Rowland to Resign

Update: It would appear as though the prospect of being compelled to testify in front of the Connecticut legislative committee convened to investigate his alleged wrong doings, coupled with federal investigations and growing calls for him to step-down, have prompted embattled Connecticut governor John Rowland to resign his post. He will announce same later tonight. He will not be missed.

Rowland Should be Impeached

I am following—with barley disguised amusement—the trails and tribulations of Connecticut Republican governor John G. Rowland who is under investigation for accepting gifts from friends, state contractors and employees, for favors, and then—and here a shocker—lying about it. I say amusement because the Republican Party is the self proclaimed Party of integrity and honor. Question is, where is Rowland’s, and better still, where is Bush/Cheney’s?

The investigation by a Connecticut Bi-partisan legislative committee convened to consider impeaching Rowland; the three-term governor is also under investigation from the Justice Department federal for corruption. Rowland claims he has provided nothing in return for the gifts and has not compromised his office, but the evidence thus far speaks otherwise.

In the latest volley in this debacle in which the embattled governor refuses to step down, and unsurprisingly refuses to admit any wrong–doing despite the fact that he has admitted to lying, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Friday that Gov. John G. Rowland must testify before a committee considering his impeachment. The ruling—a 5-2 decision—makes Rowland the first sitting chief executive in U.S. history ordered to appear before a legislative body. How fitting that the distinction should go to a Republican. The Connecticut Supreme Court in its decision ruled that Rowland must testify before the committee investigating his wrong doings, setting aside the governor arguments that the Connecticut Legislature was violating the constitutionally mandated and historical separation of powers.

I have never believed that a chief executive should be immune to the oversight authority of the legislative branch of government, they are after all the people’s representatives, and our chief executives are not Kings and Queens. What I find onerous is the arrogance of the man in refusing to step aside for the good of his state. But like the Republican administration currently occupying the White House, Rowland refuses to admit that he could have done something wrong; you know made a mistake. There is no disgrace in graceful disengagement after having the integrity to admit a mistake. However, special derision should be reserved for those who refuse to see the error of their ways and put the good of the people before their own selfish, blind ambitions. I hope enough of use remember that come November and replace the man who can do no wrong in the White House.

Newspaper says Ken Lay indictment coming soon - Jun. 19, 2004

Newspaper says Ken Lay indictment coming soon - Jun. 19, 2004

CNN.com - Former diplomats call for Bush ouster - Jun 16, 2004

CNN.com - Former diplomats call for Bush ouster - Jun 16, 2004

CNN.com - McCain rejects Kerry's veep overture - Jun 11, 2004

CNN.com - McCain rejects Kerry's veep overture - Jun 11, 2004

Are We Crowning The New American Caesar?

The President of the United States is abusing his office and in the name of partisan politics the Republican controlled Congress is allowing it to happen. The release of the legal memorandums from various legal departments in the executive branch detailing how the President is, in effect, above the law (international and national) sent chills down this writer’s spine, and is just the latest revelation that something is rotten at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Where does it end? How much power should the other branches cede to the Executive in his role a Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces in war time? Are we as a nation morphing, broken law-by-broken law, abuse-by-abuse, subversion-by-subversion, into a totalitarian state where the President makes, enforces, and interprets American and international law, but has the power to ignore the same at will? The various memos certainly seem to suggest that the President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief can do whatever it takes to defend the United State including flouting laws he does not agree with. Is the Office of the President to have no real limit to its wartime power?

Constitutionally, the power of the Executive is limited, held in check by the other two branches of government. Wartime Presidential powers are not clearly defined in the constitution, the document only states that:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States—US CONT, art. II, § 2, cl. 1.

Nowhere does the constitution state that Congress should relinquish its power to check Executive even in times of War. How then is the Bush Administration now inferring the broad inference that the Executive has virtually unfettered power in times of War? The Federal Courts have weighed in and put certain breaks on the Administration, but the linchpin is the Supreme Court.

In hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 in which John Ashcroft testified on the memos but refused to produce them, Senator Edward Kennedy (D), Massachusetts cited one of the memorandums that concluded

President Bush was not bound either by international treaties prohibiting torture or by federal anti-torture law because as commander-in-chief Mr. Bush was responsible for protecting the nation.

And Ashcroft said several times during his testimony that “that critics consistently failed to take into account that the United States was at war.”

The deep irony is that the United States is not in a declared war; only Congress has the constitutional power to declare war and it hasn’t. And if we accept the precept that the War on Terror is real and that America will be fighting it well into the foreseeable future, where does Presidential power end; how long will the President hold these wartime powers, and how will their exercise affect the American Republic? And who defines when the War on Terror is over? Congress, with the passage of the law authorizing the President to take actions deemed necessary to defend the nation, seems to have left that determination up to the Executive. Where are the checks and balances?

One light at the end of the tunnel however, might be the Supreme Court which has yet to decisively weigh in on several vexing cases before it dealing with the limits of Executive power in Wartime. But the High Court could conceivably rule either way, and if it rules in Bush’s favor, what of us—the American citizens? Will we—the American people—in the tradition of totalitarian states throughout history, be subject to random search and seizures, interrogations without right to counsel, after a label of enemy combatant is etched into our foreheads by a President whose power is now unchecked? What of the Bill of Rights, not to mention the rest of the Constitution, after such a ruling?

I, for one, see a threat to the American state not from without, but from within as the Executive in the name of security is destroying the very thing that made America great: respect for the rule of law. And I for one will do my part in November to send Bush and his scary bunch of cronies back to Texas. I, for one, do not want to live in a country that could even entertain the notion of crowning the next Caesar, do you?

My Letter to CBS News Concerning War Dead...

