The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Civil Liberties Page 7 of 9

The real reason for grope-athon and porn-scanners

Matt Stoller notes:

Why does flying sucks more today? Rich people fly in private jets, so the powerful no longer hear complaints from their friends.

This comes back to what I wrote before, but with respect to public schools and the Iraq war.  If important people don’t have skin in the game, things don’t get fixed and the quality of whatever experience they don’t experience doesn’t get better.  Everyone, most especially the rich and powerful, must fly on the same planes, must be subject to the draft, must have their kids go to the same schools and so on.  Only then will the general quality be high.

To the extent possible the rich have created an entire alternative structure: they don’t fly on the same planes, their kids don’t go to the same schools, they don’t fight in the wars, they have hotels that you will never enter (can you afford 50K a night?)  They live in a system parallel to that of ordinary people.

The rich must never, ever, be allowed to opt out of the shared social and economic experience.  Fly first class?  Sure, but not on private jets.   Drive in a limo?  Sure, but not fly in a helicopter avoiding congestion.  Get a room to themselves in the hospital?  Sure, but not jump the queue for treatment in front of anyone.

As soon as you let money allow people to avoid the queue entirely, those people with power will not care about what is happening to ordinary people anymore.

This is true of general inequality as well.  Why don’t the rich take the decline of the middle class seriously?  Why aren’t they extending UI?  Why do they yawn about the current economic crisis?  Why did they do nothing to stop it from happening when any idiot could see it coming?

Because it’s not their experience.  For over 30 years they have gotten rich, rich, rich!  Everyone they know who matters to them — their friends, their spouses, their mistresses and boy-toys, their children — are doing not “just fine” but gangbusters!  And after the 2008 financial collapse, their wealth has rebounded and corporate profits are at near all-time highs.

Life is good, baby!  There aren’t any real problems.  Not for the rich.  And, as George Bush so memorably said, “who cares what you think?”

The porno-scanners are making important people rich, and those important people fly on private jets.  So, what exactly is the problem?

I don’t see a problem…

The “Mosque” controversy and bigotry

Ok, enough.  As Glenn Greenwald points out, this ginned up controversy is now about bigotry.  Or, to put it another way, it’s about who the acceptable out-group to hate is in America.

Apparently it’s Muslims.

This is turning into a propaganda coup for Islamic fundamentalists, who are able to point at this controversy and say that Americans hate Islam.   And, frankly, from what I’ve seen, with even some of my readers saying they oppose the “Mosque” (really a chapel in a community center), they’re right.  Americans do hate Muslims.

As many people have pointed out, even George goddamn Bush made sure that this sort of bigotry didn’t burn out of control, but lacking his leadership, it is now acceptable to hate Muslims and say they shouldn’t exercise their constitutional rights.

Meanwhile, employment is sucking wind, the economy is heading into a second downleg of the Depression, the war in Afghanistan continues its disastrous course, Mexico is turning into a failed state and on and on.  America has a 1,000 real problems it isn’t dealing with, but it has time for a ginned up bullshit controversy of a “Mosque”.

This is a step down from the usual celebrity gossip and missing blondes who usually serve as American escapism from reality because it reveals something really fucking ugly about Americans and their hatred of a religious minority. Glenn’s right about that.  Let’s let him have the last word:

Obviously, not all opponents of Park51 are as overtly hateful as those in that video — and not all opponents are themselves bigots — but the position they’ve adopted is inherently bigoted, as it seeks to impose guilt and blame on a large demographic group for the aberrational acts of a small number of individual members. (my emphasis)

Politico notices Hispanics Leaving Democrats

This is something I’ve been on about for a while, because the Hispanic activists I know are almost all absolutely livid about Democrats in general and Obama in specific.  The reason isn’t just that comprehensive immigration reform appears dead in the water, it’s that Obama not only continued Bush’s brutal “enforcement only” policy, which breaks up families but has actually ramped it up.

To put it simply, Hispanics are the future of America.  Their population numbers are growing, fast, and Democrats need to sew them up.  And their identification with Democrats is dropping, because Democrats are attacking them.  It is quite common for citizen Hispanics to know undocumented immigrants; for those immigrants to be their friends or even family.  And the outright prejudice that simmers behind anti-immigrant fervor is something they experience in their daily lives.  Seeing Obama and Congressional Democrats pandering to that prejudice—spending more money and sending more men to the border and for raids, is not endearing Democrats to them.

They feel, in a word, betrayed.  And as Politico notes, the Hispanic media has turned on Democrats as a result.

