Incompetence, Lies & Screwing Over Those That Oppose Tyranny

Over the last few days we have heard that AG "Gonzo" Gonzales, while serving as a top aid to President Bush, had to race to the hospital bed of then AG John Ashcroft to attempt an end run around the Acting Attorney General's refusal to sign off on the NSA spying programs. It appears, from these recent reports, that Ashcroft and his Deputy Attorney General had the gumption to read the Constitution and point out the numerous flaws in the NSA domestic spying game Bush, Meiers and Gonzales had in mind.

But the most interesting part is that Gonzo had the audacity to appear before Congress and state, for the record, that there was no dissent as to the legality of the NSA spying programs. Well, we can now understand why Gonzo has appeared before Congress on numerous occasions without the benefit of being sworn in before testifying: Gonzo wanted to avoid charges of perjury. But Gonzo still violated the law. Presenting false evidence and statements before Congress, even without the benefit of being sworn in, is still a crime in this nation. It is cause for his removal from office through impeachment, as well as cause for his resignation. We can only hope that Bush, Cheney and Gonzales have the political savvy to recognize that Gonzo is done as the AG and has no credibility for remaining in office. Everyone now knows that he is a liar and an incompetent liar at that. We can only hope that he will never hold a high office or practice law again.

But this most recent revelation--on the part of Gonzales and on the part of the White House--only illustrates the utter contempt these folks have for our laws, our form of government, our basic values and our people. It further illustrates how incompetent these folks are, not only at running our government in an ethical and responsible manner, but at keeping their own flaws, secret operations and outright lies from surfacing. One has to wonder how they can claim the secrecy and extension of powers surrounding our national security issues if they can't even keep their own political secrets.

I was born in the tail end of the Eisenhower administration and have lived to see Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (Sr.), Clinton and Bush (Dubya) occupy the the Oval Office.

Kennedy had his women on the side and supposedly had connections to the mob and Hollywood through his relative, Peter Lawford and the Rat Pack. The entire Marilyn Monroe thing is still a legend in both Washington and Hollywood (which is why we had Anna Nocole and have Gwen Stefani as media icons). But Kennedy knew how to stand on principle now and then, and managed most of our governmental affairs with a sense of righteousness, ethics and leadership, despite his flaws. My own opinion is that he was killed because of his principles in government and his refusal to compromise on the larger issues.

Johnson screwed up the entire approach to handling the Vietnam War. His "good old boy" approach to matters and his behind the scenes muscling on Capitol Hill did not cover up the fact that he had violated his word, our laws, the safety of our troops and our principles. Johnson did a lot of good through his Great Society campaign, including the reforms regarding spending and administration of welfare and education. He also had the decency to recognize that he was the wrong man for the office and announced his intention not to seek re-election. LBJ knew how to read the handwriting on the walls.

Nixon, however, was one of the most power-hungry bastards we ever had in office up to his day. He was a nasty politician that believed in smear campaigns going all the way back to the McCarthy Era and the "red scare" tactics of the 1950s. His reputation for throwing temper tantrums and voicing his disdain for the media was well established in his now infamous "Checkers Speech" (c.a. 1952) where he danced around the issues of campaign finance and election improprieties... an issue that would later reveal itself is the Watergate Scandal and Nixon's resignation in disgrace. Despite being a crooked politician that did not adhere to our laws, Nixon proved himself to be genuinely likable, but significantly incompetent and flawed as a human being and as a leader. Before he died he managed to re-invent himself as a humane leader and political figure. But the reality of history tells us that he was prone to ignoring the Constitution in not only regards to campaign and election laws, but in using government resources to spy on innocent Americans. It is because Nixon was incompetent at hiding these secret spying measures--much of which had been practiced back to the later days of FDR--that we ended up with the the Church Committee, Privacy Act of 1974, FISA, FOIA, and several other laws that were supposed to restrict the way in which the US government could use its intelligence gathering powers (not authority--POWERS).

