break out to a nucleus of an anti-war, pro-worker formation. While the liberal bloggers, et. al may be happy Ned Lamont is hardly our friend at a time when even the generals running the war in Iraq are running for cover. If you do not believe me let me pose one question. At this time the only serious parliamentary move that can end the war is a vote against the war budget. (Yes, I know I argued this idea before in this space but the idea still holds true-the point is to do something about it). Those believers in Mr. Lamont pose this question to him- If elected, will you vote for the Iraq War budget? Yes or No?
We KNOW what Ms. Stewart’s response to that question would be. New Yorkers should pose that question to Hillary “Hawk”. We need a little laughter here. Christ, Ms. Clinton just came out, hands trembling, for Secretary of War Rumsfeld’s resignation a couple of weeks ago. My mother came out for that resignation about two years ago. And she is a life-long Republican.
Both Hillary “Hawk” and Lynne Stewart are women. I did not want to incur the wrath of my feminist friends by proposing a man to replace Ms. Clinton. After all we need women to break down the doors to the historic men’s club atmosphere of the United States Senate. True enough, but as I have pointed out before in regard to Senator Clinton, she, and in this she is not alone, stands for the proposition that for all the virtues of the fight for the equality of women over the past decades women can have politics just as ugly as men's politics. Some victory.
Furthermore, some will argue, Hillary is a progressive and we do not want to divide the progressive forces, etc., etc. Get over it! Yes, Hillary was a “progressive”, or what passed for such at Wellesley when she got uppity in her valedictorian speech. But, hell that was a long, long time ago. Since that time she has adhered to classic Clintonian Democratic Party centrism. Translation- she stays as close as close to the Republicans as possible without wearing an elephant on her lapel. Unfortunately for her the Republican Party these days is to the right of Genghis Khan (although that may be a slander on Mr. Khan because, as recently reported on the occasion of the 800th anniversary of his birth, the Mongolian nationalists are currently touting his progressive nature- for the times). But, let’s get to the bottom line- Hillary is operating in the coin of the realm of bourgeois politics- looking out for the main chance. Lynne has spent here career on behalf of the voiceless and unrepresented- looking to give people a fighting chance.
Finally, both women are lawyers (or were). Unlike, I believe it was Shakespeare’s Richard III this writer does not believe that a program to kill all the lawyers will get us very far. Yes, Hillary was lawyer. And yes, if memory serves me right she lawyered for the Children’s Defense Fund. And God knows the kids need as much protection as they can get. But, if memory serves she also worked for a high-powered firm that got a little sticky in the Whitewater investigation. In short, she is a ‘rainmaker’. Lynne on the other hand never saw an unpopular cause she could turn down. In short, she is a ‘fuss-maker’. I will take a ‘fuss-maker” every time. Enough said for now.
DISCLAIMER: FOR ALL INTERESTED PARTIES- IN ORDER NOT TO BE ACCCUSED OF GIVING MATERIAL AID TO THOSE WHO GAVE MATERIAL AID TO THOSE WHO GAVE MATERIAL AID, ETC. THIS WRITER STATES THAT THIS ENDORSEMENT OF MS. STEWART IS UNSOLICITED. I DO NOT KNOW MS. STEWART PERSONALLY AND HAVE NOT COMMUNICATED WITH HER ABOUT THIS ELECTION. WE BREATH THE SAME POLITICAL AIR- AND BELIEVE ME THAT ACCRUES ALL TO MY BENEFIT.
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
FORGET HILLARY “HAWK”-NEW YORK NEEDS A REAL ANTI-WAR, PRO-WORKER CANDIDATE
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
In light of the recent defeat of pro-Iraqi War Senator Joseph Lieberman by post-Yuppie Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic primary, in large part due to his anti-war stance, I got to thinking about what a real anti-war, pro-worker and oppressed minorities candidate would look like against pro-war Hillary “Hawk” Clinton in New York. Convicted (for “materially support for terrorism”: read zealous lawyerly advocacy) New York Attorney Lynne Stewart (unfortunately, currently disbarred) came naturally to mind.
For those unfamiliar with Lynne Stewart or her case the following is a note from the Partisan Defense Committee which supports the efforts to get her conviction overturned:
“On June 19, Lynne Stewart's counsel filed court papers seeking to discover if any warrantless or illegal electronic surveillance was conducted on her or anyone involved in her case. Then on July 5, Lynne's attorneys filed a Sentencing Memorandum on her behalf asking for a non-custodial sentence, i.e., one involving no jail time. As you are aware, Lynne Stewart was falsely convicted of material support for terrorism for her work representing an imprisoned client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, a direct attack on the right to an attorney and First Amendment rights for all. She is also recovering from surgery for breast cancer and subsequent radiation and hormone therapy. Currently she awaits sentencing on September 25 to be preceded by a rally at Riverside Church in New York on September 24. We say again her conviction and those of her co-defendants were an outrage. Hands Off Lynne Stewart, Mohamed Yousry and Ahmed Abdel Sattar!”