CBS Evening News
New York, NY

Re: FALLEN HERO’S SEGMENT ON CBS EVENING NEWS
To Whom It May Concern:

As a Veteran of some fifteen years in the U.S. Armed Forces now retired, I am gratified that you have chosen to spend every evening newscast paying homage to the nation’s fallen men and women in uniform. However, after watching this segment for some three weeks, one could come to the conclusion that only white soldiers have given their lives in the defense of our nation performing their sworn duty.

It is a well know and documented fact that more then 50% of the United States Army is made up of minorities of all suasions serving side-by-side, and indeed dying side-by-side their white brethren. So as a black Veteran I am astonished, appalled, outraged and gravely offended that none of the men profiled have been black. Surely, CBS is not trying to send a message that only white soldiers are dying in the defense of their nation; that only the stories of white soldiers are fit enough to be showcased on air.

It is these continuing subtle signs of exclusion that cause blacks and other minorities to wonder if we will ever be treated as equal members of this society that so many of us have given our lives for. It is these little digs at our dignity that continually keeps us looking around ever hedge and over every wall for racisms call. It would be nice to find at home what so many are dying for overseas; equality, respect, and freedom from bigotry.


Vincent E. Martin
CTT1(SS), USN (Ret)
Aurora, IL

Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education; A Legacy Well Worth Lauding

On this the 50th Anniversary of the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case Brown vs. the Topeka Board of Education (Brown v. Board), I am called upon by humility and circumstance to reflect on its broader meaning and implications to Our American society. Long looked upon as the seminal Supreme Court ruling of the last century, Brown v. Board’s importance is now being openly questioned by many in the black community. Its detractors point to the seeming resurgence of segregation in the public schools of America’s inner-cities as proof that Brown v. Board’s legacy is unraveling, its promise broken. I assert that it is not; that in fact ending segregation in the public schools was just one of the legacies of Brown v. Board. The other more sweeping legacy has had a profound effect on the fabric of American society and has once and for all brought true liberty and equality before the law to all American citizens.

Many prominent black scholars, including Georgetown University Law Professor and Author Sheryll Cashin, point out that while “legal segregation is a thing of the past, racial separation persists in schools and in communities.” And other detractors have also pointed to stark decline in the once highly touted all-black schools that were once pillars of excellence under segregation, but have now become unwitting victims of so-called "bright flight," as highly qualified black teachers left for promising and more lucrative teaching opportunities elsewhere. One could credibly argue that A.H. Parker High School in Birmingham, Alabama—an institution with a long list of distinguished graduates and a 100-year history—as an example of such a school.

While I find merit in the argument that racial integration has had mixed results in the nations public schools, as report after report has painstakingly detailed, I question the wisdom of placing the blame for such failures at Brown v. Board’s multi-faceted feet. I submit that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board was more than just an antidiscrimination decree meant to equalize the glaring inequities in our nation’s public schools that were a fact of life in 1954. Brown v. Board fully extended constitutional protections to black Americans heretofore only enjoyed by whites, and bestowed fully the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence upon black citizens.

While the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery, it did not confer equal standing before the law upon the newly freed slaves. Even after the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments, black Americans still could not claim full and equal constitution protection. The Supreme Court’s 1896 decision in Plessey v. Ferguson in which the Court upheld an 1890 Louisiana statute mandating racially segregated, but equal railroad carriages, cemented the separate but equal doctrine fully into the foundation of American jurisprudence, and in effect validated the Southern states’ heinous Jim Crow laws. The Court’s ruling that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the constitution dealt only with political and not social equality legitimized black Americans’ standing as second class citizens in the United States, whose skin color prevented them from calling the Declaration of Independence and U.S. or States constitutions their own. Thus began the American Apartheid in earnest.

Brown v. Board was the beginning of the end of Jim Crow. Brown v. Board was the catalyst that set in motion the tide of a Civil Rights movement which, although begun before Brown v. Board, would now hold up as proof that the law was theirs to claim and no longer the sole province of whites. In effect the ruling in Brown v. Board would lead to the systematic dismantling of the now unconstitutional Jim Crow laws culminating in the Supreme Court’s 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia in which miscegenation laws were deemed unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren delivering the majority opinion of the Court opened thusly:

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n. 1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Because of Brown v. Board the Civil Rights movement was given legal legs upon which to stand. To be sure the road ahead after Brown v. Board was to be littered with the blood, sweat, tears, anguish, sacrifice and sorrow of black as well as white Americans who struggled to end the American Apartheid, but without Brown v. Board we might still be engaged in that titanic battle. Instead, today, we are battling for the hearts and soul of Americans who still cling to the idea that skin color disenfranchises one from enjoying the American dream. Hearts and souls cannot be changed by laws—that change must come from within, through the banishment of the darkness of ignorance replaced by the light of truth and understanding.

As I sit here now typing this essay on my computer, at a desk in the loft of the house my wife and I built for our family, living the quintessential American dream, I am ever mindful of the sacrifice and dedication to the cause of freedom and equality of those who went before me. Because of their courage Brown v. Board was brought before the High Court and argued by a man who will forever personify what it means to fight for the cause of freedom and equality against seemingly impossibly odds. That man of course is Thurgood Marshall, who would later take his seat as Associate Justice in the very court that once again restored the lawful balance between white and black Americans. And from that perch he helped further the cause of liberty and equality for Black folk with his eloquent, persuasive arguments and undying belief that the constitution was a document written for all of America’s citizens.

To me, Brown v. Board will always be about more than the guarantee that little black children could go to school with little white children; it was the case that brought to life the possibilities of the American dream for all Americans, not just those lucky enough to be born white. Brown v. Board gave new birth to the founding principles of our nation, that all men are created equal and that all American citizens could and should expect and demand the right to sit under the shade of constitutional protections, whilst seeking the coolness of freedom, equality and due process before the law.