Jerry Ford was a likable man with a sense of doing right, but in a backwards manner. He was a Washington insider that was essentially kept on the outside of the real deals. His major faux pas while in office was undermining our laws by pardoning Nixon before he was even charged with a crime. Ford claimed that he felt it necessary to heal the nation from the rift created by Watergate. But if this pardon had never been issued we might have learned more about how deep the disregard of our Constitution went into our government and our Congress might have passed more stringent laws regarding our privacy... many of which might have impacted the current gang of fascist thugs occupying the White House and the Executive Branch. I honestly believe letting Nixon off the hook damaged our ability to prevent run-away administrations like the current Bush gang. But Ford wasn't the worst president we've ever had, and most of his accomplishments were quiet, achieved without a lot of fanfare. He was however an economic boob. His Whip Inflation Now (WIN) campaign was a "feel good do nothing" approach to dealing with the rising prices of gas, manufacturing, imports and the loss of American jobs as a result of corporate mismanagement and globalization. Then again, it was during the Nixon days that the first oil embargo and manipulation of our economy by OPEC (led by the Saudis, of course) occurred and threw our lives into turmoil. (I once again advocate that the uninformed read Steven Emerson's "The American House of Saud" to understand how we are still tied to these manipulative bastards from the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia.) The roots of the invasion of Iraq are found in 1973.

Carter has proven a better leader out of office than when he was president. He has demonstrated courage and leadership as a peace envoy, going places where US officials could not venture and taking steps that politically ambitious folks dared not to approach. But while in office Jimmy Carter did not play the game of insider politics very well. He caused a lot of ruckus between factions in Congress and was opposed by the GOP leadership every chance they got. Many of his more humane approaches to government, leadership, domestic policies and international affairs were undermined by the GOP. This was confirmed when the Iranian-held hostages were released, very conveniently and auspiciously, on the day of Reagan's inauguration. At the time many pundits and analysts pointed to the fear of political and military reprisals against Iran under Reagan's "cowboy" approach as the reason the hostages were released. These same pundits and analysts pointed to Carter's impotence in international affairs as the basis for hostages being taken in the first place. But history is a better judge than were the pundits and analysts, proving that Reagan and company had laid a foundation for a covert relationship with Iranian "revolutionaries" that would eventually lead to an outright disregard of our laws and Constitution by Reagan and his administration. Carter was not the most effective president we've ever had, but he was at least one of the most respectable persons that held the office in the 20th century. Unfortunately, the legacy we are left with after Carter is that a moral, humane person cannot be an effective president of our nation... a legacy I reject as being a falsehood promoted by the greed and corruption that remains the mainstay of activity in Washington DC.

Reagan, on the other hand, was a Teflon buffoon. He could say anything, propose anything, no matter how outrageous, and get a nod from the press and the general public. He was dubbed the "Great Communicator," but was actually the "Great Senility." He was noted for falling asleep during meetings, asking questions that were way off topic, contradicting himself on many occasions, and for allowing Nancy to run things when she had no authority or business being involved. He led us to invade Grenada, launch attacks on Qaddafi and Libya, and brought us back to the Cold War with a passion. He was held in check by a few well-placed leaders, but was also surrounded by other buffoons like Casper Weinberger. His administration, and the subsequent Bush administration, became the breeding grounds for fascists that came to power (or are now in power), including, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Rove, Alito, Thomas, Chertoff, Card, Rice, O'Neill, Snow, Gates, Chao, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Mueller and so many others that were part of the Reagan and Bush (Sr) administrations. Interestingly enough, many of these folks, as well as advisers employed by Dubya, were involved or have ties to the Nixon White House. But the deals with Iran that allowed the release of our embassy personnel held hostage by the theocratic fascists of the Khomeini regime eventually led to the unlawful and unconstitutional activities of the Iran-Contra Affairs which involved the US government in illegal sales and transfer of weapons, drugs and money to shady characters, leaders and nations throughout the world. Reagan's approach to economics (supply-side economics, trickle-down economics, "Reaganomics") was nothing less than a surrender of our economy to corporatism, globalism and fascism that undermines the freedoms and rights of individuals, municipalities, states and regions in favor of large profiteering corporations, power-brokers, politicians and hides behind the rhetoric and apparent benevolence of tax-cutting policies. It is an oddly ironic consequence that Reagonomics has only benefited the extremely wealthy, powerful or connected while undermining the Middle Class and relegating the poor to a status of underclass in our society.

