The Rag Blog

I always find women like [Ann] Coulter who spew nonsense about the evils of feminism and women’s rights to be hilariously precious. Coulter is a childless, never-married lawyer who reached the highest point of her professional career in her 40’s as a self-sufficient freelance social commentator. Sixty years ago, there is not a single part of that previous sentence that would be considered even remotely plausible as an aspect of a successful American female. Coulter, and career anti-feminists like her, have only one honest statement deserving of any feminist’s time, and that statement is “thank you.” August J. Pollak (emphasis added)

Source

“Anyone who has followed the discourse over the past decade having to do with Iraq; would be aware that ‘liberation’, or weapons of mass destruction was never the intent. The strategy has always been to divide the country – into manageable regions and divvy up the oil resources. Reconstruction was always a joke – nothing has been done except to build more prisons, and a billion dollar (small town – housing 7000) embassy to oversee the business of oil. With hundreds of thousands homeless in America, seniors not able to afford medicines, veterans living under bridges/refused medical compensation, factories closed, foreclosures rampant; a billion + is being spent on this compound, complete with swimming pools, recreation centers, theaters etc. You will not see this reported anywhere on U.S. news (little wonder Iraqis see us as occupiers, eh?) but you will see, some jerk off named Tom Cruise and non-stop coverage, of his obscene materialistic wedding taking place in some castle in Italy or coverage on O.J ( resurrected) and how he might have killed his wife etc. I feel informed!

Isn’t the very existence of an Iraq Study Group a tacit admission that GWB’s administration doesn’t know what the hell they’re doing in Iraq? Don’t we already have legions of people on the government tit to come up with military strategy and foreign policy? If they need Poppy Bush’s friends to come in and tell them how to do their jobs, then maybe (not possible as we can see) we need more competent people making these decisions in the first place. Foggy Bottom sees nothing but a regurgitation of the same old white frat boys, former CEOs, lap dogs, and shills, and cradle to grave politicians (money business that elections are), just shuffling off to new appointments and different buildings.”

Anonymous, November 19, 2006

Source

Charles Krauthammer says his beautiful invasion of Iraq was ruined by . . . Iraqis. People who want to blame U.S. policymakers for the disastrous consequences of U.S. policy are just engaged in self-flattery. This is what the French call “bullshit.” Obviously, the fact that Iraq is populated by Iraqis was a fact that American policymakers and pundits should have been taking into account before invading the war, not some unknowable contingency. And, indeed, even insofar as unknowable contingencies have frustrated our efforts in Iraq, the fact that war is risky was something to take into account in advance.

Ironically, this mentality helps precisely what’s gone wrong. The neoconservative approach to Iraq has always been marked by a remarkable combination of overoptimism about social and political conditions in Iraq with a not-so-well-veiled racist contempt for Arabs. Obviously, however, one of the major elements of Iraqi society that’s made reconstructing it into a democracy under our tutelage is that Iraqis have not felt that it would be a good idea to surrender supreme power over their lives to a foreign occupying force led by people who, rather transparently, don’t give a damn about them. (emphasis added)

Read it here.

This, once again, falls in our category of “We’ll believe it when we see it.”

Kill Bill – Neutering Bush’s Torture Law

Of the many good things we are beginning to see before the newly-constituted Democratic Congress even assumes power, one of the most gratifying is the move by Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) to neuter the hideous Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), passed by the Republicans, and signed by George W. Bush in October.

On Friday, Dodd introduced legislation to amend Bush’s “torture bill,” remove the almost-dictatorial powers it has given the White House and neutralize the bastardizing effect it’s had on the United States Constitution.

“I strongly believe that terrorists who seek to destroy America must be punished for any wrongs they commit against this country,” said Dodd, in introducing this important measure. “But in my view, in order to sustain America’s moral authority and win a lasting victory against our enemies, such punishment must be meted out only in accordance with the rule of law.”

The text of the MCA may fill almost 40 pages, but it only takes a few paragraphs of Dodd’s 10-page Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act (S.4060) to render its most onerous aspects moot.

I analyzed Dodd’s bill over the weekend and am writing this piece to give you the basics of how it fixes the Constitutional ruin imposed by the MCA and puts the power of the executive branch of government back in its rightful place.

This should tell you all you need to know about both the disease and the cure.

Read the rest here.