In that respect Brown v. Board has been a tremendous success story; the ruling did its part, now it is up to us in the black community to do the rest. Yes the fight to end racism in all of it insidious guises continues across the American landscape, but because of Brown v. Board that fight now and forever has legal teeth. Now is no time to rest and play the victim, not when our community is in need of desperate self-help. Now is not the time to look outward for solutions but inwards for the motivation needed to further uplift one another, to call upon the courage and convictions that so sustained those who came before us and teach our children what it means, what is has always meant to be black in America.

We as a community have come a long way since the time of Jim Crow when blacks and whites were by law made to live separate and inherently unequal lives; Brown v. Board was a significant waypoint along that road. Let us not now lose the historical significance of the ruling in a forest of new educational woes it did not give root to. And in an increasingly divided political landscape we all would do well to remember this election season that we all, black and white, straight or gay, Republican, Democrat, or Independent, read from the same constitutional cloth which guarantees all citizens life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Where's The Sacrifice?

I admire John McCain. He is the lone Republican voice of rationality and sanity in a Party otherwise gone fiscally insane, and which has collectively climbed into bed with our befuddled President refusing to see the realities of the day. In a remarkable development (or perhaps not so remarkable given my opening sentence), Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, not the most dynamic or decisive leader the House has ever elected to lead them, both chided and made public sport of John McCain for not towing the party line.

Speaking to reporters yesterday the esteemed Speaker pretended not to know who the honorable Senator from Arizona was when questioned by a reporter about a recent statement by McCain in which he observed that “never before when we've been at war have we been worrying about cutting taxes”… and he went on to ask… '[w]here's the sacrifice?' "

According to the CNN report, as other House GOP members stood behind him laughing, Hastert, R-Illinois, then expressed doubt that McCain was indeed a Republican and an exchange with the reporter ensued when the reporter asked: "Can I combine a two issues, Iraq and taxes? I heard a speech from John McCain the other day..."

Hastert: "Who?"
Reporter: "John McCain."
Hastert: "Where's he from?"
Reporter: "He's a Republican from Arizona."
Hastert: "A Republican?"

Hastert went on the state:

"If you want to see the sacrifice, John McCain ought to visit our young men and women at Walter Reed and Bethesda. There's the sacrifice in this country. We're trying to make sure they have the ability to fight this war, that they have the wherewithal to be able to do it. And, at the same time, we have to react to keep this country strong."

No one has to speak to John McCain of sacrifice, and certainly not Dennis Hastert who seems to have sat out the war in Vietnam and knows nothing of “real” sacrifice. It boggles my mind that in face of record red ink and public debt that the Republicans in the House can be so irresponsible as to even suggest further tax cuts let along bring the measure to a vote. Are they living in the same world as the rest of us? But I digress…

Ordinarily I would applaud such acrimony within the Republican ranks, but not now, not at the expense of such an honorable man as John McCain. Quite frankly I do not understand McCain’s willingness to remain loyal to a Party so obviously adrift, so wantonly out of touch with most of it constituents save those who embrace religious fervor as you and I would embrace a loved one. I wonder—quite often now—if McCain’s loyalty to the Republican Party is not woefully misplaced, and I admonish him for not putting loyalty to country before Party. But perhaps the growing rift between himself and his lockstep brethren will finally push him to leave a Party that has been hijacked by those who no longer put the welfare of the nation ahead of those of special interests.

Iraq & Afghanistan; In Search of a Practicable Exit Strategy

Finally…finally it has happened. Operational commanders in the field in Iraq are finally saying what those of us well-versed in military strategy have been stating since the beginning of the Iraq War: we may win tactically, but without a clear and concise plan of operations, including a workable exit strategy, we risk losing the War strategically.

On the front page of The Washington Post, May 9, 2004, Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., the commander of the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, who has spent most of this year in western Iraq, said he believes that at the tactical level at which fighting occurs, the U.S. military is still winning. But when asked whether he believes the United States is losing, he said, "I think strategically, we are." And he is far from alone is this assessment.

In a situation that can only be characterized as a quagmire—though predictably those in the Bush Administration are loath to call it so—the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is quickly spinning out of control. The news from Iraq we feast on every day; the news from Afghanistan has been far less frequent but nonetheless disturbing. In both countries, in what now has turned into a two front War on Terrorism, what started out as easy victories for the U.S. military has turned into a long drawn out slugfest with no end insight. And along the way, both fronts have proven that Donald Rumsfeld’s theory of modern high tech warfare is somewhat lacking in substance when confronted with the reality of actual occupational warfare.

The President, in all of his recent speeches/press conferences, is long on the rhetoric of victory over the terrorists and short on details of how that victory would be, should be achieved. Missing is an outline for victory, never mind a long range strategic plan for accomplishing the near impossible; defeating international terrorism, and bringing democracy and stability to Iraq, a country where freedom is far removed from the national palette.

What is needed is a plan which Bush lacks the intellectual capacity to give birth to, and the man who does—Secretary of State Colin Powell—is increasingly ostracized and marginalized by this Administration. In light of that fact, I have taken the liberty to formulate my own plan looking past the mere military stratagem currently in place to a search for a meaningful exit strategy for the U.S. military that does not leave Civil War, the possibility for invasion, and wide-spread terrorist enclaves on Iraqi soil in its wake. Here now are the broad strokes:

1. Relieve the Pentagon (Rumsfeld) and Ms. Rice of any further responsibility for Iraq, outside of security issues. It was clear before we prosecuted the War in Iraq that the State Department was better prepared to run post-war Iraq, than the Pentagon. Security and diplomacy are the necessary ingredients for any postwar healing to take place; neither was present in the opening days of postwar Iraq, and scant little is present now. Lack of clear leadership has consigned the Iraqi operation to drown in the quagmire of missed opportunities, indecision, and self-defeating arrogance.
   