George H. W. Bush is best summed up in the words of several friends from Spain whom I met while attending graduate school at St. Louis University: "Why did the people of the United States elect the former head of your secret police (CIA) to be president?" My Spanish friends could not understand this succession at all. In their view, the usefulness of the CIA was without question, but allowing a "secret policeman" to become a national leader was just plain stupid. Given that these folks lived under the rule of Franco, I think they knew what they were talking about. But this Bush was not only involved in the Iran-Contra Affairs, but was so negligent in terms of serving the most needy among us. During his second inauguration celebration there were literally thousands of homeless people out in the cold and hungry just feet away from where he was hosting dinners that cost $1500 to $4000 a plate. His administration's performance in terms of helping the poor is horrific, with deliberate efforts toward undermining the McKinney Act provisions for using surplus federal property for the homeless, deliberate efforts to undermine education funding for inner cities, and a deliberate effort to spread USDA money to agro-businesses rather than family-run farms. This Bush managed to bypass any real criticism for his neglect of our needs by calling for more volunteerism (all the while cutting the tax burden on the top 10% of the wealthiest among us) under the "Thousand Points of Light" approach. This Bush continued the Reaganomics of his predecessor and kowtowed to Big Business even more than Reagan. Like so many others with fascist and elitist tendencies within the GOP, this Bush had ties to the Nixon White House and, indirectly, the Watergate Scandals. His worst contribution to American politics is his son, the current president. One has to wonder what values were taught in the Bush household that could produce the likes of Dubya. It must also be noted that this Bush provided pardons for many that were intimately involved in the Iran-Contra Affairs.

Bill Clinton was a buffoon of a different sort. Because Slick Willie couldn't keep his Lil' Willie in his pants he led this nation into a decline of political debate the likes of which hadn't been seen since before the Civil War. We were so busy with whether or not Wild Bill was sexually immoral with Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers or so many others that have yet to surface. We managed to impeach Slick Willie because he lied about having sex with Lewinsky to save his wife, his daughter and himself embarrassment regarding his sexual indiscretions and marital infidelities. But when we examine the Clinton administration from a historical perspective, we find he was a good president that did good things for our country. With the exception of NAFTA and DMCA (both of which were overwhelmingly supported by the GOP), the vast majority of what Clinton accomplished in the White House was effective, good for America and good for the Middle Class and the poorest among us. NAFTA hurt many small businesses, unions, workers, the entire Middle Class and migrant workers on the whole. The DMCA was a good idea that went to far in favor of the big businesses that already had control over ideas and expressions, giving away too much of the "fair use doctrine" that allowed ordinary folks to use intellectual property in a fair manner. But the entire process of impeachment was unfair. I am not saying it was not legitimate, just unfair. The proof of its unfairness is in the fact that Slick Willie got impeached for lying about a blow job in the Oval Office while Dubya has sent thousands to their death based on outright lies and manipulations, spied on Americans illegally, usurped powers he is not entitled to under our Constitution, and has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" that far exceed the immorality offered by Bill Clinton.

Of course, we now have Dubya and his gang of fascist thugs running things. I have already written about how Dubya and his gang have fulfilled all the requirements for being identified as fascist as identified by Dr. Lawrence Britt. So I do not have to address his many failings in specific once again. But the latest scandal involving Gonzo Gonzales's lies before Congress only illustrates the continued legacy of the worst presidential administration in the history of the United States of America. It also illustrates levels of deceit, manipulation and incompetence that has been tolerated for far too long. It is well past time for impeachment of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzales and anyone else that has stood on his side of the political and ideological spectrum. The addition of the Wolfowitz scandal at the World Bank is just another indicator of the incompetence, fascism, elitism (undeserved), mismanagement, cronyism and cause for impeachment coming out of the Oval Office.

REFERENCES:

Wolfowitz Resigns, Ending Long Fight at World Bank


Bush Intervened in Dispute Over N.S.A. Eavesdropping

An Arkansas Apology

I have to apologize to the few faithful readers that have been seeking out my "voice" over the last few weeks. I took another trip to Arkansas to seek out job opportunities. It seems that states (like Arkansas) that really need competent teachers are willing to recognize the licensure offered by other states, even if they got it originally through an alternative certification route. Arkansas, unlike Indiana and several other states where I have lived recently, has agreed to provide me with reciprocity for my Massachusetts credentials.

While down that way I again noticed that life is a lot different. My shock was evoked when my wife's uncle declared that veterans of the US military that were not drafted should not be entitled to health care (and other) benefits because it causes his tax bill to rise. He continued this line of argument by referencing the retirement pension a relative receives after serving over 20 years on active duty because this relative was now in prison for murder. I reproached him on both of these issues, but he is a bit of a bully, believing that if he raises his voice he will win the argument. But he got my dander up and I did not back down. I pointed out that his facts were erroneous.

