Neurotic: A person who worries about things that
didn't happen in the past . . .
instead of worrying about something
that won't happen in the future . . .
like normal people.
*.*
Oneliners:
If something goes without saying, let it!
Regular naps prevent old age, especially if you take them while
driving.
If you want a new idea, read an old book.
Quick!! Act as if nothing has happened!
If your plan is having no plan, do you have a plan?
I have not yet begun to procrastinate
You can't make your candle burn brighter by blowing out the other
fellow's.
*.*
Sing for Beer
DOH - The stuff that buys me beer.
RAY - The guy who sells me beer.
ME - The guys who drinks the beer.
FAR - A long way to get beer.
SO - I'll have another beer.
LA - I'll have another beer.
TEA - No thanks I'm drinking beer.
and that brings me back to DOH!
My boyfriend is not too bright but I love the guy.
We go into this trophy shop
because my basketball team won second place.
We were in this shop and there are trophies everywhere.
My boyfriend looks around and says,
"This guy is really good.
*.*
You come into this world with nothing,
and you leave with nothing.
Except, when you leave . . . you have to pay taxes on it.
I have learned a great deal about myself from my Inbox.
According to my junk e-mail,
I'm bald, impotent and in need of constant refinancing
Starbucks says they are going to start putting
religious quotes on cups. The very first one will say,
"Jesus this stuff is expensive!"
*.*
The Pasta Diet
1) You walka pasta the bakery.
2) You walka pasta the candy store.
3) You walka pasta the Ice Cream shop.
4) You walka pasta the table and fridge.
Issue of the Times;
The US of Tyranny by Christopher Manion
I never thought that I'd have to write this about that land that I love.
But now there's no escaping the fact that our government possesses
tyrannical powers that are unchecked by appeal to the "independent"
courts.
How this president, and future ones, will use that power is unknown. As
the
historian Charles Burton Marshall once famously said, "there's no such
thing
as the foreseeable future."
But what I have learned from people I trust tells me that the future of
our
liberties is in grave peril.
For instance, consider the Founding Fathers. They made it clear that the
greatest danger to liberty was not England, or Islam, or Indians, or any
foreign foe. The greatest enemy was government - our government, driven by
lust for lucre and power, breaking through the firm constitutional fences
that the Founders placed around it.
Our Founders' biggest nightmare was the prospect of an executive with
totally unlimited power. They relied on the dominant powers of the
legislature, facing frequent election by the "virtuous people" of
Federalist
57, who would also keep their representatives in line.
And consider the trustworthy conservative stalwart, Paul Weyrich. He often
admonishes well-meaning but ungrounded conservatives: "do not give to your
friend any power that may someday fall into the hands of your enemy."
Against the grain of those dire warnings, past and present, the Bush
Administration has claimed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th
Circuit has just confirmed, the unlimited power of the executive to do
anything it wants to in the name of "national security."
Anyone - whether a foreigner or an American citizen - can be kidnapped, at
home or abroad, either by a foreign government at the request of the U.S.
government, by an agent or employee(s) of the U.S. government or by of the
U.S. government itself. That person can then be trans****ted anywhere in
the
world, imprisoned indefinitely, kept from any outside contact, tortured,
even killed.
All in the name of "national security."
And there is nothing you can do about it.
The case in question was filed by one Khaled El-Masri - but it could have
happened to anybody. El-Masri is a German citizen who says he was
kidnapped,
jailed, and tortured by the CIA in Europe. The Court's opinion, which is
well worth reading in full, narrates El Masri's claims:
[O]n December 31, 2003, while travelling in Macedonia, he was detained by
Macedonian law enforcement officials; after twenty-three days in
Macedonian
custody, he was handed over to CIA operatives, who flew him to a
CIA-operated detention facility near Kabul, Afghanistan; he was held in
this
CIA facility until May 28, 2004, when he was trans****ted to Albania and
released in a remote area; and Albanian officials then picked him up and
took him to an air****t in Tirana, Albania, from which he travelled to his
home in Germany.
El-Masri was released because the CIA finally realized they thought he was
somebody else. "Oops! We tortured the wrong man. Sorry."
According the New York Times, "in June 2006, a re****t issued by the
Council
of Europe concluded that Mr. Masri's account of having been abducted and
mistreated was substantially accurate. In January, a German court issued
arrest warrants for 13 people it said were involved in the matter.
Prosecutors would not identify the suspects."
According to German news re****ts, "Senior US diplomats" tried to reverse
the
German government's decision to prosecute those involved. The German
government refused, as the Italian government did in a similar recent
case.
The CIA has had more success in the United States courts than it did in
Germany and Italy. Even though it refuses to confirm or deny any part of
Mr.
El-Masri's story, it has nonetheless demanded that the U.S. Federal Courts
throw the case down the Memory Hole. In particular, it opposed El Masri's
appeal.
The unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals granting the CIA request is
very readable - at least for Kafka fans. In 24 calm and careful pages, the
court methodically closes off every avenue that any victim of kidnapping,
imprisonment, torture, or even murder might use to seek justice under
American law. The rule is ironclad: if the government asserts that such an
effort will reveal "state secrets," the revelation of which would violate
the "national interest," or be harmful to "national security," the Court
is
required to vacate the case, and let the Government off scot-free.
Which is exactly what the unanimous appeals court did last Friday.
Like all ideological arguments, the Court's opinion is very logical, once
one accepts the axiomatic preambles. In this case, the Court clearly
identifies the axiom: the Court is bound to trust the Executive Branch,
when
the chips are down, without question. It cannot use its own independent
judgment regarding the evidence, or lack thereof, regarding the
government's
assertion of "state secrets" that might be divulged at trial. In fact, it
cannot even see the evidence, much less question it.
"El Masri," the Court's opinion explains, "would need to rely on witnesses
whose identities, and evidence the very existence of which, must remain
confidential in the interest of national security."
Says who? The government, of course - from whose illegal excesses the
courts
are supposed to protect us.
Thus, if you are kidnapped, raped, tortured, or even killed by persons
"whose identities must remain confidential in the interest of national
security," you and your heirs have no recourse under the laws of the Land
of
the Free.
"But wait," I hear you saying (or, perhaps, screaming), "the judge is able
to decide for himself whether the "state secrets" claim is bogus, right?"
Wrong. The Executive Branch, all on its own, has the right to assert that
the secrets are so sensitive that even the Federal Judge himself cannot
see
them.
After information has been determined to be privileged under the state
secrets doctrine, it is absolutely protected from disclosure - even for
the
purpose of in camera examination by the court. On this point, Reynolds
could
not be more specific: "When . . . the occasion for the privilege is
appropriate . . . the court should not jeopardize the security which the
privilege is meant to protect by insisting upon an examination of the
evidence, even by the judge alone, in chambers."
And who "determines" that the information is "privileged"? And that the
"occasion" is "appropriate"? Obviously, the Executive branch. Period. Of
course, the government must "satisfy" the court that it is not abusing the
"state secret" privilege. But, when push comes to shove, the Judge is not
allowed to see the evidence on the basis of which to make an independent
judgment. He must take the government's word for it. The government's
unexamined claim "satisfies" that requirement.
Once the government hands him an "affidavit or personal declaration" from
the department head making the claim, the judge must show "utmost
deference"
to the government (note: that phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution).
The court is not even allowed to ask the government to explain its case,
if
the answer would itself create an "unacceptable danger of injurious
disclosure." The government can stonewall the judge, but the Court's hands
are tied.
Never mind that the "department head making the claim" would be the most
likely person to want to cover up any crimes committed by his
subordinates,
either by his order, or in a rogue operation which the department head's
ignorance had allowed to go forward. If any crimes were exposed, the
department head would be either a criminal himself, or criminally
negligent,
or grossly incompetent. In any case, a rational person would demand that a
Court look at the man behind the curtain.
But the "state secrets" doctrine now guarantees that such government
criminals are above - and beyond - the law.
But the government is our friend, isn't it? It helps us after hurricanes
and
things. It is not - certainly, it cannot be - the "enemy" that Mr. Weyrich
warns us against. Right?
Dear reader, for the past four days some 5,000 "conservatives" have been
milling around the lobby of a Wa****ngton hotel at a meeting called "CPAC,"
wringing their hands about the inevitability of President Hillary Rodham
come January 2009.
So, Bush fans, what was that you were saying about no "enemy"?
By the way, according to press re****ts, these "conservatives" stood up and
cheered when the White House press spokesman defended the Iraq war,
including (one supposes - he hasn't quit, after all) the "rendition"
program
that has snapped up untold hundreds of El-Masris and spirited them off
into
the black abyss of "national security."
As always in things governmental, there is a certain irony here. In the
Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers condemned the insane and
tyrannical King George III for the outrages committed by his foreign
mercenaries, including, "For protecting them, by mock trial, from
punishment
for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these
states."
At least the Colonists were given a "mock trial" that exonerated the
Hessian
criminals. In modern cases involving "national security," the criminals
need
not worry about being subjected to any trial at all.
Once one gets over (if one can) the outrage brought on by this blatant
assertion of executive power-by-fiat, some interesting practical
ingredients
begin to emerge, factors that might have motivated the Executive branch in
its "state secrets" claim. Such as: one of the defendants named by
El-Masri
is George Tenet, the former director of the CIA.
We all know the most crucial evidence of Tenet's disastrous professional
performance at CIA. It is no secret that his agency failed miserably in
its
responsibility to protect us against 9-11. However, he "played rough" when
he left CIA: he wasn't going to be the fall guy for 9-11, and Bush-Cheney
apparently decided that they'd better not call his bluff. He knew too
much.
In order, one concludes, to silence Tenet, Bush gave him the Medal of
Freedom (thus forever making that award worthless to any future recipient,
by the way).