   
2. Re-Institute the Draft. According to the Bush Administration, we (the U.S.) are engaged in two simultaneous wars; one in Iraq, and another in Afghanistan. Neither campaign has enough troops to complete the mission; the Army’s ranks alone need to swell by at least another 250,000 – 300,000 men. At no other time in U.S. history when we have fought a major war, has the standing Army not been bolstered by additional troops incorporated into its ranks by the tens of thousands. The Guard & Reserves is not the answer, we need a bigger force. It is both unfair and militarily unsound to ask the Guard & Reserve to do the work of regular Army troops over an extended period of time. The President has stated that all Americans must sacrifice to see these conflicts through; it’s time for all Americans to do just that no matter how politically unsavory it may prove.
   
   
3. Additional Corps for 3rd U.S. Army. The U.S. Army is divided into Field Armies, of which it has three, and then further divided into Corps of which it has four, and then Divisions. A Field Army contains 2-5 Corps; just by casual observation one can see that the Army is short a few Corps. The Third U.S. Army currently operates in Iraq with some 135,000 men from the regular Army and Guard & Reserve. I propose four to five new Corps be formed of 40,000 – 50,000 men each, said Corps to be stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan for the duration of these conflicts, both under the command structure of the 3rd U.S. Army.
   
   These men would come from the re-constituted draft. The Guard & Reserve troops would be phased out of the theater and brought home, and all contracts with civilian security firms would end. Outsourcing vital military functions such as support of the troops in the rear, driving fuel and supply convoys, would also cease. In addition, all elements of the 10th Mountain Division would be deployed not to Iraq, where the fighting is confined to an urban setting, but to the mountainous southern and eastern Afghanistan where they can put their training to best use.
   
   
4. Invite the International Community under the U.N banner into Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush needs to call for a summit in which all members of the U.N. are encouraged to participate, especially those nations directly contiguous to Iraq and Afghanistan. In the case of Iraq, the U.N. should be given the leadership role in putting into place a government that will work for all parties involved. And the possibility of a viable split between the three factions—Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis—in order to form their own nation states should not be ruled out.
   
   
5. The U.S. should ask for U.N Forces for both Afghanistan and Iraq, whose aim would be to bring stability back to both countries. Without security, there can be no stabilization, and without stabilization there can be no viable political process. The U.S. Army with its newly formed Corps should make up the bulk of the U.N force and maintain overall military command.
   
   
6. Institute the Martin Plan for Mid-East Peace. Without peace between Israel and the Palestinians, there can be no quantifiable and lasting peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Support for terrorism by Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Lebanon etc. has to cease. Take away this issue and a major source of hatred for the U.S. in the Muslim world would be extinguished.
   
   
7. End reliance on Afghani militias by boosting U.S., NATO, and U.N. Troop strength (See point 2 above).
   
   
8. Disarm Afghan militias. As long as they are allowed to exist, the power of the central government will be greatly diminished. By-and-large, they already rule the country outside of Kabul, by force. How can a credible Afghan government hold power without the trust of the population and the means to enforce breeches in the rule of law when it is confronted at every turn by dozens of private Army’s within its borders?
   
   
9. Rein in the opium crop/trade in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has, according to recent reports, once more become the world’s number one grower of opium and exporter of heroin. This grossly undermines all of the wars we are waging; in Iraq, in Afghanistan (War on Terror) and the War on Drugs. New reports from Spain link the drug trade to terrorism as a means of financing their operations. How can a strategy to combat terrorism not include a plan to greatly diminish Afghanistan’s dependence on this crop?
   
   
10. Broker a lasting settlement between India and Pakistan vis-à-vis the U.N. because their continuing conflict is destabilizing the entire region and diverts both countries’ attention away from the growing fundamentalist Islamic threat within their borders.
    
    
11. Pressure the U.N., WTO, and World Bank to bring about real change in third world and developing nations by instituting measures to increase wages and benefits. No one could credibly argue that the grinding, pervasive poverty found in nations all over the world does not fuel resentment of first world nations and help swell the ranks of Islamic Fundamentalist movements and other groups whose aim it is to destabilize western civilization. The governments of these nations should be strongly persuaded to put the interest of their populations above all other concerns. And Multinational corporations should be put on notice that there is no country in the world they can set up shop that will sanction their unprincipled behaviors of putting profit above all other concerns. If countries work unilaterally to end the corporate exploitation nothing will change. Only through strength in numbers can a change be realized.

There can be little rational argument that the situation in Iraq is not rapidly spinning out of control. Operational Commanders are now stating as much. A number of problems led us here but underlining them all is an appalling lack of leadership emanating from the Oval Office, and from there the civilian leadership at the Pentagon. One could argue that it was grossly negligent to prosecute a war without a detailed plan in place; that was the over-arching lesson of Vietnam, our civilian led government failed to heed it. Further, the civilian leadership at the Pentagon in an effort to prove their “think-tank” inspired war plan would work, convinced an addlepated President to take this country to war against a sovereign nation, one which presented NO clear and present danger to the security of the United States.

Once engaged, the Iraq War seriously undermined—and continues to undermine—the so called War on Terror, and in my opinion increases the danger to America from terrorists. For either situation there is no end in sight, however by using the plan above as a blue-print, I believe we could extricate the U.S. from both countries within five years, not with out tails between our legs, but with our dignity intact having left both countries better off for our having been there.

Republican Lockstep

You have to admire (or not) Republican Party members' ability to present a united front even in the face of obvious wrongs, breeches of public trust, and the blatant skirting of U.S. and International law by those entrusted to uphold it. The unfolding shame of the systematic torture and murder (25 dead at last count) of Iraqi and Afghanistan prisoners by American soldiers and civilians is just the latest in a long list of ugly episodes where the Bush Administration has stumbled and fumbled, but still enjoys the support of Republican citizens, members of Congress, and member of the Bar, both state and federal.