While today's military is a voluntary organization, the pay scale is way off. Active duty personnel are often called to be on duty for 24-48 hours without relieve or proper rest. They sleep in less than optimum conditions, even when they are housed on base in a BEQ or barracks. The salary of an electronics technician in the military is about 30-60% lower than that of a comparable civilian position and the level of knowledge and expertise required in the military is significantly higher than that of a civilian. Despite this, that very same veteran (upon release from active duty) will have greater difficulty obtaining a job than a graduate of an associate degree electronics program. The same is true of medics and corpsmen in the services. Most of these service members will be trained to do IVs, diagnostics, minor surgery, assist with major surgery, perform x-rays, provide advanced nursing care, do lab procedures, etc... but will not be allowed to sit for even a phlebotomy technician exam once released from service in most states. My own military training as a Navy Hospital Corpsman and an Army (National Guard - 91C)--with advanced training in psychiatric care, substance abuse counseling, psychometrics, laboratory procedures, blood component therapy, IV therapies, minor surgery, etc.--has been ignored, dismissed or belittled... despite the fact that I am still a better nurse, diagnostician, counselor and care provider than many who will graduate from BSN and MS programs in the next few weeks... and I have proof of this to support my claims.

But more importantly, every day on active duty, whether in peace time or during conflicts, presents dangers that most civilian jobs do not offer. Just as steel workers (like my father-in-law) are deserving of higher pay and benefits for the dangers they face, our military personnel are deserving of better pay and working conditions... and they do not get any of these just desserts. But they do get a guarantee of medical care for life (which our government does not always fulfill) and a few other benefits--many of which have been eroded over the years--as a way of honoring the sacrifice and service.

As for the relative that committed murder and is probably going to be incarcerated for the remainder of his life, if not sentenced to death, he earned the pension. The benefit of that pension is in no way connected to the criminal deeds. There is no reasonable cause to sever the pension and the arguments of my wife's uncle are based on a foundation of punishing those that are already suffering... something that explains why he votes for Republicans even though the policies and practices supported by the GOP undermine his standing as an independent contractor and business person.

In any event, I will soon be moving to Arkansas, where I expect to raise some political hell, if not some eyebrows. But I worry about being able to keep my job while expressing my ideas and views. In any case, it will be interesting.

The Passing Of An Error...er, Era

Jerry Falwell's Nasty Contributions to American Political Life

Jerry Falwell began the process of ultra-conservative members of the Christian community--dare I say the ultra-conservative Baptists--involving themselves in the political process. Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Jim Baker, Charles Colson, Tim and Beverly LaHaye and a few others followed suit, each forming their own version of a televangelist ministry and media arm for reaching out to those who don't want to think for themselves, don't want to be Americans, but do want to be led by theocratic ideologues and demagogues and do want to turn this nation into a pseudo-democracy based on an ultra-conservative--and dare I say absolutely incorrect and errant--version of Christianity.

What Falwell and those other folks want is a version of America where only their understanding of Christianity is allowed, only their sectarian views are valid, and only their version of the pursuit of happiness is reliable, regardless of what the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the various state constitutions, or even the Bible states is valid. What tickles my hypocrisy bone is the fact that these folks have a "pick and choose" approach to history, science, law, religion and the Bible. Ignoring the parts of the Scriptures that lead us to the teachings of Christ--love, compassion, empathy, forgiveness, sacrifice, community, acceptance of others, communication (effective communication), tolerance of others, etc.--from both the Old and New Testaments, they choose only the parts that suit their purpose and ideology. Ignoring the true history of our nation, they make a case for "family values" that are artificial and not even ideal, with the father of the family dictating the rules and procedures, even if he hasn't the psychological, sociological, interpersonal, intrapersonal, emotional or vocational aptitudes, attitudes, skills or abilities to be the leader of a family. The woman of the home MUST take a back seat to the husband's will and leadership, even if he has established a pattern of failure, wrong-headedness, stubborn bull-headedness, etc.

All the while these folks have ignored the over three hundred years of alcohol abuse, spousal abuse, child abuse, child labor abuse, incest and family member rape, economic hardship caused by political and workplace exploitation (often supported by their party of choice), etc., that have defined the American family since before the American Revolution. These folks use nostalgia and propaganda to misdirect our attention to the details of our lives. They use a hypnotic form of ministry--complete with music, false happiness and pretense--to convince people that life is wonderful no matter what load of crap is dumped into our lives.

