I don't plan to emigrate to the US any time soon, and if I do I am not certain I'll return to the DC/VA area, but still I sent in my absentee ballot earlier this month for the upcoming mid-term elections (which includes votes for one of Virginia's Senators, my Representative, and several important State referendums).
No, it's not an opportunity to vote Playdoh-for-Brains out of office, but it's still important to me. My congressional representatives, through the powers attributed to them in the Constitution, will, among other things:
One of the foremost non-legislative functions of the Congress is the power to investigate and to oversee the executive branch, and the Constitution empowers the House of Representatives to impeach federal officials (both executive and judicial) for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Roll on November 7.
From Wikipedia:
The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006 ... is an Act of Congress signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Act provides for controversial practices relating to the US government's detention and treatment of alien unlawful combatants.
A number of legal scholars and Congressional members - including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) - have said that the habeas provision of the Act violates a clause of the Constitution that says the right to challenge detention "shall not be suspended" except in cases of "rebellion or invasion."
The Act has also been denounced by critics who assert that its wording makes possible the permanent detention and torture (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) of anyone - including American citizens - based solely on the decision of the President (emphasis mine). Indeed, the wording of ... the act appears to explicitly contradict the Third Geneva Convention of which the United States is currently a signatory.
American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said, "The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions."
The law has also been criticized for allegedly giving a retroactive, nine-year immunity to U.S. officials who authorized, ordered, or committed potential acts of abuse on detainees.
Labels: politics
11:40:00 PM
It's not a tumour
Stolen from the SFIMC:
In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."
Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.
Labels: politics
11:32:00 PM
Friday, October 06, 2006
Not so wooden
CG and I had talked about seeing Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, since mid-summer, when I'd seen adverts for it in Entertainment Weekly. We were finally able to coordinate our schedules and illnesses to get together Wednesday after work for a showing at the Phoenix. We lucked out as that particular evening there was a Q&A panel after the film, with a few local academics, the BBC's environment reporter, and an American professor.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the movie was preaching to the choir. The general consensus was that the damage has been done and a slight but significant impact has already been done; any action we take now is to prevent any further accelerating of the damage over the next 50 or 60 years. Also, the US is the largest contributor and the furthest behind in any remedial action.
I was distracted throughout the movie; I kept thinking how different things would have been had Bush not stolen the election.
Labels: cinema, politics
9:37:00 PM
Friday, June 09, 2006
The 2004 election was Stolen
Taken from Tinmanic:
This article depresses me - not just because of what it says about 2004, but because of what it means for the future. If Republicans can rig any future election to come out in their favor no matter what the voters want, then we’re screwed. The single greatest threat to our democracy is the insecurity of our voting system. If people lose faith that their votes are accurately and faithfully recorded, they will abandon the ballot box. Nothing less is at stake here than the entire idea of a government by the people.
Voting, as Thomas Paine said, “is the right upon which all other rights depend.” Unless we ensure that right, everything else we hold dear is in jeopardy.
Also, you can plainly see Bush isn’t sitting on the fence in this video.
Labels: politics
10:04:00 PM