Note: MCA = Military Commissions Act (aka “Torture Bill”)

Homeland Security Tightens Grip on International Travel
By Ezekiel

11/04/06 “SFTS” — -A radical change in international travel rules has been lost in these tumultuous last few months that have seen the demise of habeas corpus, the legalization of torture and the expansion of the President’s martial law powers.

The Department of Homeland Security proposed new rules back in July that would fundamentally undermine the right of American citizens to travel abroad. Public carriers–airlines, cruise lines, even fishing boats–will be required to submit the names of all passengers to Homeland Security prior to departure and to obtain permission from Homeland Security to board those passengers. These new rules will take effect January 14, 2007.

Current practices already represent a severe restriction on the right to travel. The “no-fly list” dates back to 1990, but Patriot Act I created a new agency, the Transportation Security Administration, that was charged with creating and maintaining a list of people who were not allowed to board airplanes. The list was reported to have contained around 1,000 names by the end of 2001 of people strictly forbidden to fly plus a second longer list of “selectees” who were to be called out of line and subjected to closer searches and intense questioning before they were allowed to board. Many American political activists reported that they were on the “selectee” list. These lists of names were provided to airlines who were charged with the task of separating out listed passengers and notifying authorities. In December, 2005, a Swedish airline leaked that the list had grown from 1,000 to over 80,000.

The new procedure will completely eliminate the opportunity for the public to find out how many people are on the list. No airline or cruise company will ever receive a “no-fly” or “selectee” list. Instead of providing a passenger manifest after departure as now required by the Customs and Border Patrol, airlines, cruise lines and other public carriers will have to provide a provisional pasenger list prior to departure. This list will be checked against a Homeland Security list of citizens approved for international travel, and the carrier will be ordered not to board those who are not approved. This is from the proposed rule itself:

Therefore, CBP [Customas and Border Patrol] has concluded that the prevention of a high-risk passenger from boarding an aircraft is the appropriate level of security in the commercial air travel environment. Manifest data received and vetted prior to passenger boarding will enable CBP to attain this level of security. Further, this vetting of passengers on international flights should eliminate the need for passenger carriers to conduct watch list screening of these passengers, upon publication and implementation of a final rule. Accordingly, with this proposed rule,CBP is proposing two transmission options for air carriers to select from at their discretion: (i) the submission of complete manifests no later than 60minutes prior to departure or (ii)transmitting passenger data asindividual, real-time transactions, i.e.,as each passenger checks in, up to but no later than 15 minutes prior todeparture. Under both options, the carrier will not permit the boarding of a passenger unless the passenger has been cleared by CBP.

Seagoing vessels are required to submit their list 60 minutes prior to departure under the rule.

Read it here.

… you thought you had? Look fast, folks – they’re going, going, gone!

Bushies push NSA wiretap extravaganza: Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to hide
By Thomas C Greene in Dublin
Published Monday 20th November 2006 14:13 GMT

True freedom is protecting Americans by letting the NSA monitor their email and phone calls by the millions without a warrant, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales explained to Air Force Academy cadets in a speech last week.

It’s a mistake to regard such Gestapo tactics as compromising freedom, he told the young officers in training. “This [antagonistic] view is shortsighted. Its definition of freedom – one utterly divorced from civic responsibility – is superficial and is itself a grave threat to the liberty and security of the American people”.

Only days earlier, vice president Dick Cheney had denounced an August court decision in Michigan that found the NSA wiretap program unconstitutional as “an indefensible act of judicial overreaching”.

It should surprise no one that the Bush administration is mounting a PR campaign to sell its illegal mass wiretap program, even though it’s hardly a hot news item at the moment (the Michigan decision is being appealed). The sales job is directed toward the lame duck Republican Congress, in hopes of having the domestic spying program legalised after the fact, before Democrats take control of the Hill.

As recently as February 2006, Cheney had sought to put a lid on public debate and news coverage of the illegal operation: “The biggest problem we’ve got right now, frankly…is all the public discussion about it. I think we have in fact probably done serious damage to our long-term capabilities in this area because it was printed first in the New York Times, and subsequently because there have been succeeding stories about it.”

But now he and Gonzales are reviving the debate, because this is the administration’s last chance to get the legislation it needs to avoid an embarrassing confrontation with Congress, that will, at a minimum, involve long, tortuous public hearings.