There is a certain level of psychological brainwashing that goes along with being this type of Christian. There is a surrender to "God's will" in the form of the minister, preacher, reverend or iconic figure of the day. This brainwashing reaches into the pocketbooks of millions of people who contribute their hard earned dollars for "Christian projects" that are not really doing much good, but convert many from the deepest regions of third world nations to their version of Christianity. But Christ warned us of many false prophets and provided us a metric by which we can judge the truth of matters: the fruit they bear.

Have Falwell, Robertson, Roberts, Jones, LaHaye, Hinn, Baker, or any of the others done anything that has improved the world? The nation? The state in which they lived? The community in which they lived? Mind you, I am not talking about making the lives of their congregation better. Christ gave us the example of the father not giving his child a serpent when asked for a fish, or a stone when asked for bread. But I am talking about the whole of the community... the whole of the state... the whole of the nation... the whole of the world. Changing the world is the objective of true Christianity. It is not merely competing for the funds of contributors for the operation of the church and its "ministries," but for actually feeding the poor and helping them to learn how to feed themselves... whether they convert to Christianity or not. It is not merely praying for world betterment, but bearing the burden of producing change for the better.

But Falwell, et al, do not practice the Christianity offered by Jesus. They do not even practice the Christianity preached by Paul and spread throughout the Roman Empire. Instead, each of these people have offered an ego-feeding frenzy that made them rich beyond the means of many of their "flocks" and sought power over not just their converts and parishioners, but over the lives of others in terms of decisions involving medicine (i.e. abortion, stem cells), science (creationism and its afterbirth, intelligent design), family life and intimacy (seeking laws against unwed mothers [including punitive welfare policies], gays, divorced people, etc.), and, ultimately, trying to reduce, restrict and erode the authority of the Constitution and the rights therein.

The passing of any human being is a saddening event, regardless of the religious beliefs held (or not held). I honestly feel for Falwell's family and friends. But I am rejoicing that his voice is no longer expressing the hateful, discriminatory, un-Christian and un-American ideology he stood for most of his life. But I have to admit that I am wondering what kind of greeting and reception Jerry got at the gates of heaven... and whether or not Jerry was surprised at the list of his sins, the people that really are in heaven (i.e. gays, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, etc.), or the genuine forgiveness that is offered.

Justice & Liberty Given The Cold Shoulder

The right to file a grievance and seek justice from our courts is being severely limited by the Bush administration and the Supreme Court. There are several steps--more like nails in the coffin of civil liberties--that are being taken to block the exercise of civil liberties and human rights that are guaranteed by our Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The first step is the call and effort by the Bush administration to restrict lawyers representing the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay from actually meeting with their clients except when approved and supervised by the government. In addition to restricting communication and access to their clients, the government is seeking to restrict access to evidence against their clients.

There is a fundamental problem in this approach in that it is a clear violation of the very foundations of our Constitution, our laws and the principles behind them, and the treaties we have signed supporting human rights and liberty. This approach undermines our standing in the international community, our efforts toward liberating Afghanistan and our supposed rationale for invading and occupying Iraq, and makes us war criminals.

In fact, I make the claim that our sitting by and watching this occur without a collective and total outcry against such violations of principle and justice makes every American a war criminal in the same way that every German that stood by and watched Hitler and his fascists commit similar crimes became responsible for their crimes against humanity. However, there is a difference. The Germans take responsibility for their culpability by standing up against such things today while we are idly standing by and letting this crap happen. But, just like the erosion of rights that occurred under Hitler, this erosion of liberty will sooner or later be broadly applied to us. Already we have seen the erosion of civil liberties under the USA Patriot Act, the warrantless spying programs, the unlawful surrender of private transaction records, etc.

But as soon as there is a precedent for denying access to a lawyer and the rights to see the evidence against an accused, it can--and will--be used to justify doing the same against US citizens. We must remember that our entire legal system is subject to the principle of "stare decisis," meaning that previous decisions (precedent) lay the foundation for current situations.


Court Asked to Limit Lawyers at Guantánamo

The Justice Department has asked a federal appeals court to impose tighter restrictions on the hundreds of lawyers who represent detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the request has become a central issue in a new legal battle over the administration’s detention policies.

