DOWNLOADS: (142)

PLAYS: (782)

Embed

We knew this was coming, so it didn't raise many heads last week when a federal judge cleared the way for Arizona to begin enforcing its "papers please" provisions in the anti-immigrant law, SB1070, it passed two years ago:

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled Tuesday afternoon that police officers can begin enforcing SB 1070’s provision that mandates officers, while enforcing other laws, to question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally.

Gov. Jan Brewer has repeatedly said she’s confident SB 1070 will not lead to racial profiling but immigrant rights advocates disagree and are teaching undocumented immigrants how to defend themselves during encounters with police.

“We still see people who think that because they don’t have papers, they don’t have rights, but they do and we’re educating them about those rights,” Dulce Juarez, a member of the civil rights group Respect-Respeto, told VOXXI.

Amy Goodman at Democracy Now, bless her heart, was paying attention, and so on Monday she invited author Jeff Biggers -- whose new book, State Out of the Union, tackles the underlying issues at stake in Arizona -- on to talk about this quiet sea change:

BIGGERS: You know, I think, in effect, Amy, we’re talking about one of the—a new chapter and one of the darkest chapters in civil rights violations that we’re going to be facing in the future, because this goes beyond just looking at immigration policy. This now affects all Americans who are reasonably suspicious. And, of course, I think many think tanks and many investigations have looked at—this is not only going to open up a state of confusion, we’re talking about all levels of local law enforcements who have to make this call as, you know, who is a person who’s reasonably suspicious to be a so-called undocumented alien. I think we’re really looking at potentially some of the worst racial profiling in American history.

This is especially the case, as we've explained previously, for drivers from out of state who do not have Arizona drivers' licenses -- and especially for drivers from states such as Washington that do not require proof of citizenship or residency. That's why the ACLU issued that travel warning about Arizona.

As Biggers explained to Goodman, this fiasco is the kind of thing that always happens when right-wing extremists obtain political power and begin enacting their agendas:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1182)

PLAYS: (966)

Embed

The right-wingers keep claiming -- contra reality -- that Osama bin Laden's death was made possible by torture, proving that torture works. But even if you ignore reality and admit for argument's sake that it does work, the question then goes begging: Should the United States be doing it?

Following the weekend's steady drumbeat, the meme that "the torture worked" was again the main topic on Fox yesterday, this time bouncing off Chris Wallace's wankery on Sunday. Both Bill O'Reilly (as Karoli notes) and Sean Hannity built their entire shows around this single snippet.

The most appalling performance came from Liz Cheney on Hannity's show:

HANNITY: All right. On the next segment, what I mentioned with Dick Morris, so we are going to play this tape of FOX News' Sunday host Chris Wallace. I thought he asked a really good question of the White House National Security adviser, about, you know, enhanced interrogations are contrary to American values. Well, is that worse than putting a bullet in the brain of bin Laden? I mean, I thought the answer was weak. We'll show in the minute, but go ahead.

CHENEY: Yes, you know, I think you are exactly right. And I thought it was a great question that Chris asked. Because this administration, you know, even before they came into office worked hard to try to score political points by making allegations that simply weren't true about the enhance interrogation program. And trying to act as it though it was somehow counter to American values. Now, I don't think, you know, probably most people watching tonight have no problem at all, I certainly don't, I know you don't, with the fact that the Navy SEALs killed Usama bin Laden. But, if it is OK to go after terrorists to do targeted assassinations, which I believe it is, and the administration seems to believe it is.

Then it is very hard to understand how it is not OK from their perspective to subject terrorists to the very same techniques that our own people have to go through in SEAL training. And a very specific example of this is Chip Burlingame who was the pilot of American airlines flight 77 who was killed by the terrorists exactly. And he himself was subjected to these techniques. So, I think it is pretty appalling that the administration is trying to score political points here, trying to sustain a position that is unsustainable. And frankly, that makes us less safe because it means if we do in fact capture somebody as a result of this treasure trove, there's no really effective way we've got in place right now to interrogate them.

But then we get to what this is all really about: Vindicating the torture conducted under the Bush regime:

HANNITY: Do you believe what happened in the killing of bin Laden vindicates -- your father was a fierce, strong advocate is to this day of enhanced interrogations, black sites, rendition policies, all of the things that President Obama cancelled -- go ahead.

