Category: Civil Rights
Obama’s Weak Tea on Gay Rights
So, Obama is extending ‘some’ federal benefits to gay partners, and as Pam Spaulding notes, it’s awfully meaningless and ill conceived.
First, as is noted in the New York Times, but buried in the last ‘graph, it’s not intended to be meaningful change:
But administration officials said the timing of the announcement was intended to help contain the growing furor among gay rights groups. Several gay donors withdrew their sponsorship of a Democratic National Committee fund-raising event next week, where Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is scheduled to speak.
Further, it’s not even an executive order, but an administrative memorandum, so it expires when he leaves office.
It also does not cover health benefits, so what is left to cover? The only thing that comes to mind is relocation benefits.
And they are leaking the reasons to make clear that people don’t think that this is the start of a trend to support gay rights, it’s just a ploy to appease people before a fundraiser.
LBTG’s of America, welcome to under the bus, where supporters of government transparency, accountability for war crimes and torture for Bush and His Evil Minions™, and meaningful reform of the financial system were thrown months ago.
It’s not particularly comfortable here, and now it’s getting very crowded.
Obama Getting Hammered on Selling Out Gays
It’s got the Human Rights Campaign up in arms, finally.
They’ve been a captive of the Obama administration for some time, and it’s nice that they have found some guts.
What’s more it looks like people are bailing from the DNC’s very high profile $1000 a person gay fundraiser as a result.
Additionally, the New York Times blasted Obama on his call to defend the law, noting that Obama’s assertion that the DoJ was compelled to defend the statute is simply not true.
Obama Comes Out for DOMA
Basically, an Obama DoJ appointee made motions in a court case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, and while I guess that there is an obligation for them to defend statute, the filing invoked pedophilia, called gays freeloaders, and generally invoked every bigoted right-wing talking point out there.
On the stump, he condemned DOMA.
Even better, today is the 42nd anniversary of Loving v. Virginia.
I would not hold my breath on a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
I told you so after the whole Donnie McClurkin thing.
It Must Be Nice to Live in a Place Where There are Civil Rights
Like the UK, where the nation’s highest court, the Law Lords, have rejected the use of secret evidence in trials:
Britain’s highest court, the House of Lords, ruled against the government on Wednesday in a sensitive case involving the use of secret evidence to justify imposing home curfews on terrorism suspects.
Nine law lords unanimously upheld an appeal by three men who argued it was against their human rights to be subject to control orders, a form of house arrest, based on secret evidence they are not privy to and cannot challenge in court.
“A trial procedure can never be considered fair if a party to it is kept in ignorance of the case against him,” wrote Nicholas Phillips, Britain’s most senior law lord, in issuing the lengthy judgment.
(emphasis mine)
Of course, in the good old USA, we’re moving to a new and improved military commissions system here, for whom an unfair trial is a feature, not a bug.
Terrorists Running Wild in Big Apple
Oh, my god, a terrorist is running loose on the streets of the city….Only, he isn’t. He’s at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, where other people who were tried and convicted of the same crime where held.
Why is Barack Obama letting the ‘Phants demagogue this issue?
Terrorism Works
Women’s Health Care Services, Inc., the women’s health clinic run by Dr. Tiller before he was assassinated, will be closed permanently.
Unless aggressive action is taking against the terrorists at the federal level, including the use of FACE, material support of terrorism, and RICO statutes, along with an aggressive use of asset forfeiture actions, the terrorists will win.
Drama Queens Throwing Hissy Fit
Lieberman and Graham are at again, promising to filibuster the Senate on everything because their Bush era torture photo cover-up amendment was pulled from the Iraq/Afghanistan authorization.
In Your Face, Barack Obama
It appears that the Graham Lieberman photo suppression amendment, , which would have suppressed all torture photos from the time of the Bush administration, and only from the time of the Bush administration, has been dropped from the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental in conference committee.
The liberal members of Congress made it clear that they would not vote for any bill containing this provision, and the conference committee has dropped it.
Background here.
Those people who contacted their Congressmen, including me, are to be commended for killing this abomination.
Liberals in Congress Doing the Right Thing
When you have something spearheaded by the repugnant Joseph Lieberman that has to do with national security, you can be sure that it will be a bad thing.
The same goes for self-hating closet case Lindsay Graham.
When you get the two of them together, the stench is such that it, to quote the late Edwin Newman, it positively buggers the mind, which is why we have the, “Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009,” which would specifically, “photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States.”