Saying that visits by civilian lawyers and attorney-client mail have caused “intractable problems and threats to security at Guantánamo,” a Justice Department filing proposes new limits on the lawyers’ contact with their clients and access to evidence in their cases that would replace more expansive rules that have governed them since they began visiting Guantánamo detainees in large numbers in 2004.

The filing says the lawyers have caused unrest among the detainees and have improperly served as a conduit to the news media, assertions that have drawn angry responses from some of the lawyers.

The only risk to security at Gitmo is coming from the fact that the prisoners being held are realizing that they may indeed have rights and are acting upon those rights. They are demanding that the case against them be proven by applying writs of habeas corpus and demanding a probable cause hearing. Of course, if the US government actually had a case against the vast majority of those being held the proposition of probable cause and habeas corpus would not present a problem. But, given the fact that out of all the hundreds of prisoners that have been released from Gitmo, only a handful--no more than six--have been held accountable by the governments to which they were released. The reason they were not held accountable is simply because there was no evidence that they had done anything wrong.

The dispute is the latest and perhaps the most significant clash over the role of lawyers for the detainees. “There is no right on the part of counsel to access to detained aliens on a secure military base in a foreign country,” the Justice Department filing argued.

This is a bogus argument because all military bases, whether leased or permanently ceded to the US, are considered US soil for the purposes of military and civilian laws. This point has been made and set in precedent by the fact that military personnel serving on bases in foreign nations that are accused of a crime are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Civilians serving on a military base on foreign soil are subject to US laws while on base and the laws of the host nation while off base.

The argument being presented is self-serving and arbitrary, capriciously applied to promote an "ends justifying the means" approach that undermines, circumvents and erodes not only the rights and liberties of those being imprisoned at Gitmo and other places operated by the Bush administration, but our rights and liberties as well.

Under the proposal, filed this month in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the government would limit lawyers to three visits with an existing client at Guantánamo; there is now no limit. It would permit only a single visit with a detainee to have him authorize a lawyer to handle his case. And it would permit a team of intelligence officers and military lawyers not involved in a detainee’s case to read mail sent to him by his lawyer.

If we allow this to happen, we are setting ourselves up for the same approach in our criminal processes in our daily lives. We are saying that any accusation--a mere accusation--can be prosecuted without a full and forceful legal challenge to the case. We are saying that finger-pointing can become the sole reason for imprisonment, harsh treatment, indefinite detainment, and runaway prosecution.

The proposal would also reverse existing rules to permit government officials, on their own, to deny the lawyers access to secret evidence used by military panels to determine that their clients were enemy combatants.

Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights all accused persons have a fundamental and inviolate right to see and challenge the evidence being used against them. Our own Bill of Rights guarantees the right to confront the evidence being used against anyone accused of a crime or unjust act. If we allow this we are allowing a runaway government to permanently erode our own rights.

Many of the lawyers say the restrictions would make it impossible to represent their clients, or even to convince wary detainees — in a single visit — that they were really lawyers, rather than interrogators.

Jonathan Hafetz of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, a lawyer who has helped to coordinate strategy for the detainees, said the government was trying to disrupt relationships between the lawyers and their clients and to stop the flow of public information about Guantánamo, which he described as a “legal black hole” before the courts permitted access for the lawyers in 2004.

“These rules,” Mr. Hafetz said, “are an effort to restore Guantánamo to its prior status as a legal black hole.”

Indeed, that is exactly what the goal of this effort by the government: disrupting the relationship and communication between the lawyers and the accused. By doing so, they restore absolute control over the hearts, minds and bodies of those being imprisoned, allowing outright war crimes and crimes against humanity to continue without scrutiny, condemnation or redress. While many may criticize my words and statement that the US is indeed committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, I make the assertion based upon the findings of the Nuremberg trials.

The Nuremberg trials established that merely detaining people without lawful justification--proven in accordance with standards and precedents of international law--was a crime against humanity. Denying a person the right to redress of grievances through due process was, and is, a crime against humanity. Capturing and detaining (imprisoning) people indefinitely, without proper charges and due process, is a crime against humanity. Capturing these people in an area under military jurisdiction and control, and detaining them without provable cause and due process, is a war crime, as was illustrated in cases prosecuted against Gestapo and SS commands, as well as the operators of the concentration camps. We need to remember that the cases against the German commanders running the concentration camps were not based on the maltreatment of their prisoners alone. Indeed, the prosecution of these commanders included charges for just maintaining these camps without cause, justification or due process and redress.

