<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
One might argue that a soldier in the military has no rights.<br>
<br>
The other things that Obama has done are predictable as well<br>
as impeachable.<br>
<br>
But your Dems dont want to go after Obama because they worry<br>
about the general effect on their powerbase, and the GOP hacks<br>
dont want to impeach Obama because they'd open the door for some<br>
prosecution of their people.<br>
<br>
And worst of all, people would lose faith in the Presidency.<br>
<br>
On WEFT yesterday, Amy Goodman pointed out the hypocrisy of Obama
visiting <br>
Mandela's island cell whilst he keeps prisoners locked <br>
up in an island prison. <br>
<br>
It seems that not quite everyone on the Left is still<br>
under the bewitching spell of Obamism.<br>
<br>
<br>
*<br>
<br>
But, Let's keep the focus on Zimmerman/Martin and race-baiting.<br>
<br>
It's safer and more productive.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<img src="cid:part1.07090506.01020808@pigsqq.org" alt="" height="248"
width="308"><br>
Trayvon? <br>
<br>
Nope.<br>
<br>
It's from Verre d'Eau (Weirdo) magazine <br>
issue 27, published 1993.<br>
<br>
(Weirdo magazine? How appropriate.)<br>
<br>
On 07/21/13 11:32, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:E5F6380F-4B27-459F-8858-35B915933E73@newsfromneptune.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>["Watch what we do, not what we say," said Nixon's Attorney
General, quite correctly, but we've forgotten to do that. Good liberals
praise Obama for his bromides about the murder of Trayvon Martin, but
we should instead attend to what he's doing. Glenn Greenwood offers a
summary.]</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>This week in press freedoms and privacy rights<br>
</b><i><br>
</i></div>
<div><i>The travesty calling itself "the Bradley Manning
court-martial", the kangaroo tribunal calling itself "the FISA court",
and the emptiness of what the Obama DOJ calls "your constitutional
rights"</i></div>
<div><i><br>
</i></div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>•
Glenn Greenwald<i><br>
</i>
<div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>•
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a>, Saturday
20 July 2013 06.23 EDT<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
A military judge this week refused to dismiss the most serious charge
against Bradley Manning. Photograph: Patrick Semansky/AP<br>
I'm on a (much-needed) quick vacation until Sunday, so I'll just post a
few brief items from what has been a busy and important week of events,
particularly when it comes to press freedom and privacy:<br>
<br>
(1) In the utter travesty known as "the Bradley Manning
court-martial proceeding", the military judge presiding over the
proceeding yet again showed her virtually unbreakable loyalty to the US
government's case by refusing to dismiss the most serious charge
against the 25-year-old Army Private, one that carries a term of life
in prison: "aiding and abetting the enemy". The government's theory is
that because the documents Manning leaked were interesting to Osama bin
Laden, he aided the enemy by disclosing them. Harvard Law Professor
Yochai Benkler explained in the New Republic in March why this theory
poses such a profound threat to basic press freedoms as it essentially
converts all leaks, no matter the intent, into a form of treason.<br>
<br>
At this point, that seems to be the feature, not a bug. Anyone looking
for much more serious leaks than the one that Manning produced which
ended up attracting the interest of bin Laden should be looking here.
The Obama White House yesterday told Russia that it must not persecute
"individuals and groups seeking to expose corruption" - as Bradley
Manning faces life in prison for alerting the world to the war abuses
and other profound acts of wrongdoing he discovered and as
the unprecedented Obama war on whistleblowers rolls on. That lecture to
Russia came in the context of White House threats to cancel a
long-planned meeting over the Russian government's refusal to
hand over NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden to the US to face espionage
charges.<br>
<br>
(2) The kangaroo tribunal calling itself "the FISA court"
yesterday approved another government request (please excuse the
redundancy of that phrase: "the FISA court approved the government's
request"). Specifically, the "court" approved the Obama
administration's request for renewal of the order compelling Verizon to
turn over to the NSA all phone records of all Americans, the disclosure
of which on June 6 in this space began the series of NSA revelations.
This ruling was proudly announced by the office of the Director of
National Intelligence, which declassified parts of that program only
after we published the court ruling. In response, the ACLU's privacy
expert Chris Soghoian sarcastically observed: "good thing the totally
not a rubberstamp FISA court is on the job, or we might turn into a
surveillance state"; the Wall Street Journal's Tom Gara noted:
"Reminder: The style guide for mentioning the FISA court is that it's
written 'court' with scare quotes."<br>
<br>
(3) In response to our NSA reporting, several groups, including the
ACLU and EFF, filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the
US government's spying programs. A federal court yesterday heard
arguments in the suit brought by the ACLU, and the Obama DOJ asked the
court to dismiss it on several grounds, including that it "cannot be
challenged in a court of law".<br>
<br>
(4) Speaking of the Obama DOJ attempting to block judicial adjudication
of the legality of its actions: a different federal judge heard a
lawsuit yesterday challenging the constitutionality of Obama's
extra-judicial killings by drones of three American citizens, including
the 16-year-old American-born Abdulrahaman Awlaki, whose
grandfather wrote this powerful Op-Ed in the New York Times this week
under the headline "The Drone That Killed My Grandson". The judge
repeatedly expressed incredulity at the DOJ's argument that courts had
no role to play in reviewing the legality of these killings, which then
led to this exchange:<br>
<br>
<i>"'Are you saying that a US citizen targeted by the United States
in a foreign country has no constitutional rights?' she asked Brian
Hauck, a deputy assistant attorney general. 'How broadly are you
asserting the right of the United States to target an American citizen?