The only way that this bill could be more repugnant would be if the Obama administration were supporting this, since Obama and His Evil Minions™ have determined that there is no sort of perversion conducted by either the military or the other state security apparatus during the reign of Bush and His Evil Minions™ against the law, international treaty obligations, common human decency, the Constitution of the United States of America, or the founding principles of this republic that they will not support and try to suppress.
Oh, wait, Obama and His Evil Minions™ are supporting this bill, and it’s not a stand alone bill, it’s an amendment to the “must pass” supplemental budget for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thankfully, there is still a functional liberal wing of the Democrat Party in the house of representatives, and because this bill contains additional funding for the IMF, the Republicans won’t vote for it, and now Barney Frank, along with about 10 other liberal members of Congress, out of 39 needed to kill the bill, have publicly stated that they will vote against any bill that contains such a provision.
Call your Congressman, and tell him to do the right thing.
New Hampshire Approves Gay Marriage
Two snaps up, the governor signed it.
The entire hissy fit that Governor Lynch had over having a specific religious exclusion, which led to it having to go through the legislature again, was crap.
The Next Right Wing Phony Sh%$ Storm
It appears that the only people in the United States who are lamer than Code Pink, the “New Black Panther” Party (NBPP), have once again put their foot in it.
They stationed some of their people outside a polling place in uniforms and one of them, Samir Shabazz, was carrying a baton and brandished it, and the Civil Rights division of the DoJ filed a civil suit against them for voter intimidation, which they have now dropped, after review by Obama appointees.
They took it to court, and got a default verdict, which is not surprising, since the NBPP doesn’t have the resources for lawyers, and a permanent injunction against Mr. Shabazz from being within 100 yards of a polling place with any sort of weapon.
The NBPP drops Shabazz like he was a Plutonium milkshake, and then issues a condemnation of any sort of voting suppression, and the DoJ drops the case.
Then some of the “professionals staff” in the Civil Rights Division complained to the Washington (Moonie) Times about this.
Why the Moonie Times? Because these were Bushies burrowed into the division, and they wanted to show that it was “those n*gg*rs” who were suppressing the vote, not the ‘Phants in Texas, Alabama, etc., who were doing so with back door poll taxes.
So, Bush and His Evil Minions™ purge the Civil Rights Division, burrow political hacks to replace them, try to show that the problem is black people trying to vote, and then complain to their mouthpiece when the adults come in and fix it.
Expect this to be wall to wall on Rush, Hannity, and O’Falafel tomorrow.
California Supreme Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban
Damn!
Hopefully, the next initiative-petition campaign will be better run than the last one.
Let There Be No Kings
So, one of the proposals in Barack Obama’s speech is a proposal for permanent preventive detention on the say so of the President:
“But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who’ve received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.
Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture — like other prisoners of war — must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can’t be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That’s why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don’t make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.
I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. And other countries have grappled with this question; now, so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.”
This is contemptible.
If they are prisoners of war, then treat them as such, and grant them the rights therein, including the Geneva conventions, which among other things, prevent their transfer to 3rd countries (Bagram and the CIA gulags).
If they are not, then try them by jury.
This was also the reaction of civil libertarians who had an off the record meeting with him at the White House.
I’m sure that Barack Obama has read the Declaration of Independence, and amongst the grievances given by the founding fathers were, “depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury,” and “transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences,” which sound a lot like what he wants to do.
His argument is that unlike Bush, he can be trusted.
This is a lie. Any agency of government who wishes the grant or extraordinary power on this basis is inherently untrustworthy, and the same goes double for his successor.
Sorry, but, “Because I’m so awesome,” is not a reason.
His speech frightened me more than Dick Cheney’s, because Dick Cheney no longer has the power to do what he wants.
Lying Two Faced Rat Bastard!
I have a joke for you:
Q:What’s the difference between Barack Obama and Dick Cheney?
A: I have no damn clue, because Barack Obama is restarting the military tribunals:
Military Tribunals Will Resume, Obama Says
By Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 15, 2009 1:55 PMPresident Obama said today he will revive military commissions but with greater legal safeguards for defendants to try some terrorist suspects held at the military base in Cuba.
The decision, which follows an intense internal debate, represents something of a reversal by the president who said during the campaign that military courts martial or the federal courts offered a better route to successful prosecution because he said military commissions had been an “enormous failure.”
In recent weeks, however, the administration appears to have bowed to fears articulated by the Pentagon that bringing some detainees before regular courts presented enormous legal hurdles and could risk acquittals.