The dispute comes in a case in which detainees are challenging decisions by military panels that they were properly held as enemy combatants. The Justice Department’s proposed rules could apply to similar cases that lawyers say are likely to eventually involve as many as 300 of the roughly 385 detainees now held at Guantánamo.

By stating that these folks are "enemy combatants, the US government is obligated to provide for rights under the Geneva convention. By employing a military tribunal to prosecute these prisoners, the right to be represented by a lawyer is not only an obligation to be assured by the US government, but the right includes allowing an international court to oversee these proceedings. But the Bush gang of fascist thugs want to cut and weave the law in their own fashion, avoiding any requirements that they adhere to established rights, precedents and principles that might actually reveal the bogus nature of their actions.

But the Supreme Court has taken a step to enable the dysfunction of the Bush administration, proving that ultra-conservative bias and fascism exist on the bench of our highest court.

Supreme Court Rejects Guantanamo Military Commissions Case

The US Supreme Court Monday declined to hear a lawsuit brought by two Guantanamo Bay detainees challenging the legality of their military commissions. In Hamdan v. Gates and Khadr v. Bush, 06-1169, Yemeni Salim Ahmed Hamdan and Canadian Omar Khadr sought to challenge the constitutionality of Congress' decision to deny habeas challenges by suspected terrorists under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. In early April, the Court declined to hear another case brought by other Guantanamo detainees on whether those prisoners could challenge their detention in US federal court.

Last year the Supreme Court ruled that President Bush's military commission system violated US and international law in a previous lawsuit filed by Hamdan, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Subsequently, the Bush administration proposed the current law restructuring the military commissions, but lawyers for Hamdan and Khadr contend that the new system is substantially similar to the old one.

REFERENCES:

DOJ Seeking Additional Restrictions on Guantanamo Lawyer-Detainee Contact

Guantanamo Detainees Ask Roberts to Suspend Habeas-Stripping Case Rejection

Lawyers Lobby US Legislators to Return Habeas Rights to Guantanamo Detainees

US, Australia 'Prepared to Throw Every Legal Principle Out the Eindow': Ex-PM

Former CIA Director Denies Use of Torture in Interrogations

Canada Government Now Says It Knew of Torture Claims by Afghan Detainees

Ex-Guantanamo Detainee Held in Morocco After Transfer

Lawyers Taking Rumsfeld War Crimes Case to Spain After German Rejection

A Law Day Unto Himself: Beyond Presidential Power, What Is Bush Upholding?


Cutback on Gitmo Visits Concerns Lawyers

NYC Bar Chides Government on Guantanamo

ABA Condemns Proposed DOJ Restrictions on Guantanamo Lawyers

Statement of ABA President Karen J. Mathis Concerning U.S. Department of Justice Petition Regarding Counsel for Guantanamo Detainees

Timeline Of Habeas Corpus Writ

ACLU Denounces Bush Administration's Efforts to Keep Lawyers out of Guantanamo

CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND 75 PRO BONO COUNSEL FOR GUANTÁNAMO DETAINEES TO MEET WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO RESTORE LEGAL RIGHTS

CCR CONDEMNS PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS ON ATTORNEY ACCESS TO CLIENTS AT GUANTÁNAMO BAY

Justice Department Proposes Vast Expansion of Domestic Surveillance

ABA CALLS ON ADMINISTRATION TO COMPLY WITH FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT IN DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE

Lawyers for Guantanamo Detainees Claim Military Seized Privileged Papers

The Continuing Saga Of Eroding Worker Rights

OSHA Leaves Worker Safety in Hands of Industry

OSHA was developed as a tool for making employers, especially the larger corporation employers with a long-standing record of safety violations and injuries on the job, adhere to minimum standards of safety. That is correct, OSHA seeks out the MINIMUM approach to safety. While OSHA had some teeth, other laws came into effect, including requirements that companies report risks of exposure to chemical, mechanical and biological hazards under the Right to Know principle.

But slowly and surely the rights of workers under OSHA and EEOC have been eroded to a point that now OSHA and EEOC are practically de-fanged as a useful law. Add to the recent news the fact that Congress has not fully funded the staffing of these agencies for enforcement and processing of complaints, and these laws are almost toothless. This is a damn shame because up until the last few years employers were getting really focused on workplace safety for fear of OSHA oversight and prosecution. This recent report is likely to eliminate that focus and result in the firing of numerous safety officers.