For further information contact the PDC, P.O. Box 99, Canal Street Station, New York, NY 10013-0099, The Lynne Stewart Defense Fund or see my blog, dated June 13, 2006.
Some will say, no matter how meritorious her candidacy Ms. Stewart has been convicted of a serious federal felony. Grow up! If we counted all the indicted felons, unindicted co-conspirators, and those waiting for or in fear of indictment hanging around Washington the Congressional pages would be the only ones left to run the government. Hell, maybe, they are? Besides, think about this- imagine the respect Ms. Stewart would get from those federal district court judges and appeals court judges if she had the power to vote on their nominations and impeachments.
Let me motivate the Stewart candidacy a little further.
While no one sheds tears over Lieberman’s lose we militant leftists have a problem. The anti-war surge expressed in the Lamont vote got channeled back to the same old politics-as-usual Democratic Party rather than break out to a nucleus of an anti-war, pro-worker formation. While the liberal bloggers, et. al may be happy Ned Lamont is hardly our friend at a time when even the generals running the war in Iraq are running for cover. If you do not believe me let me pose one question. At this time the only serious parliamentary move that can end the war is a vote against the war budget. (Yes, I know I argued this idea before in this space but the idea still holds true-the point is to do something about it). Those believers in Mr. Lamont pose this question to him- If elected, will you vote for the Iraq War budget? Yes or No?
We KNOW what Ms. Stewart’s response to that question would be. New Yorkers should pose that question to Hillary “Hawk”. We need a little laughter here. Christ, Ms. Clinton just came out, hands trembling, for Secretary of War Rumsfeld’s resignation a couple of weeks ago. My mother came out for that resignation about two years ago. And she is a life-long Republican.
Both Hillary “Hawk” and Lynne Stewart are women. I did not want to incur the wrath of my feminist friends by proposing a man to replace Ms. Clinton. After all we need women to break down the doors to the historic men’s club atmosphere of the United States Senate. True enough, but as I have pointed out before in regard to Senator Clinton, she, and in this she is not alone, stands for the proposition that for all the virtues of the fight for the equality of women over the past decades women can have politics just as ugly as men's politics. Some victory.
Furthermore, some will argue, Hillary is a progressive and we do not want to divide the progressive forces, etc., etc. Get over it! Yes, Hillary was a “progressive”, or what passed for such at Wellesley when she got uppity in her valedictorian speech. But, hell that was a long, long time ago. Since that time she has adhered to classic Clintonian Democratic Party centrism. Translation- she stays as close as close to the Republicans as possible without wearing an elephant on her lapel. Unfortunately for her the Republican Party these days is to the right of Genghis Khan (although that may be a slander on Mr. Khan because, as recently reported on the occasion of the 800th anniversary of his birth, the Mongolian nationalists are currently touting his progressive nature- for the times). But, let’s get to the bottom line- Hillary is operating in the coin of the realm of bourgeois politics- looking out for the main chance. Lynne has spent here career on behalf of the voiceless and unrepresented- looking to give people a fighting chance.
Finally, both women are lawyers (or were). Unlike, I believe it was Shakespeare’s Richard III this writer does not believe that a program to kill all the lawyers will get us very far. Yes, Hillary was lawyer. And yes, if memory serves me right she lawyered for the Children’s Defense Fund. And God knows the kids need as much protection as they can get. But, if memory serves she also worked for a high-powered firm that got a little sticky in the Whitewater investigation. In short, she is a ‘rainmaker’. Lynne on the other hand never saw an unpopular cause she could turn down. In short, she is a ‘fuss-maker’. I will take a ‘fuss-maker” every time. Enough said for now.
DISCLAIMER: FOR ALL INTERESTED PARTIES- IN ORDER NOT TO BE ACCCUSED OF GIVING MATERIAL AID TO THOSE WHO GAVE MATERIAL AID TO THOSE WHO GAVE MATERIAL AID, ETC. THIS WRITER STATES THAT THIS ENDORSEMENT OF MS. STEWART IS UNSOLICITED. I DO NOT KNOW MS. STEWART PERSONALLY AND HAVE NOT COMMUNICATED WITH HER ABOUT THIS ELECTION. WE BREATH THE SAME POLITICAL AIR- AND BELIEVE ME THAT ACCRUES ALL TO MY BENEFIT.
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?
COMMENTARY
DEFEND THE ENLIGHTENMENT
PRIVATE RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION –YES (IF YOU NEED IT). PUBLIC FUNDING-NO
Let us face it there has been a deep and sustained retrogression of progressive human thought over the last generation or so. Apparently the progressive goals of the Enlightenment have run out of steam and night has fallen over much of human thought. And not for the first time. Remember the Middle Ages. In many ways militant leftists are reduced to a flat-out defense of those values that in an earlier time we thought were merely the base-line from which human progress would surge. The fight against religious obscurantism represented by the key fight to separate church and state in order to make religious expression, at most, a personal expression was one of those important values. We are definitely back on the base-line on this one.