Back in February, Cheney confidently dismissed critics by declaring: “We believe…that we have all the legal authority we need.”

But Gonzales has softened this imperious message in light of the public’s recent vote of absolutely no confidence. The new spin goes like this: “We believe the president has the authority under the authorisation of military force and the inherent authority of the Constitution to engage in this sort of program, but we want to supplement that authority,” Gonzales explained.

Read the rest of it here.

Bush, Allies, Forced to Recant Mid-East Policies, Wear “Shame-rags”

US President George Bush, forced to recant and apologize for his illegal invasion of Iraq in Vietnam on Sunday, here wears the “cloak of shame” historically worn in Vietnam by prisoners awaiting execution by the French.

HANOI, VIETNAM. Sunday, November 19, 2006

Surrounded by angry Vietnamese in Hanoi on Sunday, US President George W. Bush was forced to recant his reasons for and initiation of the US war in Iraq. The protesting Vietnamese, many of whom had lost loved ones in the US war against Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s, said they were angry with Bush’s statement several days earlier that the “lesson of the Vietnam war is that we will win in Iraq if we don’t quit,” according to several people in the crowd.

Shouting slogans, including “American imperialism will die in Iraq” and “Would twenty years instead of ten have done it?”, the angry crowd quickly produced replicas of the “cloak of shame” historically worn by Vietnamese resistance fighters awaiting execution by the French during Vietnam’s war of liberation against French colonialism, and forced Bush and heads of state accompanying him to don them as a condition of release.

On the cloaks, an upright and an inverted “V” can be seen superimposed on the lion that symbolized the French empire, and the lion is supine.

“Like the French lion, the American eagle sometimes wanders too far from home in search of prey, and pays too great a cost for such adventure,” said an elderly man in the crowd.

Bush had briefly resisted wearing the garment, but when a spokesperson for the workers revealed that the protesters were all workers at a local Sony contract plant responsible for assembling the new Sony PlayStation III and threatened to withhold shipments of the popular toy until after Christmas, dropping US holiday-season retail sales markedly, Bush capitulated, and agreed to blackmail his companion heads of state into donning the robes as well.

At upper left, Bush propositions Russian leader Vladimir Putin, while new Canadian PM Stephen Harper attempts to expose himself to President Michelle Bachelet of Chile, whose only response, according to a TV cameraman’s microphone digital tape of the encounter, was this: “Stephen, I’m not frightened by that tiny ‘chile pequin,’ but I’m looking directly into your right ear, and seeing only a hollow tunnel and the trees to your immediate left. It’s the same with Bush — why is that?”

After several uneasy moments, Vietnamese security police arrived and rescued the group.

Bush and the others were released unharmed shortly thereafter, although new conservative Canadian PM Harper was taken away briefly “for a talk about how to conduct himself while in Asia,” according to a police spokeswoman.

Paul Crassnerd

This quote from John Bowman should serve to remind us all that the same forces which spied on us and harassed us in the ’60’s are still in power and would still like to see us all in Hell. Mariann Wizard

The same people who tried to kill me in 1973 are the same people who are here today, trying to destroy me. I mean it literally. I mean there were people from the forces of the San Francisco Police Department who participated in harassment, torture and my interrogation in 1973 … none of these people have ever been brought to trial. None of these people have ever been charged with anything. None of these people have ever been questioned about that. — John Bowman, former Black Panther

In 2005 several former members of the Black Panther were held in contempt and jailed for refusing to testify before a San Francisco Grand Jury investigating a police shooting that took place in 1971. The government alleged that Black radical groups were involved in the 34-year old case in which two men armed with shotguns attacked the Ingleside Police Station resulting in the death of a police sergeant and the injuring of a civilian clerk.

In 1973, thirteen alleged “Black militants” were arrested in New Orleans, purportedly in connection with the San Francisco events. Some of them were tortured for several days by law enforcement authorities, in striking similarity to the horrors visited upon detainees in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib.

In 1975, a Federal Court in San Francisco threw out all of the evidence obtained in New Orleans.

The two lead San Francisco Police Department investigators from over 30 years ago, along with FBI agents, have re-opened the case. Rather than submit to proceedings they felt were abusive of the law and the Constitution, five men chose to stand in contempt of court and were sent to jail. They were released when the Grand Jury term expired, but have been told by prosecutors that “it isn’t over yet.”