Risk acquittals? You are doing this because of a Risk of Acquittals?
That’s the F$#@ING POINT OF A F$#@ING TRIAL, YOU F$#@ING ILL CONCEIVED F$#@ING SON OF A F$#@ING WOMBAT!
If you don’t have a “risk of acquittal”, it’s a F$#@ING show trial. So you are pre-announcing that the military commissions are a fraud, because, you don’t want to “risk acquittals”
He’s claiming that they will be fairer than the commissions that Bush came up with, because….Because, He’s Barack Obama, and he’s just so F$#@ING awesome.
Wrong! We are the United States of America, our whole system of government is about not relying on our leaders being, “so F$#@ING awesome,” it’s about the F$#@ING rule of F$#@ING law.
I don’t care how F$#@ING awsome you F$#@ING think you are, that’s not how Americans do things.
That weren’t bad enough you also have this:
The administration is still grappling with how to handle the cases of detainees that are deemed too dangerous to release, but that some in the Pentagon fear cannot be prosecuted in any legal forum. That could lead to the creation of a system of indefinite detention without charge backed by some form of regular court review.
Well, there’s another wonderful bit of accepting who we are as a nation: If there is anything that defines American jurisprudence, and the things that our founding fathers, commie pinkos like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin, it was that they found the very idea that someone could use the state could detain someone forever without any recourse to legal process to be an anathema.
It’s wrong, it’s stupid, and it’s un-American.
Glenn Greenwald, who is far kinder than I am, or perhaps more well spoken (better writer is a given), calls this “Obama’s kinder, gentler military commissions.” He quotes many people who are now serving in the Obama administration, as well as President Obama when he was candidate Obama, noting that the problem is not just that the processes were wrong, but that the entire idea of a special court with special procedures is wrong.
What is most pernicious, quoting a letter in response to Greenwald’s article is this:
The other aspect of it, and you hinted at this the other day, is this: Under Bush, half the country was trained to recite all sorts of dangerous propositions about how important it is to vest The President with all sorts of powers to keep us safe, how vital it is that he keep things secret to protect us from the Terrorists, how we can trust in our leaders to exercise in ways we don’t understand because we know he’s good at heart.
And now, with Obama, a significant portion of the other half of the country is being trained to recite the same things.
Once again proving that almost any person on the Internet can write, and think, more clearly than I can.
And then there’s what Digby said:
By the way, I have to wonder why it’s taken centuries to come up with the civilian and military justice systems? Apparently, creating a new one is piece of cake. Why all the sturm and drang with appellate court challenges and legislation? Just put it in a presidential memo and carry on.
What has been announced today is disgraceful.
ACLU Challenges Gene Patent
The ACLU is arguing that Myriad Genetics’ holding a patent on two genes associated with various forms of cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2, is not a legal use of the patent process.
I got some training in engineering schools on patents, and it was always made clear to us, by our non-lawyer professors, that a patent was for an invention, not a discovery, and it seems to me that these genes are the latter, not the former, but I’m an engineer, not a lawyer, dammit!*
Among other things, they are arguing not just that the patent should not have been granted, and I agree with that, because at its core IP is an infringement on every one’s rights in order to, “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,” as it says int he constitution, and it is clear that by patenting a gene, they are not doing this.
Additionally, the ACLU is saying that the way that Myriad is violating the first amendment:
As the A.C.L.U. explored the restrictions on competition that companies like Myriad had put in place — blocking alternatives to the patented tests, and even the practice of interpreting or comparing gene sequences that involved those genes — the restrictions started to look like not just a question of patent law, Mr. Hansen said, but of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech as well.
I’m not sure if that would fly, since, after all, IP has at its core the restrictions of the rights of everyone for a perceived public benefit.
As to the reason as to why the patent examiners approved it?
The decision to allow gene patents was controversial from the start; patents are normally not granted for products of nature or laws of nature. The companies successfully argued that they had done something that made the genes more than nature’s work: they had isolated and purified the DNA, and thus had patented something they had created — even though it corresponded to the sequence of an actual gene.
This is bullsh%$. They are arguing that they can patent a discovery, because it’s hard work.
Here’s hoping that they win, because the current patent regime in the US is hamstringing economic development and innovation in our society, which is the exact opposite of its intended purpose.
*I LOVE IT when I get to go all Doctor McCoy!!!
I Didn’t Expect a Bloody Irish Inquisition!
The right to blaspheme is a basic human right. Or it should be in a modern democracy.