CHENEY: I think that it certainly shows that those programs worked. I think it is one more piece of evidence. We knew that those programs were effective before. We now know that they helped lead us to the information that ultimately led to bin Laden. And I think once again, you know, it shows that the administration, as were you saying in the last segment, they ought to stop this investigation, stop this threat of prosecution of those Americans who in fact, bravely carry out these programs. It is really an abomination that they are continuing to live under the threat of indictment and the threat of prosecution for something that led to the death of bin Laden.

There's only one little problem with Cheney's and Hannity's love of torture: It's illegal, immoral, unethical, and depraved. OK, make that a few little problems.

The most succinct answer to this palpable load of utter rubbish came from Matthew Alexander, the former military-intelligence interrogator who has been a consistent and thoughtful critic of the use of torture. He was on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman a few days ago (via mcjoan) and offered a careful explanation of why torture is never, ever right -- even beyond the fact that it wastes resources and really doesn't work:

DOWNLOADS: (1189)

PLAYS: (1064)

Embed

ALEXANDER: My argument is pretty simple, Amy. I don’t torture because it doesn’t work. I don’t torture because it’s immoral, and it’s against the law, and it’s inconsistent with my oath of office, in which I swore to defend the Constitution of the United States. And it’s also inconsistent with American principles. So, my primary argument against torture is one of morality, not one of efficacy.

Continue reading »

I see Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald, but where'd Amato get to? Dare I guess he was trying to work that Amato mojo on some hot female Democrat delegates to get into the party?

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow! looks at the Blue Dogs' party at the DNC and how secretive they are being towards the press about their get together. Medea Benjamin and Code Pink show up as well to let the Blue Dogs know how they feel.

However, they're not being completely discreet, as Matt Stoller points out at Open Left. Gotta love that democracy in action.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Flying Spaghetti Monster bless Dennis Kucinich. He's in the middle of an absolutely sisyphean task of trying to make Congress actually do their job -- one that far more Americans support than they did the impeachment of Bill Clinton -- and one that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is frustratingly and blindly ignoring, as evidenced by her stop-me-before-I-throw-something-at-the-screen appearance on The View.

JOY BEHAR: You’ve ruled against impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney, and now Kucinich is trying to pass that. Why do you insist on not impeaching these people, so that the world and America can really see the crimes that they’ve committed?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well, I think that it—I think it was important, when I became Speaker—and it’s, by the way, a very important position—President, Vice President, Speaker of the House—I saw it as my responsibility to try to bring a much divided country together to the extent that we could. I thought that impeachment would be divisive for the country.

In terms of what we wanted—set out to do, we wanted to raise the minimum wage, give the biggest increase in veterans benefits to veterans in the seventy-seven-year history, then pass research for stem cell research, all of that. This week, we’re going to pass equal pay for equal work. It has been a long time in coming—pay equity. We’re going to pass legislations for product safety, for toys that children put in their—there’s an agenda that you have to get done. You have to try to do it in a bipartisan way. The President has to sign it.

If somebody had a crime that the President had committed, that would be a different story.

Have you not been paying fricking attention for the last eight years, Nancy??? What do you mean, IF???? Say it with me now: warrantless wiretapping; waterboarding, lying to Congress and the American people to illegally invade and occupy a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us, firing US Attorneys for not pursuing partisan prosecutions, outing a covert CIA agent. And those were just ones you knew about and did nothing to stop, Pelosi. How dare she play stupid on national television and insult all our intelligence and what this country (once) stood for? How. Dare. She.

So it makes me love the undaunted Kucinich that much more. He appeared on Democracy Now! and tried to spin this in the best way possible.

(T)he reason why the Judiciary Committee should hold a hearing on the impeachment itself is because there needs to be a public airing of this. So, I have a great deal of respect for Speaker Pelosi, and I think that since she made that statement on The View, there's an opportunity now for us to come forward and to lay all the facts out so that she can reconsider her decision not to permit the Judiciary Committee to proceed with a full impeachment hearing.

Give 'em hell, Dennis.

full transcript below the fold

Continue reading »

BBC:

A US air strike in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday killed 47 civilians, 39 of them women and children, an Afghan government investigating team says.

Reports at the time said that 20 people were killed in the airstrike in Nangarhar province. The US military said they were militants.

But local people said the dead were wedding party guests.

Correspondents say the issue of civilian casualties is hugely sensitive in Afghanistan.

President Hamid Karzai has said that no civilian casualty is acceptable.

Mr Karzai set up a nine-man commission to look into Sunday's incident.