While working for a large broadband provider in Boston, I saw top executives of the company piss and moan about our safety officer enforcing rules about hearing protection, fire drills, evacuation drills, lock down drills (for violence in the workplace), insurance safety inspections, and the requirements for a first aid box in every workplace. While working for a major proprietary college system operated by a huge newspaper and media corporation, I saw a complete disregard for OSHA regulations regarding blood-borne exposures for the clinical labs where blood and other biologicals were being collected and processed by students, but exposing every worker on campus to the risks.

So, when we see this type of report, we need to send our Congress critters a message--a loud and clear message--that worker safety is not a secondary concern. We need to remember that worker safety affects families. When a worker is exposed to risks at work, there is the distinct possibilities of bringing the risk home, as was the case for those that worked in settings that exposed workers to asbestos. Even a small amount of asbestos exposure can result in asbestosis, the embedding of asbestos fibers in the lungs causing an obstructive pulmonary disease and the potential for a severe form of cancer called mesothelioma. The same was true for coal miners bringing home coal dust that not only caused black lung disease for the miners, but also the same risks for their families.

In the field of general contracting, OSHA required in the 1960s and 1970s that workers be provided fresh water and an on-site portable toilet. Prior to that requirement, many major construction corporations working on private and public projects would require workers to literally hold their water and waste until an official break and find a place to relieve themselves. What resulted was that many construction workers would relieve themselves in some excluded place on the job site, leaving human wastes as a risk for hepatitis, cholera and other diseases.

The problem with the approach described in this report is that leaving the monitoring of OSHA requirements to the employer has not been a proven approach to worker safety, as is illustrated by the very first account in the report. Employers do not want to go through the paces of OSHA requirements, especially when many of these requirements cost money and eat away at profit margins. They do not want to step through what they perceive as hoops to assure safety on the job. They do not want to hire safety specialists and enforcement officers. And they do not want to respond to worker complaints and issues, nor the law suits that could result.

Leaving the process of safety in the hands of employers without stringent oversight and the enforcement options from outside the company is just wrong. This is especially the case under the Bush administration's hands-off approach to workplace safety where OSHA has been deliberately held back from enforcement, adding newer regulation and restricting actual workplace inspections, even after a complaint has been lodged and an investigation is warranted.

Seven years ago, a Missouri doctor discovered a troubling pattern at a microwave popcorn plant in the town of Jasper. After an additive was modified to produce a more buttery taste, nine workers came down with a rare, life-threatening disease that was ravaging their lungs.

Puzzled Missouri health authorities turned to two federal agencies in Washington. Scientists at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which investigates the causes of workplace health problems, moved quickly to examine patients, inspect factories and run tests. Within months, they concluded that the workers became ill after exposure to diacetyl, a food-flavoring agent.

But the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, charged with overseeing workplace safety, reacted with far less urgency. It did not step up plant inspections or mandate safety standards for businesses, even as more workers became ill.

On Tuesday, the top official at the agency told lawmakers at a Congressional hearing that it would prepare a safety bulletin and plan to inspect a few dozen of the thousands of food plants that use the additive.

That response reflects OSHA’s practices under the Bush administration, which vowed to limit new rules and roll back what it considered cumbersome regulations that imposed unnecessary costs on businesses and consumers. Across Washington, political appointees — often former officials of the industries they now oversee — have eased regulations or weakened enforcement of rules on issues like driving hours for truckers, logging in forests and corporate mergers.

Since George W. Bush became president, OSHA has issued the fewest significant standards in its history, public health experts say. It has imposed only one major safety rule. The only significant health standard it issued was ordered by a federal court.

The agency has killed dozens of existing and proposed regulations and delayed adopting others. For example, OSHA has repeatedly identified silica dust, which can cause lung cancer, and construction site noise as health hazards that warrant new safeguards for nearly three million workers, but it has yet to require them.

“The people at OSHA have no interest in running a regulatory agency,” said Dr. David Michaels, an occupational health expert at George Washington University who has written extensively about workplace safety. “If they ever knew how to issue regulations, they’ve forgotten. The concern about protecting workers has gone out the window.”

Agency officials defend their performance, saying that workplace deaths and injuries have declined during their tenure. They have been considering new standards and revising outdated ones that were unduly burdensome on businesses, they said, adding that they have moved cautiously on new rules because those require extensive scientific and economic analysis.