If your God can’t take me calling him a pig felcher, then he ain’t much of a God.
Of course, Ireland, notwithstanding its economic success until recently, is still very much a 3rd world nation, so the Irish Minister of Justice, Dermot Asshole Ahern, has decided to ignore the European Convention on Human Rights, and put forward a bill to make it crime, punishable by a fine of up to €100,000 to, utter or write anything “grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage”.
There is no institution that needs the air let out of it than organized religion, and the right of people to do this should not be abridged.
More Info on the Georgia Mutiny
Well, I asked for background on the Georgian mutiny, and I just got it.
This wasn’t a coup attempt. This was a mutiny in the classic sense of the term, with an armored brigade (!) being ordered to take action against peaceful demonstrators, and the commander, Colonel Mamuka Gorgiashvili, with, one assumes, at least the tacit the consent of his subordinates refused to deploy against peaceful protesters.
He defied orders and remained in barracks.
This is probably significant, the state security apparatus has been a bulwark of Saakashvili rule, but it is by no means an attempt to disrupt the NATO maneuvers or a coup.
Maine Governor SignsSame Sex Marriage Bill Into Law
Another win for civil rights.
L’Affaire Harman: In Which a Journalist Accuses the Bush Administration of Law Abiding
I’ve been following this for some time, and now we have a credible explanation from Laura Rosen as to why a further investigation might have been quashed by Alberto Gonzales, that you did not break the law until Dick Cheney and His Evil Minions™ told you to break the law:
3. Did Goss no longer have authority to certify the FISA Warrant when the call in question happened? The Time 2006 magazine piece on Harman coming on the radar in the Aipac case says that the tapped conversaation in question in which the possible alleged-by-some quid pro quo occurred was in “mid 2005.” A former intelligence official familiar with the matter told me that Goss had certified a FISA warrant to target Harman based on that intercepted communication, but didn’t know exactly what time it had occurred.
But a former intelligence community source tells me that DCI Goss no longer legally had the authority to certify FISA warrants at all beginning January 1, 2005 when the law creating the Office of the Director of National Intelligence went into effect. So if Goss did try to certify a FISA warrant to target Harman in 2005, sources tell me that would be unkosher at best, and legally suspect. That authority was no longer in the Director of Central Intelligence’s hands and had gone to the Director of National Intelligence.
(Emphasis original)
The idea that the Bush White House was paranoid about various players pursuing their own agendas is not hard to believe, since both paranoia and ignoring the law was SOP for them, and they would naturally assume that everyone else would do the same.
On a note regarding the coverage of the coverage, it gets more interesting.
BTD at Talk Left notices that Jeff Stein who broke the Harman wiretap story for CQ, threw a hissy fit over suggestions that he was spoon fed self-serving leaks from Porter Goss’s staffers when he was in Congress and the CIA, aka the “Gosslings”.
Of note is that he complains about Ron Kampeas at JTA, and Laura Rosen at Foreign Policy magazine, but studiously ignores Zachary Roth at TPMMuckraker, who actually lists the most prominent “Gosslings”:
- Patrick Murray
- Jay Jakub
- Michael Kostiw
- Merrell Moorhead
Who are a veritable rogues gallery of weirdness, as Roth makes clear when he notes that, “It says something about this crew that perhaps the best-regarded of them [Michael Kostiw] had his career derailed for shoplifting pork products.”
Stein does not deny that they are his sources in his rant, and given his studious avoidance of the article that names the “Gosslings” even while not outing them, it certainly reasonable to conclude that one of his major sources, and more likely most of his major sources for his initial story, are these “Gosslings”.
That being said, the problem with what appears to be ass covering and political vendettas is that there appears to be no way that they can all lose.
As Atrios notes when he rightly excoriates Harman for her new found discovery of the potential for abuse of surveillance, there are no good guys here:
The absurdity is obvious. Dirty f@#$ing hippies like me were horrified at the illegal warrantless wiretapping program and general expansion of the surveillance state in part because of the potential for political abuse (frankly, given the rubber stamp FISA court and rubber stamp Congress what other point would there be?). Jane Harman and her pal Joe Klein heaped scorn on dirty f@#$ing hippies for such crazy views. Harman gets caught up in what appears to be a perfectly legal wiretap not aimed directly at her, though the release of the details of it might be evidence of the kind of political abuse possible in any surveillance program. Suddenly Harman is a staunch defender the right of People Like Jane Harman to not be wiretapped.
(@#$ mine)