Democracy Now! has more, including audio and video streaming.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Heather created this mash up of the respective coverage of Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! and Richard Engel of MSNBC of the news that Iraqi's oil fields would be opened up to foreign countries, under the guidance of US advisors:

The New York Times reports a group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest oil fields in Iraq. The disclosure marks the first confirmation of direct involvement by the Bush administration in deals to open Iraq’s oil to commercial development. The Times recently reported the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company—Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP— as well as Chevron, are on the verge of getting no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest oil fields. In their role as advisers to the Iraqi Oil Ministry, American government lawyers and private-sector consultants provided template contracts and detailed suggestions on drafting the contracts.

Makes clear the motive for going into Iraq, doesn't it? And the idiots on the MSNBC report still insist that the oil will pay for the war and that it will lower gas prices someday. Yeah, right. With companies like Exxon Mobil posting the record quarterly profits, if you buy that, I have a bridge to sell you--cheap.

I don't think there's a more clear example of the influence of the corporate media to disinform the general public. In fact, I would hazard a guess that if the major news outlets actually informed the public the way that Democracy Now! does consistently, we would have an approval rating for the Bush administration in the single digits.

Senator Russ Feingold joined Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! Tuesday to speak out about the reprehensible FISA "compromise" brokered by House Leader Steny Hoyer. Feingold has always been the most articulate and outspoken voice on Constitutional liberties, and he sure didn't hold back.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: It's not even a fig leaf; it's a joke. It does not in any way prevent the ruling from that court, basically automatically, of immunity, because it just involves saying, "Look, they've got a piece of paper from the government." This is nothing but Democrats trying to pretend that they're doing something here. They are doing nothing. They're giving in. [Missouri Republican] Senator Kit Bond is basically giggling at the fact that the Republicans and the administration got essentially everything they want on this. It's sadly a great failure on the part of the Democratic majority that was elected in 2006 primarily to get us out of Iraq, but also significantly to protect the Constitution of the United States. This is not a proud moment.

Do you hear that, Democrats? The GOP is laughing at your craven weakness. Hell, your approval numbers are higher with Republicans than they are with the people who put you in power to supposedly protect their rights. Do what you were elected to do and filibuster this bill until the real intelligence gaps are closed and the telecoms are compelled to prove they didn't violate federal law by helping the most unpopular President in American history spy on us.

When, precisely, did it become unfashionable (even taboo) to stand strong on protecting core American values? Have we really allowed George Bush to fundamentally alter the character of our country? Be sure to tune into CSPAN-2 tomorrow to see whether or not there are any true leaders in the Democratic party willing to fight the good fight.

Think Progress: Study concludes US media embed program a “communications victory” for the Bush administration. Just don’t tell Brian Williams that.

Huffington Post: BREAKING NEWS: McCain Resigns From His Campaign.

Democracy Now!: The Bush administration is holding 27,000 prisoners, with no legal recourse, in secret overseas jails. Where’s the media?

skippy the bush kangaroo: Cookie Jill with the latest environmental news, which includes “zones of death” spreading in our oceans and how America’s wasteful eating habits not only take food from the mouths of the hungry but increase greenhouse gases. Plus, are global warming “alarmists” losing the rhetorical war?

TPM Muckracker: The Bush administration in yet another episode of Working Tirelessly to Control the Flow of Information. Today’s story: “Controlled Unclassified Information” (CUI). Or as we call it: CYA.

Guest roundup by Brad Jacobson of MediaBloodhound. See you tomorrow, reality-basers! Until then, email those submissions and tips to mediabloodhound at yahoo dot com.

Shakesville: Lookin' for some straight answers from the 'Straight Talker.'

Democracy Now! Back from Baghdad, journalist Nir Rosen paints a picture of a broken Iraq.

TalkLeft: The DOJ finally released part one of John Yoo's infamous torture memo. Shorter version: The Constitution is not in play.

MediaBloodhound: The New York Times Iraq war time line whitewashes history

FAFBLOG IS BACK!

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: Zen Comix, Inte Bulle, Emdashes, Conservative Truths

Democracy Now, via Street Prophets, h/t Rain:

...the peace sign turns fifty years old today. Over the past five decades the peace sign has become one of the world’s enduring icons. The original peace sign was developed in 1958 by a British textile designer and conscientious objector named Gerald Holtom. He created the symbol by combining the semaphore letters N and D, for nuclear disarmament. On Feb. 21, 1958 the symbol was accepted by the Direct Action Committee Against Nuclear War. The symbol soon began to be used in anti-nuclear protests across Britain and then spread across the globe.