I don’t know why Democrats feel that kicking their own base: women, gays, Hispanics and such, is good politics.  It hasn’t helped them with independents or Republicans, all it has done is demoralize the base in a base election year.

“We’re slightly less bad than the other guys” isn’t much of a slogan.  And in some cases (abortion, immigration), it’s not even clear that it’s actually true.  Democrats added new restrictions on abortion, and have ramped up anti-immigrant enforcement.

Promises are all very nice, but as with the Employee Free Choice Act, DOMA, DADT, and civil liberties, Obama’s rhetoric on Hispanic issues has been opposed to his actions.

Obama Claims Right to not just assassinate American citizens without trial but to deny them the right to a lawyer

Seriously, fuck Obama and fuck anyone who defends this shit. Oh, I know, if you’re even thinking of defending this, you’re a moral imbecile, but you should at least be able to understand that unless you’re in the top .1%, you, personally, will eventually have only the rights the least amongst us do.

The government should not (I won’t say “does not” because they do it anyway) have the right to punish anyone without a timely trial before their peers, the right to see the evidence against them and the right to face their accusers.

I will add what should be obvious: while much worse than the no-fly list, this is a linear extrapolation of the no fly list (and a cousin to the idea of plea bargaining virtually everything).  Punishment without a trial.  We will see whether murdering people without a trial is still a step too far for US courts.

America cannot be America at perpetual war

On this, the 4th of July, I, a Canadian, want to talk to Americans about their values.  Perhaps that’s presumptuous.  Perhaps I should just shut it and say “it’s none of my business.”

I could argue that it’s my business on purely pragmatic grounds: where goes the US, Canada often follows.  We are a US subject state in all but name, and your failure to fix your problems makes it much harder and sometimes impossible to fix our problems.

But forget that.  I don’t primarily care about the US because of Canadian interests, I care about the US because I care about the American dream.

I sometimes think that many of us who aren’t Americans believe in American ideals more than American citizens do.  We imbibe, in other countries, a particularly pure form of the American civil religion.  We hear about doing the right thing, about always giving the accused a day in court, about freedom of speech, about division of power and about rights that are rights not because they are given by government to its subjects, but because they are inalienable human rights.

Oh, as time goes by, you realize that America has always had problems with its virtues.  You learn of the red scares, the Japanese internments, the genocide against the Indians, slavery and Jim Crow.

And yet… and yet, both people and countries are defined not just by their failures, but by the ideals they strive towards.  America’s ideals, and its striving towards them, were what gripped the world and gave others hope.  If the American experiment in freedom, in rights, could succeed, then perhaps it could succeed in other places.

But what we see today is the American Dream dying.  Not just the dream of every generation being better off than the one before, though that’s dying, but the dream of a country where the citizens actually had rights, where they actually were free.

There are a number of reasons, but I think Jefferson’s prescient phase sums it up best:

I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies

I’m not so sure that banks are more dangerous than standing armies, but certainly the two of them together have brought the US to where it is.

The problem with standing armies is simple enough: if you’ve got one, politicians are always tempted to use it.  When it’s a professional standing army, so the majority of the population is not effected by its use, that temptation increases.  When the army is the most powerful (though not the most effective) in the world, well, that temptation increases even further.

War is an executive function.  A war cannot be run by a legislature.  As a result, during war the power of the executive grows.  In the US the executive can now hold people without charge indefinitely, meaning President has the ability to lock people up without a trial.  If he does bother to grant a trial, the accused does not have the right to face their accusers or to see the evidence against them and evidence obtained through torture can be used.

The President can spy on any American he wants, and you have essentially no recourse, since it is illegal to let you know that you’re being spied on.  The President can declare American citizens combatants and have them assassinated, which is capital punishment without a trial.

Meanwhile, instead of the whole country being a free speech zone, free speech is only allowed in small areas if anyone important is nearby.  Lord save the important people from having to actually see the people whom their policies are impoverishing and whose rights they are destroying.

The right of association has been severely crippled, since the executive can now declare any organization a terrorist organization without any trial and without any appeal.  Any American who works with “terrorists” is a criminal.  Even if they are, say, like Jimmy Carter, helping Hezbollah participate in fair elections.

To sum up, the President can do all of the following, in most cases without meaningful appeal or a trial: execute Americans, imprison people indefinitely, spy on anyone he wants, forbid people from flying, torture people, kidnap people, forbid people from associating with whoever they want, and deny them the right to speak freely anywhere except in small cordoned off zones.

This is America?

This is what the American dream has come to?

Your founders warned you about this.  Warned you that standing armies and unrestrained banks would cost you your freedom.

And the sad thing is that most Americans are ok with it.