Where is the limit to this?'<br>
<br>
"She provided her own answer: 'The limit is the courthouse door' . . . .<br>
<br>
"'Mr. Hauck acknowledged that <b>Americans targeted overseas do have
rights, but he said they could not be enforced in court either before
or after the Americans were killed.'"</b></i><b><br>
</b><br>
Re-read that last line, as it's the Obama administration in a nutshell:
of course you have those pretty rights, dear citizens. It's just
that nobody can enforce them or do anything to us when we violate them.
But you do have them, and they're really, really important, and we do
value them so very highly, and President Obama will deliver another
really majestic speech soon in front of the Constitution about how
cherished and valued they are.<br>
<br>
(5) The Obama DOJ obtained what it considers an important victory: an
appellate court in Virginia rejected the argument from New York Times
reporter Jim Risen that, as a journalist, he cannot be compelled to
testify about the identity of his sources. I wrote last year about the
reasons the Obama DOJ's pursuit of Risen is so pernicious
and threatening to press freedom and gave the background to the
case: here. As he set forth in his affidavit, Risen believes, with good
reason, that the DOJ's pursuit of him is in retaliation for his prior
reporting, including his having exposed the NSA's warrantless
eavesdropping program in 2005.<br>
<br>
(6) In 2003, two dozen or so CIA agents kidnapped an Egyptian citizen
from a street in Milan where he was living after Italy granted him
asylum from persecution by the US-allied Mubarak regime. The CIA then
rendered their kidnapped victim back to Egypt where he was interrogated
and tortured. Italian authorities criminally charged the CIA agents
with kidnapping, and after the US refused to turn them over for trial,
they were convicted in abstentia. One of them, Milan CIA station chief
Robert Lady, was sentenced to several years in prison. I wrote about
that case, and US behavior in it, several months ago: here.<br>
<br>
Lady ended up in Panama, and when the Italians learned of this,
they requested his extradition to Italy. The US government intervened
and applied significant pressure to Panamanian officials, who,
yesterday, predictably released Lady and put him on a plane back to the
US. The next time the US lectures the world about the rule of law
and need for accountability, I'm sure this incident will be on many
people's minds. It should be.<br>
<br>
Also: for those in official Washington - including its press corps -
who have been demanding that Edward Snowden come and "face the music"
of the charges against him, will you be demanding the same of CIA
official Robert Lady, who - unlike Snowden - has committed serious
crimes (kidnapping) and has been convicted of those crimes?<br>
<br>
(7) For a glimpse into the mind of the National Security State when it
comes to transparency and press freedoms, do read this unhinged screed
published by CNN from Bush-era CIA and NSA chief Gen. Michael Hayden
about the NSA stories in which, among other things, he says that I am
"far more deserving of the Justice Department's characterization of
a co-conspirator than Fox's James Rosen ever was". What makes that
so ironic is that I've been arguing for many years now that Hayden and
the other Bush officials who implemented the illegal
warrantless eavesdropping program aimed at American citizens should be
criminally prosecuted. Speaking of glimpses into the minds of the US
National Security State, do read this remarkable exchange between AP's
excellent reporter Matt Lee and a State Department spokesman over
Russia and Snowden.<br>
<br>
(8) I'm going to write more about this next week, but Rep. Rush Holt
is running for the New Jersey Senate seat that became vacant when
Democrat Frank Lautenberg died. The special election is on August 13.
Holt has long been one of the best members of Congress: a genuine
stalwart on civil liberties and privacy and vehement opponent of the
crony capitalism that governs DC. A physicist by profession, he's
incredibly smart, independent, and unique. Here was Holt on the House
floor in 2008 expressing his vehement opposition to the 2008 FISA
Amendments Act, the bill enacted with a bipartisan majority (including
the support of President Obama) that legalized much of the massive
surveillance state that now plagues us:<br>
<br>
The favorite in the race is a typical Democratic establishment
candidate, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who will be a loyal party member
and is drowning in Wall Street cash. Having Rush Holt in the Senate
would be a substantial boost to all sorts of issues that I write about
here most.<br>
<br>
Here he is in 2007 warning again of the dangers of the surveillance
state:<br>
<br>
Those interested can (and I hope will) read about, support and donate
to his candidacy here.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>[Complete article and links at <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/20/press-freedoms-manning-risen">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/20/press-freedoms-manning-risen</a>>.]</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>