For more information contact:
Committee for Defense of Human Rights (CDHR)
PO Box 90221
Pasadena, CA 91109

Or you can click here to find out much more information about the group and to order the DVD of “Legacy of Torture: The War Against The Black Liberation Movement.”

Although many, many people have heard of and seen “Fahrenheit 911,” few have noticed this hour-long piece about the Bush family. Kick back with all your favourite movie watching snacks and learn everything you always wanted to know about the nastiness that is family Bush.

Here’s what is posted on Google about it: This hour long documentary follows the award-winning reporter-sleuth Greg Palast on the trail of the Bush family, from Florida election finagling, to the Saudi connection, to the Bush team’s spiking the FBI investigation of the bin Laden family and the secret State Department plans for post-war Iraq.

These are the hard-hitting reports that have been seen in films like Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, broadcast internationally on BBC Newsnight television, and are found in Palast’s international bestselling book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

Bush Family Fortunes (2003)

The eyes of Texas were upon 60s radicals
11/18/2006 3:51 PM
By: News 8 Austin Staff

Thorne Dreyer
The 1960s were a turbulent time in America. Protests against authority and the Vietnam War spilled over onto college campuses, including the University of Texas.

Some newly discovered documents shed light on the surveillance efforts of campus police during that time. UT police chief Allen Hamilton kept detailed records of underground movements. The documents were discovered upon his death last year.

Thorne Dreyer wrote an article for the Texas Observer called “The Spies of Texas.” [See our post of two days ago, which links to the Observer article.]

News 8 Austin’s Todd Boatwright spoke with Dreyer about his article.

Q: You’ve written a very interesting article in the Texas Observer. Take us back to what that is and how you discovered these files.

A: First off, I was involved back in the 60s. I was an underground newspaper editor, and I’m in these files. What happened was, these are the files of former UT police chief Allen Hamilton. When he died, his son found these boxes in his office and sold them to Half Price Books. Most of [the files] were about Charles Whitman [the 1966 UT Tower sniper.] Half Price Books realized it was something special and donated them to the library. But they gave us access to them first because they thought [the files] should be made public. So I wrote a story for the Texas Observer and now we’ve got all these files online.

Read a snip of the interview or see a video of the entire interview here.

Falling In Line on Israel
by Stephen Zunes

The election of a Democratic majority in the House and Senate is unlikely to result in any serious challenge to the Bush administration’s support for Israeli attacks against the civilian populations of its Arab neighbors and the Israeli government’s ongoing violations of international humanitarian law.

The principal Democratic Party spokesmen on foreign policy will likely be Tom Lantos in the House of Representatives and Joe Biden in the Senate, both of whom have been longstanding and outspoken supporters of a series of right-wing Israeli governments and opponents of the Israeli peace movement. And, despite claims—even within the progressive press—that future House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a “consistent supporter of human rights,” such humanitarian concerns have never applied to Arabs, since she is a staunch defender of right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his predecessor Ariel Sharon.

For example, when President George W. Bush defended Israel’s assaults on Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure this summer and defied the international community by initially blocking United Nations efforts to impose a cease-fire, the Democrats rushed to pass a resolution commending him for “fully supporting Israel .” The resolution, co-authored by Rep. Lantos, claimed that Israel’s actions were legitimate self-defense under the UN Charter and challenged the credibility of reputable human rights groups. Although groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documented widespread attacks by Israeli forces against civilians in areas far from any Hezbollah military activity, the resolution praised “Israel’s longstanding commitment to minimizing civilian loss and welcom[ed] Israel’s continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties.” All but 15 of the House’s 201 Democrats voted in support.

Similarly, the Democrats echoed President Bush’s support for Israel’s 2002 offensive in the West Bank in another resolution co-authored by Lantos. In response to Amnesty International’s observation that the massive assault appeared to be aimed at the Palestinian population as a whole, all but two dozen Democrats went on record supporting the devastating Israeli offensive and claiming that it was “aimed solely at the terrorist infrastructure.”

Read the rest here.

Charlie ain’t gonna get what he thinks he will from doing this. And I have a difficult time with the argument that politicians won’t favour war if they think their children will have to fight. When we own up to the fact that it’s about the money, we may see some realism in Washington. Richard Jehn

Congressman Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft
By JOHN HEILPRIN, AP

WASHINGTON (Nov. 19) – Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

“There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way,” Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.

Read it here.