Why do I bring this up now? A glance at the news on any given day brings forth new horrors done in the name of religion. And these actions most certainly are not to defend the right to personal religious expression. Name the religion-Christianity, Judaism, Islamism, Hinduism, etc., and the fundamentalists are spearheading the drive to impose their religions on the body politic- weapons in hand. Damn, even the Hari Krishnas are getting belligerent these days. What has got this writer’s blood pressure up today, however, is the erosion of the principle of separation of church and state in this country.
A recent newspaper article really brought this point home. Apparently a town in the suburbs of Houston, Texas is the capital of the religious building boom. And town administrators, although they do not apparently know what to do about it, are not happy. This small town has 51 churches, temples, shines, whatever, all exempt from local property tax laws. All it seems you need to set up shop there is to have been directed there by god. Curious, very curious. Shinto, Hindu, 12th Day Adventist, Jainist it doe not matter. Apply and you are in. The town administrator in charge of permits, bewildered by it all, sees no way out in the face of god’s wrath. Let us help him.
To answer our befuddled Texas town public official. Here is the word. Tell your applicants this- If you want your storefront or shopping mall church- pay up. No more tax exemptions. Hey, remember this country was founded on a principle of free private religious expression- in the gathered churches of those times you paid your own way. Where the hell did we go wrong?
Religion is deeply embedded in the human psyche. No question about that. As long as humankind fought against the mysterious forces of nature, for the most part unsuccessfully, a religious explanation for humankind’s plight made some sense. And certainly it was no worst than some other explanations. However, as humankind through science, technology and more sophisticated organization of society began to tame nature that rationale lost its force. That is where the ideas of the Enlightenment began to come into there own. Religion, if necessary, became a personal expression of citizens in a secular society. Or, at least, for the past couple of centuries we thought that is where we were heading. We are duty-bound to start that fight all over again. Why? If one recalls the last time that religious fundamentalism motivated human thought was ascendant was during medieval times. That used to be called the Dark Ages. And, brothers and sisters, that lasted for a long time. Forward, again.
DEFEND THE ENLIGHTENMENT
PRIVATE RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION –YES (IF YOU NEED IT). PUBLIC FUNDING-NO
Let us face it there has been a deep and sustained retrogression of progressive human thought over the last generation or so. Apparently the progressive goals of the Enlightenment have run out of steam and night has fallen over much of human thought. And not for the first time. Remember the Middle Ages. In many ways militant leftists are reduced to a flat-out defense of those values that in an earlier time we thought were merely the base-line from which human progress would surge. The fight against religious obscurantism represented by the key fight to separate church and state in order to make religious expression, at most, a personal expression was one of those important values. We are definitely back on the base-line on this one.
Why do I bring this up now? A glance at the news on any given day brings forth new horrors done in the name of religion. And these actions most certainly are not to defend the right to personal religious expression. Name the religion-Christianity, Judaism, Islamism, Hinduism, etc., and the fundamentalists are spearheading the drive to impose their religions on the body politic- weapons in hand. Damn, even the Hari Krishnas are getting belligerent these days. What has got this writer’s blood pressure up today, however, is the erosion of the principle of separation of church and state in this country.
A recent newspaper article really brought this point home. Apparently a town in the suburbs of Houston, Texas is the capital of the religious building boom. And town administrators, although they do not apparently know what to do about it, are not happy. This small town has 51 churches, temples, shines, whatever, all exempt from local property tax laws. All it seems you need to set up shop there is to have been directed there by god. Curious, very curious. Shinto, Hindu, 12th Day Adventist, Jainist it doe not matter. Apply and you are in. The town administrator in charge of permits, bewildered by it all, sees no way out in the face of god’s wrath. Let us help him.
To answer our befuddled Texas town public official. Here is the word. Tell your applicants this- If you want your storefront or shopping mall church- pay up. No more tax exemptions. Hey, remember this country was founded on a principle of free private religious expression- in the gathered churches of those times you paid your own way. Where the hell did we go wrong?
Religion is deeply embedded in the human psyche. No question about that. As long as humankind fought against the mysterious forces of nature, for the most part unsuccessfully, a religious explanation for humankind’s plight made some sense. And certainly it was no worst than some other explanations. However, as humankind through science, technology and more sophisticated organization of society began to tame nature that rationale lost its force. That is where the ideas of the Enlightenment began to come into there own. Religion, if necessary, became a personal expression of citizens in a secular society. Or, at least, for the past couple of centuries we thought that is where we were heading. We are duty-bound to start that fight all over again. Why? If one recalls the last time that religious fundamentalism motivated human thought was ascendant was during medieval times. That used to be called the Dark Ages. And, brothers and sisters, that lasted for a long time. Forward, again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)