Moreover, the scathing re****t by the independent Inspector general of the
CIA's miserable performance under Tenet was deep-sixed, and, unlike
virtually all other IG re****ts of its kind, it was never made public.
Tenet-friendly sources inside the CIA complained that it was too
"negative."
Logical minds outside the CIA might conclude that Tenet's CIA was grossly
incompetent. But we will never know. The IG re****t is a "state secret."
Most Americans, when they commit a crime, cannot insist that their
prosecution might reveal "state secrets," and thus, on the power of their
"personal declaration" alone, dismiss the proceedings with the back of
their
hand. No, they must persuade twelve strong men and true of their case. But
it is increasingly apparent that the disastrously incompetent and
increasingly powerful executive branch of the U.S. government can do just
that - in fact, it just did.
Well, as Lenin used to say, what is to be done?
Clearly a higher court could demand and end to the "state secrets"
charade.
But Chief Justice Roberts is undoubtedly well aware that President Lincoln
once issued an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. And the
neocon peanut gallery has taken every possible occasion to assure
President
Bush that he is the resurrection of Lincoln. After all, under Lincoln,
Without the sanction of law the federal government arrested men by the
thousands and confined them in military prisons. The number of such
executive arrests was certainly over 13,000, and it has been estimated to
have been as high as 38,000 (Columbia Law Review, XXI, 527-28, 1921). This
policy was bitterly criticized in some quarters, but it is generally
assumed
that the people as a whole sup****ted the arrest policy.
Well, if the Court doesn't act, the Congress can. But will it? After all,
the Congress has been cowering at the prospect of a constitutional
confrontation with Bush for over five years, and there is no sign that it
will change now, just because the chairs have been rearranged. After all,
President Bush's "signing statements" have asserted that the Congress is
essentially irrelevant, and President Hillary Clinton-Rodham will
undoubtedly follow suit after January 20, 2009.
So "what is to be done" boils down to, "what shall we do." And for that, I
offer no better a role model than the incredibly admirable Richard
Wurmbrand.
My father introduced me to Pastor Wurmbrand forty years ago, shortly after
he was released from prison in Communist Romania. Why was he in prison?
Because the secret police had arrested him. Romania had been delivered
under
the Communist boot by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his negotiations
with his good friend, "Uncle Joe" Stalin, at Yalta. As a result, 100
million
Christians, including the Wurmbrands, were handed over to Communist
dictators, with the full faith and credit of the United States government.
According to Persecution.com, in 1945
Richard and Sabina Wurmbrand attended the Congress of Cults organized by
the [new] Romanian Communist government. Many religious leaders came
forward
to praise Communism and to swear loyalty to the new regime. Sabina said,
"Richard, stand up and wash away this shame from the face of Christ."
Richard warned, "If I do so, you'll lose your husband." She replied, "I
don'
t wish to have a coward as a husband." Thus Richard declared to the 4,000
delegates, whose speeches were broadcast to the whole nation, that their
duty is to glorify God and Christ alone.
Romania's Communist government jailed and tortured Wurmbrand for a total
of
13 years. His wife was also jailed - and was then told that her husband
had
died in prison. Finally, "in December 1965, the Norwegian Mission to the
Jews and the Hebrew Christian Alliance paid $10,000 in ransom to the
Communist government to allow the Wurmbrand family to leave Romania
[Wurmbrand was a convert from Judaism]."
When Pastor Wurmbrand appeared on "The Manion Forum," my father's
television
program, he stood in front of the cameras and stripped off his ****rt to
show
countless scars, the result of his torture in captivity, to the audience.
It
was an unforgettable moment.
23 years later, on Christmas day 1989, Nicolae Ceausescu, the Communist
dictator of Romania, and his wife Elena, the regime's chief torturer, were
executed by a firing squad. Ceausescu sang the "Internationale" and
proclaimed that history would vindicate him. Elena Ceausescu "told
everybody
to go to hell." There were no apologies, only contempt for their
executioners. On the way to her execution, Elena told her ungrateful
captors, "I have been like a mother to you."
(Author's note: the Romanian national secret police were called the
Securitate, Romanian for "security." Undoubtedly they conducted their
kidnappings and killings to protect "national security." The Wurmbrands
returned to Romania in 1990. Sabina Wurmbrand died in 2000, and Pastor
Richard Wurmbrand died in 2001).
Copyright Christopher Manion 2007. All Rights reserved.
Quote of the Times;
In the 32 years since I first came to the Senate - during the era of
Watergate and Vietnam - I have never seen a time when our Constitution and
fundamental rights as Americans were more threatened by their own
government. - Sen. Patrick Leahy,
Link of the Times;
http://www.artakiane.com/akiane_painting.htm
Subscribe or Submit to the Internet's elite source;
Send E-mail to efreem2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
complement The Field!
or
If you like what you see,
Witness the Archives;
http://www.alumni.umbc.edu/~efreem2
An Images & Ideas, Inc. Service.
AOD 318
}; - >
|