Despite the fact that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has bungled this war from the beginning, not one Republican Congressman or Senator has called for his resignation. Isn’t his incompetence clear? Meanwhile, predictably the chorus of Democratic Party voices is loud, clear and unambiguous: Rumsfeld must go, and changes must be made in order to win the War. You might say, well that is expected, they are Democrats after all. But, you have to admire (or not) the fact that Democrats are not afraid to disagree with members of their own party; they can and do think for themselves, and occasionally put principle above politics for the good of the whole. The same cannot be said of Republicans—with the noted exception of Senator John McCain of Arizona. He is a Republican I actually admire, because he is a man of principle, who frequently places the good of the country above partisan politics.

Not one can creditably argue that the U.S. has managed the War in Iraq with anything approaching the professionalism we should expect—and demand—from our government. The Pentagon under Rumsfeld has made a mess out of a project it should never have been given; governing postwar Iraq. The country is now unarguably a quagmire with no end in sight, a money pit with no bottom, a killing field where American and Iraqi lives are being wasted to no discernable end. And Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are to blame for the morass; their arrogance, lack of foresight, and lack of leadership at every juncture have sown the seeds of our international shame and disgrace. And yet, not one Republican voice has been raised—with the exception of John McCain, and he has stopped short of calling for Rumsfeld’s ouster—in protest of what is going on not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan as well. I, quite frankly find their stance reprehensible and unforgivable.

The situation reminds me of political parties in the annals of human history Party where members have followed the leader in lockstep, never questioning, never ruffling the feathers, never causing ripples in the pond of party unity. And in the end, the world’s people always lose, lives are scattered, societies fractured and torn asunder, and untold numbers of bodies are heaped upon the mound of Party unity…

Related Stories:

Rumsfeld Faces Angry Congress

Kerry Takes Aim at Bush Over Prisoner Abuse Scandal

Source: Rumsfeld to Form Abuse Probe Panel

Disney may block anti-Bush film

In a case that more than illustrates why big multinational entertainment conglomerates should be limited in the number of companies they own, Disney, that paragon of American morality (haha) has prevented Miramax—a company it bought ten years ago—from distributing a new Michael Moore documentary call Fahrenheit 911. The film chronicles explores the relationship between the Bush and members of the Saudi Arabians elite, including members of the Osama bin Laden’s family. The film is also sharply critical of Bush’s actions before and after the 9/11 attacks.

In a country where freedom speech and of the press is almost a religious institution, private corporation are more and more stifling political decent, or any voice that dare stir the pot of discontent for fear of a back lash those with deep pockets. Is this acceptable, and how far will the multi-national go in the name of profit, and how will our society suffer as a result?

V. Edward Martin a.k.a. DarkBard

Are You An Enemy Combatant?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…U.S. CONT. art II, §. 2, cl. 1.

Of all the post-Sept. 11 denials of fundamental and civil liberties, the “Enemy Combatant” doctrine is the most egregious, because it is unprecedented in the history of the United States and created out of the thin air of the President’s mind. There is no clear legal definition of exactly what an "enemy combatant" is; there is no law that defines it, no constitutional principles that govern it. However, if the President designates a person an enemy combatant under this doctrine (s)he can be detained indefinitely without charge or trial by military authorities, with no right to appeal and no right to a lawyer - even if (s)he is a U.S. citizen.

The Bush Administration claims that the power to designate someone—anyone—an enemy combatant springs from constitutional roots, claiming that the President’s constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces permit him to order the military to seize suspects he (and he alone) designates enemy combatants in the War on Terror. Yet there is nothing in Article II, Section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution that gives birth to this doctrine, or even hint at such a power to detain an American citizen in times of War. How then can the President lay claim to a power that is not constitutionally sanctioned, nor mentioned within its foundational decrees?

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power...Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

In its recent argument in front of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Bush Administration insisted that military-style rules like the enemy combatant doctrine now apply to American citizens, even on American soil, because Al Qaeda has "made the battlefield the United States." Really, since 9/11 there has not been one terrorist attack on American soil; indeed, the President has stated that we should live our lives as usual. We should be aware of our surroundings, but otherwise sally forth and be capitalists. When I step outside my doors every morning and travel to work, there is no evidence of battlefield America. But even if this were the case, there is no provision in the Constitution—at least that I am aware of—that allows the President to declare Marshall Law.

In time of crisis governments are always tempted to detain perceived enemies without charges, hold them incommunicado and deny them counsel. It happened during WWII, and in 1971 Congress passed a law referred to as Section 4001 which states that: No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress…Limitation on Detention; Control of Prisons, 18 U.S.C., § 4001.

But the framers of the Constitution—ever mindful of history—knew that if the government was allowed to act on those impulses, the result would be tyranny and oppression. That is why they built into the constitution the very rights the Bush Administration is now intent on crushing under the throne of Monarchical rule.

Let My People Go

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it...U.S. CONT. art I, §. 9, cl. 2.

Most of us are familiar with the cases, of Jose Padilla—a.k.a. Abdullah Al Muhajir—and Yasser Hamdi argued before the United States Supreme Court on April 28, 2004. Both of these men were labeled enemy combatants by Bush, and both have been subsequently held without charges and in isolation since their initial incarceration, denied even the right of Habeas Corpus, which is the right of every American to appear in court of law, so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.

These cases, contrast sharply with that of John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban, and points to the arbitrary, and some might say, racist application of the enemy combatant doctrine.
While both Lindh and Hamdi were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan at the same time, Lindh, who is white and from an upper middle-class family, was shipped back to the U.S. and was never labeled an enemy combatant. After he was flown back to the U.S. after a brief period of interrogation, Lindh was allowed to see a lawyer and appear before a criminal court in Virginia. He was subsequently sentenced to 20 years in prison in October 4, 2002 as part of an agreement reached in July 2002 under which he pled guilty to one count of supplying services to the Taliban and a criminal information charge that he carried a rifle and two hand grenades while fighting against the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance. And while neither Padilla or Hamdi can be connected to the death of an American citizen Lindh took part in the prison uprising which cost a CIA operative his life.

Once more America’s racist past (and present) makes itself felt in a system that is supposed to be predicated on equal justice for all before the law. Had Padilla—born in Brooklyn of Puerto Rican ethnicity, or Hamdi who was born in Baton Rouge Louisiana of Saudi Arabian parents and subsequently raised in Saudi Arabia—been white would they now be labeled enemy combatants? My guess is no, they would have treated like Lindh, and the press would have lamented their sad ordeals.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court… U.S. CONT. art III, §. 3, cl. 1.

The enemy combatant doctrine begs another question: why, if there is such compelling evidence against Padilla and Hamdi have they not been charged with treason? Is this because there is such a high threshold to skirt in order to prove a case of treason, and the government is relying on the testimony of one man who admits that his intelligence is not exactly creditable?

It is my hope that the U.S. Supreme Court, despite the conservative minority that seems bent on deferring to the executive, can see clearly the danger in allowing this doctrine to stand. At no other time in American history, with the exception of the illegal internments of Japanese-Americans during WWII, have the constitutionally guaranteed rights of Americans—especially minorities once again—been under such assault from the government that is supposed to champion their cause. Indeed how can we as Americans stand by and re-elect a man who would hold high the cause of freedom and democracy in Iraq as a reason to prosecute a War, while trampling them underfoot here in America? Is it because we think that we can’t be labeled enemy combatants?

It is clear to me that George W. Bush does not understand or respect the document—the United States Constitution—he has sworn to uphold and protect, except in cases where he believes it will lend credence to his agenda. Of our constitutionally codified rights as Americans, he cares not a whit. Indeed when speaking of citizens’ rights he refers not to the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for U.S. law, but to the bible, a happenstance I find frightening.

So the next time you are walking down the street, talking on the phone, engaged in political debate that might be considered critical (like this article) of the Bush Administration, or returning from an Arab country, have a care, for you too can be considered an enemy combatant and locked away without cause or charge. And according to the Bush Administration you will have no rights the American government is bound to entertain.

Padilla and Hamdi are in effect no longer American citizens; their rights (and perhaps yours), have been arbitrarily stripped away by the President without due process of law. Is this how we want to fight the War on Terror? Is this how we want to spotlight American democracy around the world, with hypocrisy and tyranny? Is this how OUR government is supposed to treat its citizens?

The true measure of the greatness of any society that holds liberty, equality, and due process sacred before the law, is not how it treats its citizens in time of peace and tranquility, but how it treats them in time of strife when it is all to easy to smother liberty in the name of preserving the Republic. George W. Bush is President and answerable to us the American people for his action, not a monarch where his word should go unchallenged by the two co-equal branches of government. No matter what angle it is viewed from, the enemy combatant doctrine is illegal.

It is hard to imagine that America would look kindly on a foreign government that demanded the right to hold some of its own citizens in prison, incommunicado, denying them access to legal assistance for as long as it thought necessary, without ever charging them with a crime.

Nevertheless, that is the position that George Bush's administration has tried to defend in the courts with regard to American citizens whom it has deemed to be "enemy combatants." —The Economist, London, December 14, 2002

Fox News Channel Refuses to Show Flag Draped Coffins of American War Dead

Fox News Channel, you know that bastion of “Fair and Balanced” news reporting, once again shows it neo-conservative leaning by being the only major news outlet in the United States not to air photos of the flag draped coffins of American soldiers and Marines returning from Iraq. A Fox News spokesmen as reported by the New York Times this morning stated:

[a]mong the national television news organizations, only the Fox News Channel had no plans to use any of the photos or explore the issue of why they had been barred from use in the news media…

Humm, sounds fair and balanced to me.

In a free and open society this sort of open censorship should not be allowed to stand, and the unabashed distain for the truth by a purported news outlook should not go unanswered. I for one will never trust Fox News to bring me the unvarnished truth—not that I trust the other news outlets to tell the complete truth, but at least they showed some journalistic integrity in pursuing the story.

One more reason to make sure Bush and his increasingly crooked, deceitful, arrogant, autocratic Administration has to go, and when they do, lets hope they take Fox News Channel with them.

What Were We Thinking When We Elected Bush?

As I paced in a square around my living room tonight listening to my President (try) to speak, one though kept rolling over and over in my head, playing like a broken record: how did anyone so ill-suited to the job ever become President of the United States? I listened to Bush and I was embarrassed once again for our nation, that we should have such a man represent us before the world. Do we (Americans, or at least the one who voted for Bush), think the Office of the President of the United States that superficial that just anyone can occupy the Oval Office? The Office calls for a man—or woman—of intellect, of vision, of wisdom, a person able to think on their own and on their feet—which by the way Bush admitted he was not able to do. It is not a job for the mediocre, the lazy thinker, the easily malleable, the simple minded; all qualities Bush clenches in his hands with gusto.

Bush did not answer one question with a direct intelligible answer, not one. I gleamed nothing from the news conference. I know no more about U.S. intentions in the Iraq and Afghanistan then I did when he mumbled his first words. He spoke of a plan to combat Terrorism, where is it? He holds doggedly to the June 30th date to hand over power to the Iraqis but freely admits to not knowing which Iraqi will assume the mantle. Bush side-stepped question after question, rambling off on unrelated topics, or repeating a now tired theme of comforting the families of the victims of 9/11 and the ongoing War in Iraq, leading my wife to dub him the Consoler-in-Chief. I ask you my fellow Americans, is this leadership? Is this the man and the Administration that is going to win the War on Terrorism, the War in Iraq, and the War on Drugs? How has he done so far? He clings to some arcane notion that bring democracy to Iraq will end terrorism when in fact the key to that treasure chest lies a couple of hundred miles the east in the Israel.

It was painful to watch our President fail so miserably at that which we so sorely need right now at this juncture in our history: leadership. Bush is not now, nor was he ever, nor will he ever be a leader, at least not the caliber of leader needed to see this nation through one of the most difficult periods in our history. The Presidency is not a an office in which little power is vested in our Republican system of governance; the President in fact wields an enormous amount of power, and with that power comes an equal amount of responsibility not only to the people of the United States but, increasingly to the world.

Bush is not the right person for the job, he never was, and never will be. Listening to the man for five minutes will starkly illustrate my point. What were we thinking as a people to cast even one vote for the Bush, and how can we even begin to reelect him?

Antonin Scalia Has Journalists Recording Erased

It is often hard for me to hide my deep distain for one Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Antonin Scalia, probably because the man is an arrogant, self-absorbed, hypocrite who lauds the traditional underpinning of the federal constitution while he is busy undermining them. Case in point: while giving a speech recently at the Presbyterian Christian High School in Hattiesburg Mississippi, the good justice was lauding the beauty of the first Amendment while the U.S. Marshals who protect him were busily and forcefully violating federal law by erasing two reporters’ electronic recordings of his speech on his standing orders.

Joel Campbell, the Freedom of Information Committee co-chair of The Society of Professional Journalists, issued a statement today calling on Scalia,

"to respect the First Amendment rights of journalists to gather news when he speaks at public events…[i]n what can be only described as an ultimate constitutional irony, Scalia was praising the Constitution and its First Amendment while a federal marshal harassed reporters and curtailed their right to gather news at a public appearance…"

I must say I agree, and loudly! I am so tired of conservatives holding up our Constitution in one hand and the Holy Bible in the other, praising their foundational principles, while like an octopus other hands are busy signing the orders that would deny you and I the right to live by them. V. Edward Martin to Justice Scalia: either you believe in the first amendment or you don’t, or perhaps you believe that you and yours should be the only ones to enjoy the umbrella of its protection. It is not lost on us (the average American), that your deeds sour your lofty words. And speaking of words, if you fear yours enough to disallow their reproduction in print, then perhaps you have no business pontificating in public forums where not only you enjoy the rights and protections of our Constitution.
How dare you sir, how dare you!

The Case For Gay Marriages

This posting is a direct rebuttal the my fellow WatchBLOG editor’s article on the right, entitled The Case Against Gay Marriage. Rather then respond with a rather lengthy comment I decided to post my response here.

First, a few points:

1. The Institution of Marriage as regulated by the many States is a Civil undertaking not religious. While a couple can decide to get married by a church, they are in no way under any obligation to do so. The state issues the marriage license not the church. True a member of the clergy is sanctioned by the state to sign a marriage certificate, but so is a Justice of The Peace. Bottom line: a marriage is not legal unless and until a State sanctioned marriage license is obtained.
   
   
2. The religious issue is separate from the Civil issue. Churches are free to decide on religious grounds whether they will sanction Gay marriage or not, the State as a public entity cannot. For the state it is a matter of equal protection and due process before the law, religion plays no part; separation of church and state doctrine.
   
   
3. Families formed by marriage are the backbone of any society. It is in the family unit that children are supposed to be protected, nurtured, educated, and made ready to enter society. Families provide stability form neighborhoods and communities in which schools and other civic activities are set. Families are more than tax breaks and contracts, they are the basic underpinnings of human existence, and have been since the beginning of recorded human history; the same history that shows that the breakdown of the family unit is a major contributing factor in societal disintegration.
   
   
4. The Constitution of the United States is a blueprint for government, the main body (first seven articles) of which, does not address the rights of the people. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought. And I chafe to call it a contract. Contracts can be broken, contracts end; the Bll of Rights spells out our rights under law, rights that cannot be put away by law. But I agree that the constitution is no place to address the issue of Gay Marriage.
   
   
5. There is no such thing as “Activist Judges,” only judges that are doing their jobs in our Republican form of government while following the doctrine of checks and balances. The religious right (Conservatives) brands anyone who does not agree with them anti-something; the truth is the judges are doing what they are supposed to do: interpret the law as written by legislators, and or as written in the state constitutions. The Massachusetts Court of Supreme Justice did what it was supposed to do: interpret Massachusetts law governing the Institution of marriage, held against the light of the Massachusetts constitution, which guarantees equal protection & due process before the law. If not judges to interpret law, then who?
   
   
6. Both the state and federal governments have a stake in marriage; the state because it regulates the institution, and the federal government because certain entitlements—Social Security, Taxes, Medicare, and military survivors benefits—are based on marriage. So Civil Unions for Gays and lesbians will not fit the bill unless and until they are recognized by the federal government. Even then, we are back to the “Separate But Equal” doctrine the Supreme Court overturn in Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education.
   

Conservatives assert that allowing Gay Marriage will hurt the Institution of Marriage; I ask how? and they have no answers. So I ask again, how will allowing Gay marriage hurt the Institution of Marriage? How are children harmed?

I think, no, I am certain, that families formed as a result of Gay marriage will only strengthen, not denigrate the Institution. How can children suffer under the mantle of love and caring intact gay headed households can provide?

Gay marriage as regulated and sanctioned by the many States is a Civil Institution not religious, period and should be approached as such. It is an Equal Protection and Due Process under Law issue. For the many States there is not other consideration.

While Nero Fiddles Health Care in America Burns

Health Care in America continues it long painful decline while the Republican led Congress and the Bush Administration do nothing but pay lips service to the problem, which does nothing to stem the decline. A story in today’s Chicago Sun-Times highlights the growing problems doctors face while trying to provide quality care to their patients. And the soaring, un-checked cost of malpractice insurance is surely at the top of the list.

While the President, Republican leaders and the insurance industry point to the rising cost of malpractice litigation—and resulting payouts—as the reason for the dizzying pace of malpractice insurance premium increases, recent reports indicate it has do more to the insurance carriers trying to shore up lost profits from investments in the stock market—their primary source of income. The cost of settling claims, which actually dropped last year, has little to do with the crisis reports say.

Yet another bait and switch by the Republicans at the expense of us all; how much tomfoolery, half-truths, and neglect is enough, before the American public cry foul?

As the article in the Sun-Times points out, doctors in certain fields are now being priced out of business by absurd malpractice premiums that are in some cases approaching $140,000 a year! How long before the sky falls and the average American can no longer receive decent health care, or find a qualified doctor to administer it, without traveling tens of miles from home?

I say that time is now, given that my spouse cannot find an OB/GYN or Neurologist within 50 miles of our home in the second largest city in the state of Illinois. And we jointly cannot find a non-resident Primary Care Physician for continuity of care; both of our doctors left the state citing the ballooning cost of malpractice insurance as a one of the primary reasons for their exodus.

I quite frankly am fed up with government (state & federal) no longer working for me, but against me at almost every turn. How about you?

The Facts About the Electoral College

A lot of confusion, misunderstanding, and down right falsehoods exist about the functionality of the Electoral College. Many seek to replace it with direct elections, even the Founding Fathers were of two minds concerning its creation and usage; Alexandra Hamilton supported it (see Federalist Paper No. 68), while Thomas Jefferson opposed it, stating:

I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election ultimately by the Legislature voting by States as the most dangerous blot in our Constitution, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit and give us a pope and antipope. - Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to George Hay, 1823.

Herein is an overview on how the Electoral College works straight from those guardians of the American electoral process, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).

The current workings of the Electoral College are the result of both design and experience. As it now operates:

• Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).
  
• The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote. Usually, the major political parties select these individuals either in their State party conventions or through appointment by their State party leaders while third parties and independent candidates merely designate theirs.
  
• Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
  
• After their caucuses and primaries, the major parties nominate their candidates for president and vice president in their national conventions traditionally held in the summer preceding the election. (Third parties and independent candidates follow different procedures according to the individual State laws). The names of the duly nominated candidates are then officially submitted to each State's chief election official so that they might appear on the general election ballot.
  
• On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president (although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say "Electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual Electors on each slate).
  
• Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].
  
• On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established in federal law) each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitals and cast their electoral votes-one for president and one for vice president.
  
• In order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons" of their home State, at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside their State (though this is seldom a problem since the parties have consistently nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates from different States).
  
• The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted from each State to the President of the Senate who, on the following January 6, opens and reads them before both houses of the Congress.
  
• The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.
  
• In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office.
  
• At noon on January 20, the duly elected president and vice president are sworn into office.

More Warnings About Medicare: Insolvency Likely by 2019

And the economic news just keeps getting worse and worse, under the stewardship of Bush Jr. Seems the new Medicare law will not cure all senior health care ills as the Republicans would have us believe. And with each passing day the law once hailed as the savior of seniors and the disabled, is nothing more then a prescription for disaster, one which might leave the Medicare trust fund drained of reserves by 2019, some seven years earlier then expected.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and in his annual report on the Medicare Trust Fund stated that increased health care cost—which has to include prescription drugs—and decreasing revenues (tax cuts), are the primary motivators behind the revised forecast. He went on to predict that changes to the program called for under the new Medicare law will help slow the growth in spending, however, this predicated on seniors enrolling in managed-care programs. Thompson stated

"When you use the opportunity to allow the free-market system to work, it has the tendency to drive down costs."

Am I missing something or haven’t health care costs risen exponentially over the last 20 years under the free-market system? The free-market has not held down the cost of health care thus far, quite the contrary, as Thompson points out in his own report, health care cost continue to rise at an alarming rate. What makes him, or anyone else think that as seniors and the disabled enroll in private managed-care programs, the cost of health care will even out and eventually decline? What indicators are there in today’s economy that this happy circumstance will come to pass?

Vocal opponents (democrats, independents and other people with common sense) of the newly enacted Medicare law state that there is little evidence the changes called for under the law will slow the growth in health-care costs. It is more likely they contend, that little will change and that as is the trend today, managed care companies will make it more difficult—not less—for seniors and the disabled to see specialists, and continue to line their pockets with the resulting profits.

The Medicare trustees report blamed last years “higher spending” and “lower tax revenues” as primarily responsible for shortening by two years the estimated insolvency date of the trust fund. Wasn’t it Vice President Dick Cheney who said—irresponsibly—that budget deficits were nothing to worry about? Seems they are indeed something to worry about.
The report went on the state that from 1998 to 2002, health care costs spiked 35 percent. By 2002, the last year for which figures are available, such costs accounted for nearly 15 percent of the nation's gross national product, and more than likely accounts for a higher percentage of GNP today. Last year, employer-sponsored health insurance premiums rose by 14 percent the report said. And this year my health insurance premiums rose some 12 percent over last year, and the price I pay for prescription drugs increased again for the fourth straight year. Yes, the free-market is really helping me lower my health care, and prescription drug costs.

Still think the Bush economic plan of tax-rebates and spending is good for the overall fiscal health of the nation? I go on record as saying that the Medicare Law needs to be repealed, and redone right, better still Bush and the Republicans need to go before the U.S. has to declare bankruptcy.