Are Americans who don’t believe that everyone is endowed with inalienable rights still Americans worth the name?

That is my question to you on July 4th.

Happy Independence Day.

What Actually Happened at the G20 Protests

There’s been a lot of crying about “thugs and anarchists” in Toronto.  I live about 4 blocks from where some of the vandalism occurred, though I wasn’t there at the time.

As best I can tell, what happened is that for about an hour, the Black Bloc protesters clearly and visibly prepared for action, with both the police and other, non-violent protesters able to see they were doing so. The number of Black Bloc vandals seems to have been between 50 to 100, certainly not more than 200.  (The police had 20,000 men.)

The police actually withdrew, leaving behind police cars for the Black Block to torch.  Which they then did.   The Black Bloc then proceeded up Yonge street (the main north/south street in downtown Toronto), vandalizing as they went, and eventually many headed over to Queen’s Park, the Provincial capital.  Two hours after the first violence, the police finally take action, ensuring that there are plenty of videos of police cars burning and vandalism that would not have occurred if they had taken action earlier.

According to the police, rather than confront a maximum of 200 protesters, they withdrew behind the barrier around the G20 meetings and let them vandalize downtown Toronto for 2 hours.

At the end of the day the people who matter never even saw any protests and the 1 billion dollar police presence and suspension of civil liberties was “justified” by vandalism and burning police cars.

Simply put, the police decided that they couldn’t spare say 2,000 out of their 20,000 men to stop 200 vandals.  This was a deliberate decision to allow downtown to be vandalized.

I leave it as an exercise for readers to decide if this was a matter of incompetence, or if it was a deliberate strategy.  And if it was deliberate strategy, just what they were trying to accomplish with their strategy.

Of course, along the way Canadian Civil Liberties observers were arrested as well, and protesters were not allowed to see lawyers.

I am ashamed to be Canadian today, and I am ashamed of my governments, at all levels.

(A video of a clearly peaceful protest nonetheless attacked, after the jump)

Helping “Terrorists” Engage In Anything Non-Terroristic Can Get You Locked up for 15 Years

You can’t make up bad decisions like this.  Note that this is a 6-3 decision, not a close one:

The law barring material support was first adopted in 1996 and strengthened by the USA Patriot Act adopted by Congress right after the September 11 attacks. It was amended again in 2004.

The law bars knowingly providing any service, training, expert advice or assistance to any foreign organization designated by the U.S. State Department as terrorist.

The law, which carries a penalty of up to 15 years in prison, does not require any proof the defendant intended to further any act of terrorism or violence by the foreign group.

Nor does it require any proof that the organization is a terrorist organization, since a State Department declaration is an administrative act.

The Humanitarian Law Project in Los Angeles had previously provided human rights advocacy training to the Kurdistan Workers Party, known as the PKK, and the main Kurdish political party in Turkey.

The Humanitarian Law group and others sued in an effort to renew support for what they described as lawful, nonviolent activities overseas.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that human rights advocates, providing training and assistance in the nonviolent resolution of disputes, can be prosecuted as terrorists,” said Georgetown University law professor David Cole, who argued the case.

“In the name of fighting terrorism, the court has said that the First Amendment permits Congress to make it a crime to work for peace and human rights. That is wrong,” Cole said.

Got that?  Trying to help an organization do non violent things will get you locked up.

More to the point, as noted earlier, this is clearly a violation of the right of association and the right for free speech.  You get locked up based on who you associate with, not what you’ve actually done, and the decision who you can associate with is a purely administrative act at the sole discretion of the President of the United States.  Any organization the State Department declares a terrorist organization you cannot associate with, period.

This is of a piece with other policies which allow the President to assassinate an American citizen without a trial, to lock people up indefinitely without a trial and so on.  When they President does deign to allow a trial evidence obtained from torture is admissable, and the if the President doesn’t want the accused to know who their accuser is or to see the evidence against them, so be it.

This is, I should emphasize, just a continuation of a trend, a punctuation mark by the Supreme Court in a long line of decisions which have gutted the first amendment, the right to face one’s accuser, the right to due process and so on.  If I were to point to a very bad law that many folks supported who shouldn’t have it would be the RICO statutes, which likewise made simple association a crime.  Since it was “bad people” doing the association (the Mafia) folks didn’t care.

Since it’s bad people, “terrorists”, this time, too many people won’t care.

But if the rights of those you despise aren’t protected, than neither are yours.

Making videoing cops illegal doesn’t make the US a police state, honest

Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up:

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Evidence of police brutality?  Show it, and we’ll arrest you, too.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?

Page 7 of 9

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén