Liberal schmiberal: Torture is illegal

I had to laugh when reading a recent Associated Press article about 'liberal democrats' (and the story made a point of pointing out that the Democrats were LIBERAL) who are calling for an independent investigation into Bush era torture procedures.

WASHINGTON – Congressional Democrats turned up the pressure on the Obama administration Tuesday to start a criminal investigation by a special counsel into harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects.

It would be a conflict of interest for President Barack Obama's Justice Department to investigate lawyers from the Bush administration, even though they no longer work for the government, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee said.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, the Democrats wrote, "It is impossible to determine at this stage, and before conclusion of the necessary investigation, whether additional conflicts of interest might exist or arise."

The letter said a special counsel's investigation would insulate the department from accusations that the investigation was politically inspired.

Most of the 16 signers were Democratic liberals. Seven committee Democrats did not sign the letter, nor did any of the 16 Republicans.

Independent investigation means an investigation done by people who are, by their very independent nature, not going to do this in a partisan manner. The entire point is to take the politics out of this discussion and look at the legality. And yet conservative democrats and of course Republicans slam the very idea of investigating criminal behavior - and yes, torture is illegal - in the last administration because of course, that would be 'partisan.'

And that is a giant crock of BS.

I'm an independent. I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican. I don't consider myself 'liberal' or 'conservative.' I do however believe in the Geneva Conventions, our Constitution and our rule of law. I believe that all three were ravaged during the last administration, and I want to see an investigation. I believe our safety as a country resides entirely in our right as citizens to hold our government accountable to the law and to the people who supposedly represent our American democracy. I believe that if we stray as a nation from our ideals, then we have to make a firm move back to them by holding ourselves and our leaders accountable. If we can't do that... we are no longer a democracy.

If we all know that torture is illegal and against the Geneva Conventions (not to mention all sense of morality;) and we all know that Bush and Cheney directed the CIA to torture - they even admitted it - then we as a nation are all on the hook for their behavior until an investigation takes place. All of us. Every single one of us. We are responsible as a nation until we pin the behavior on the handful of bad apples who perpetuated it.

This is not a partisan issue: this is a national issue. This is a question of who we are as Americans, and what we are willing to sweep under the rug to remain comfortable. Its also a question of bullying, because the Republicans are desperate that this information not be investigated, and are using anything and everything to bully the rest of us into dropping it.

But it must not be dropped. This is our national soul on the line.

I personally am not comfortable. I won't be comfortable until the America I believe in - the ideals of liberty and justice that our grandfathers fought for against fascism in WWII, not to mention the freedom our ancestors bled for in the Revolution and Civil Wars - is redeemed. Many soldiers of our grandfathers' generation were tortured - were waterboarded - during WWII. Those who tortured them (those that we caught and tried after the war) were punished; some were executed. I can't even imagine what surviving POWs from that great war must be thinking today. We are betraying them.

Our children and grandchildren will judge us by how we behave today. Right now... we have earned an 'F' in restoring justice to our land. And we are proving to be cowards in the face of bullying by those who use the word 'partisan' to escape any further embarrassment and political association to an administration that they allowed to run amok.

Russ weighs in on Holder

Russ Feingold weighs in on Eric Holder (in an interview on the Rachel Maddow Show,) and discusses whether an investigation and potential prosecution of Bush, Cheney and others for war crimes would be 'on the table' under Holder's watch.



I find it interesting that Russ is using phrase 'on the table' when discussing an investigation of the Bush Administration. "On the table." Really? Is this a hint that we are going to see a new approach from Democratic leadership?

Obama closes Gitmo, CIA black sites

All I can say is - wow. He didn't waste any time.

I have been trying (ever since I heard,) to find words to express my relief... that we have a real president again. And to express my relief that he is an honorable and moral man; that he represents our wishes as citizens, and that he will defend and restore our ideals as Americans.

We have redeemed ourselves. Its going to take a very long time to clean up the mess, but I think we're on our way.

Thank you President Obama.

Russ Feingold: Statement on Constitution Day 2008

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On Constitution Day 2008

September 17, 2008

On this day in 1787, our founding fathers signed the Constitution, making us a nation of laws, not of men. The basic concepts of justice, liberty, and inherent human rights outlined in that founding document, are at the very foundation of our strength as a nation.

But 221 years later, the United States is facing one of the darkest chapters in its Constitutional history. The Bush Administration has treated the Constitution and rule of law with disrespect unparalleled in our nation’s history. The list of this administration’s assaults on the Constitution is breathtaking: it includes the warrantless wiretapping program, its interrogation policy and justifications for the use of torture, its extreme positions on the legal status of detainees that have been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court, and its refusal to recognize and cooperate with Congress' constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight. This is a shameful legacy that must be undone in the years to come.

On Constitution Day, we should also recognize that supporting the rule of law here at home can help to strengthen democratic institutions around the world that are critical to peace and stability – and, in turn, to our own national security. Right now, countries like Pakistan and Zimbabwe are grappling with their own constitutional crises. But we cannot be a credible example for nations like these if we allow our own Constitution to erode. The disparity between our words and our actions undermines our ability to defend the rights and freedoms of peoples around the world.

Our next president will face a difficult challenge. He must repair the wreckage the current administration has left, which means renouncing some of the powers the current President tried to amass as he turned a blind eye to the rule of law and separation of powers. No president will want to limit his own power. But if we are to be the nation our founders envisioned when they gathered in Philadelphia more than two centuries ago, we must work together – across party lines and at all levels of government – to protect and defend our Constitution and restore the rule of law.

Real Patriotism: First, obey the law

I guess this is the face of real American patriotism... the determination to remain true to the law, the Geneva Convention, and our own ideology in the face of Neocon lawlessness.

This is the story of a man who enlisted in good faith but has now deserted the Army; for fear that he will be forced to take a role in torturing captives, which he sees (rightfully) as a war crime.

From the Toronto Star:

Jemley argues that as one of only a small number of Arabic linguists with top security clearance, he could be forced to violate international law by participating in the interrogations of terrorism suspects. It was something he hadn't considered when he enlisted in 2005 and was handpicked to undergo two years of intense training due to his adeptness with languages.

Only last February did he discover that his government had sanctioned new rules on how terrorism suspects could be interrogated. He believes it's torture and when he realized he might be asked to be a part of it, he fled.

"It's a soldier's obligation to say `no' if their commander is doing things that are criminally complicit," Jemley, now 42, said in a recent interview in Toronto. "I think everyone is agreeing now that torture is really what has been going on ... I have every reason to believe that from my small pool that I belong to, with my credentials, that I'd be ordered to do such things."

Once upon a time

I haven't posted in awhile, for numerous reasons I won't go into here.

I just wanted to draw attention to this excellent New York Times editorial: about our national change in values. Ethics. Our loss of our national soul. Very well said, and worth noting.

On Torture and American Values
The New York Times | Editorial

Sunday 07 October 2007

Once upon a time, it was the United States that urged all nations to obey the letter and the spirit of international treaties and protect human rights and liberties. American leaders denounced secret prisons where people were held without charges, tortured and killed. And the people in much of the world, if not their governments, respected the United States for its values.

The Bush administration has dishonored that history and squandered that respect. As an article on this newspaper’s front page last week laid out in disturbing detail, President Bush and his aides have not only condoned torture and abuse at secret prisons, but they have conducted a systematic campaign to mislead Congress, the American people and the world about those policies.

After the attacks of 9/11, Mr. Bush authorized the creation of extralegal detention camps where Central Intelligence Agency operatives were told to extract information from prisoners who were captured and held in secret. Some of their methods — simulated drownings, extreme ranges of heat and cold, prolonged stress positions and isolation — had been classified as torture for decades by civilized nations. The administration clearly knew this; the C.I.A. modeled its techniques on the dungeons of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union.

The White House could never acknowledge that. So its lawyers concocted documents that redefined “torture” to neatly exclude the things American jailers were doing and hid the papers from Congress and the American people. Under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Mr. Bush’s loyal enabler, the Justice Department even declared that those acts did not violate the lower standard of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”

That allowed the White House to claim that it did not condone torture, and to stampede Congress into passing laws that shielded the interrogators who abused prisoners, and the men who ordered them to do it, from any kind of legal accountability.

Mr. Bush and his aides were still clinging to their rationalizations at the end of last week. The president declared that Americans do not torture prisoners and that Congress had been fully briefed on his detention policies.

Neither statement was true — at least in what the White House once scorned as the “reality-based community” — and Senator John Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, was right to be furious. He demanded all of the “opinions of the Justice Department analyzing the legality” of detention and interrogation policies. Lawmakers, who for too long have been bullied and intimidated by the White House, should rewrite the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act to conform with actual American laws and values.

For the rest of the nation, there is an immediate question: Is this really who we are?

Is this the country whose president declared, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” and then managed the collapse of Communism with minimum bloodshed and maximum dignity in the twilight of the 20th century? Or is this a nation that tortures human beings and then concocts legal sophistries to confuse the world and avoid accountability before American voters?

Truly banning the use of torture would not jeopardize American lives; experts in these matters generally agree that torture produces false confessions. Restoring the rule of law to Guantánamo Bay would not set terrorists free; the truly guilty could be tried for their crimes in a way that does not mock American values.

Clinging to the administration’s policies will only cause further harm to America’s global image and to our legal system. It also will add immeasurably to the risk facing any man or woman captured while wearing America’s uniform or serving in its intelligence forces.

This is an easy choice.

Bravo. Tell it like it is. We used to stand for something. We may not have always achieved - risen to meet our standards. But at least we had standards... once...

Holocaust Survivor Leaving US

Well, surely this is the canary in the coal mine.

I am experiencing the same internal screams of warning, stemming from a lifetime of studying history. I spent much of my childhood and well into adulthood denying any of my German ancestry, simply because I could not come to grips with German complicity in the Holocaust. I did not want to be 'German.' Germans were monsters, Nazis. Even the language repelled me, because I could hear in it the maniacal ranting of Hitler.

Imagine... how ironic. Now I cringe to be 'American.' And my anger at those who have perverted everything we have stood for in this country, is hard to express. The word 'outrage' falls short. Betrayal, perhaps.

It is too painful to think of all the people that our government is capturing, torturing and holding without due process or any proof of guilt; spirited away to secret camps... and this, only a few generations removed from WWII, when our own proud grandparents liberated Europe from fascist terror.

The evil has come home to roost among us.

How Ironic... that this man, this Holocaust survivor, is going back to Germany:

"I'm going back because I've seen this before." He then commenced to explain that when he was a kid, he watched with his family in fear as Hitler's government committed atrocity after atrocity, and no one was willing to say anything. He said the news refused to question the government, and the ones who did were not in the newspaper business much longer. He said good neighbors, people he had known all his life, turned against his family and other Jews, grabbing on to the hate and superiority "as if they were starved for it" (his words).

He said he was too old to see it happen right in front of his eyes again, and too old to do anything about it, so he was taking his family back to Europe on Thursday where they would be safe from George W. Bush and his neocons. He seemed resolute, but troubled, nonetheless, as if being too young on one end and too old on the other to fight what he saw happening was wearing on him.

I gotta tell you - it was chilling. I let him talk, and the whole time, my gut was churning, like I had mutated butterflies in my stomach. When he was finished, he shook my hand, gripping it really hard, until his knuckles turned white and he was shaking. He looked me in the eyes, hard, and said, "I will pray for your family and your country." He let go of my hand and hobbled away.

I see what he sees. But I am staying. This is, after all my country... my responsibility.

I am daily frustrated as I watch so many dissenting voices within the GOP and in the DoJ, simply resign their jobs rather than blow the whistle and try to save our government. I will not go quit, leave give up... because someone has to stay and speak out.

We have to try. Even if we lose, we have to try. This is not the fight for an elderly, Holocaust survivor... but it is our fight, our responsibility. Our children and the world are counting on us.

I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.

- Abraham Lincoln

This is the very essence of why I blog out here. In every life there is a time to stand up and be counted - to stand for something more than just surviving, eating, sleeping and living your own private existence. My heart won't let me do anything else.

I will speak out for what American used to mean: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from oppression. I feel I must do this, because so many before me have paid for this idea with their blood. I owe it to them to speak on their behalf, as they have fought on mine.

We on the home front are the guardians of our troops overseas. We are their voice, we have their backs when they are unable to speak out for themselves. They are dying... for nothing. So I will speak out for them as well, until eventually our Congress wakes up and decides to save America and democracy from the rapidly advancing oppression that is closing in on us, every hour of every day that we sit idly by and do nothing.

Once, this nation was a beacon to the world. Bring us your huddled masses, yearning to be free. Yes free. Freedom of religion, freedom to live in harmony and pursue happiness without fear of repression. Freedom of speech, freedom to congregate, and a government of elected officials that serve the people.

I will speak out on behalf of the America that I love. Until they come for my keyboard... this I can do.

...a place sometimes called Hell

"We all know sometimes life's hates and troubles
Can make you wish you were born in another time and space
But you can bet your life times that and twice it's double
That God knew exactly where He wanted you to be placed
So make sure when you say you're in it but not of it
You're not helping to make this earth a place sometimes called Hell
Change your words into truths and then change that truth into love
And maybe our children's grandchildren and their great-great grandchildren will tell"

'As' (by Stevie Wonder)

Federal immorality stains us all

“The whole idea that Rumsfeld projects—‘We’re here to protect the nation from terrorism’—is an oxymoron,” Taguba said. “He and his aides have abused their offices and have no idea of the values and high standards that are expected of them. And they’ve dragged a lot of officers with them.”

In a week (only 2 days in) there have been many shocking revelations:

1. Bush's record number of 'signing statements' have led to noncompliance in perhaps a full third of passed legislation
   
2. The RNC has destroyed thousands of emails that should have been saved under the Presidential Records Act.
   
3. Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) are demanding that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales investigate allegations that the RNC and former research director Tim Griffin may have been involved in voter suppression tactics.
   
4. The Forth Circuit Court passed a decision not to “alter the constitutional foundations” of the United States by upholding the government’s indefinite detention of a civilian in military custody in this country.
5. Tony Blair claiming that he only sided with George Bush when Bush decided to invade Afghanistan, because "Blair's real concern was that there would be quote unquote 'a knee-jerk reaction' by the Americans ... they would go thundering off and nuke the shit out of the place without thinking straight"
   

With this barrage of news, the one article that refuses to leave my thoughts is Seymour Hersh's story about General Antonio Taguba, who was responsible for investigating the Abu Ghraib scandal.

This story haunts me, the way torture haunts me, because it truly speaks to the moral stain we all now bear as American citizens. We are now as the Germans in WWII; stained by a common, moral guilt that can only be cleansed by an overhaul of our government. Torture makes of us lesser beings on the same par as Nazis.

I cannot bear that. Of all the reasons I write, the greatest of these is that I cannot live under the weight of this evil, this guilt, this horror. I cannot just sit here with this stain on my country and not speak, no SHOUT out my feelings of anguish and betrayal.

The facts that come out in Hersh's story are truly shocking. The White House knew, very early on, the extent of the torture going on in Abu Ghraib, but only worried about their own culpability:

Taguba, watching the hearings, was appalled. He believed that Rumsfeld’s testimony was simply not true. “The photographs were available to him—if he wanted to see them,” Taguba said. Rumsfeld’s lack of knowledge was hard to credit. Taguba later wondered if perhaps Cambone had the photographs and kept them from Rumsfeld because he was reluctant to give his notoriously difficult boss bad news. But Taguba also recalled thinking, “Rumsfeld is very perceptive and has a mind like a steel trap. There’s no way he’s suffering from C.R.S.—Can’t Remember Shit. He’s trying to acquit himself, and a lot of people are lying to protect themselves.” It distressed Taguba that Rumsfeld was accompanied in his Senate and House appearances by senior military officers who concurred with his denials.

The article went on to describe Taguba; his family history, his strong moral character and ethical center... I really like the man. I am grateful that we have men of his character serving in our military. And I find it a disgrace the way he was treated for doing his job, and doing it well.

At the time, Taguba was working for Major General Mike Myatt, a marine who was the officer in charge of strategic talks with the South Koreans, on behalf of the American military. “I needed an executive assistant with brains and integrity,” Myatt, who is now retired and living in San Francisco, told me. After interviewing a number of young officers, he chose Taguba. “He was ethical and he knew his stuff,” Myatt said. “We really became close, and I’d trust him with my life. We talked about military strategy and policy, and the moral aspect of war—the importance of not losing the moral high ground.” Myatt followed Taguba’s involvement in the Abu Ghraib inquiry, and said, “I was so proud of him. I told him, ‘Tony, you’ve maintained yourself, and your integrity.’ ”

Taguba got a different message, however, from other officers, among them General John Abizaid, then the head of Central Command. A few weeks after his report became public, Taguba, who was still in Kuwait, was in the back seat of a Mercedes sedan with Abizaid. Abizaid’s driver and his interpreter, who also served as a bodyguard, were in front. Abizaid turned to Taguba and issued a quiet warning: “You and your report will be investigated.”

“I wasn’t angry about what he said but disappointed that he would say that to me,” Taguba said. “I’d been in the Army thirty-two years by then, and it was the first time that I thought I was in the Mafia.”

Its beginning to feel a lot like 'the Mafia' lately.

It gets worse:

The former senior intelligence official said that when the images of Abu Ghraib were published, there were some in the Pentagon and the White House who “didn’t think the photographs were that bad”—in that they put the focus on enlisted soldiers, rather than on secret task-force operations. Referring to the task-force members, he said, “Guys on the inside ask me, ‘What’s the difference between shooting a guy on the street, or in his bed, or in a prison?’ ” A Pentagon consultant on the war on terror also said that the “basic strategy was ‘prosecute the kids in the photographs but protect the big picture.’ ”

A recently retired C.I.A. officer, who served more than fifteen years in the clandestine service, told me that the task-force teams “had full authority to whack—to go in and conduct ‘executive action,’ ” the phrase for political assassination. “It was surrealistic what these guys were doing,” the retired operative added. “They were running around the world without clearing their operations with the ambassador or the chief of station.”

The photos weren't that bad?

Maybe not to those in the White House. At this point, this really comes as no surprise. To see a shark acting like a shark... is not a shock. The real horror is that the American people allowed sharks to take over our country and pervert our beliefs and the democracy that was left to us in trust.

To those of us out here who aren't sociopaths, these photos and the torture they portray... are horrible. They are the things of nightmares. They conjure up images of Nazi storm troopers and Gestapo torture chambers. Our grandfathers' generation fought the Nazis and liberated the concentration camps. Our generation has fallen into a lawless, moral abyss, and comes closer to resembling Nazis every day.

Not in our name.

This behavior is a shame to Americans living and dead; and this stain, this abuse of power and torture will be a scar on our history that will take generations to heal.

Taguba was forced to retire for his work on our behalf. And yes - this investigation was for us. I for one would love to thank him for his work, for his dedicated service, and for his adherence to honor:

In January of 2006, Taguba received a telephone call from General Richard Cody, the Army’s Vice-Chief of Staff. “This is your Vice,” he told Taguba. “I need you to retire by January of 2007.” No pleasantries were exchanged, although the two generals had known each other for years, and, Taguba said, “He offered no reason.” (A spokesperson for Cody said, “Conversations regarding general officer management are considered private personnel discussions. General Cody has great respect for Major General Taguba as an officer, leader, and American patriot.”)

“They always shoot the messenger,” Taguba told me. “To be accused of being overzealous and disloyal—that cuts deep into me. I was being ostracized for doing what I was asked to do.”

Taguba went on, “There was no doubt in my mind that this stuff”—the explicit images—“was gravitating upward. It was standard operating procedure to assume that this had to go higher. The President had to be aware of this.” He said that Rumsfeld, his senior aides, and the high-ranking generals and admirals who stood with him as he misrepresented what he knew about Abu Ghraib had failed the nation.

“From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service,” Taguba said. “And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values. I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib. We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable.”

An open letter to Senator Feingold

Mr Feingold...

I live in Indiana, so believe me - there is no one here 'representing me' that I can ask. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm not naive, and I used to consider myself to be a very logical person (I was a system analyst for 18 years.) I am also a history nut, so I've read all about the rise of Hitler.

Please tell me that I am dreaming - that I don't see what I think I see. Tell me I am wrong. From you... I would believe it.

This Executive branch is now completely out of control, and no one will impeach. There isn't even a special prosecutor. Halliburton is building - no, has built concentration camps on our own soil, and no one has told us why. The mainstream media doesn't talk about it. I've seen the aerial photos now - they are real.

Blackwater training installations are springing up all over the place, and these 'contractors' don't seem to answer to anyone... or perhaps they do. I'm afraid to ask. All I know is that our national guard - our 'militia' - is overseas, and there could be thousands of these 'other' guys running around, right here in our country. I don't know, because other than Jeremy Scahill, no one talks about them.

Our government is now torturing people, and setting up secret torture camps around the world. This is something we have never done, going all the way back to George Washington. Our president and vice president scoff at Geneva conventions. We invaded a country that didn't attack us, and seem poised to bomb or invade another one. We won't leave. People all around the world are beginning to hate us, for so many reasons now that I've lost track.

Our food is being poisoned, our medicines turn out to be lethal, and half the time the media won't even cover it. The FDA puts corporate interests ahead of saving lives.

Our media... may as well be the Pravda now. They'd rather talk about American Idol than our civil liberties, or the war. They don't talk about the fact that most of our watchdog agencies have now been 'privatized.' They seem to print pretty much whatever they are told to print, with a few exceptions.

The president has created a new 'emergency' directive that gives him dictatorial powers. But then, he has suspended habeas corpus anyway, so not sure how this really differs.

We thought we won a victory last November when we somehow managed to overcome Diebold and elect a Democratic Congress and Senate majority. But the Democratic leaders won't do anything to stop... any of this. Dennis Kucinich stood up and talked on the House floor for an entire HOUR about how our oil companies want to take Iraq's oil... and everyone ignored him. The mainstream media didn't cover it.

It appears the Democrats in Congress are either compromised by lobbyist interests -- or afraid. Maybe I'd be afraid too.

Actually I'm afraid every time I blog. For some reason I do it anyway. I think this is because the people I have always admired in my life all spoke out, and in the end I just want to be able to look at myself in the mirror. I don't want to be the kind of person who 'sins by silence when they should speak out,' as Lincoln said.

If everything I see - or think I see - is real, then by now I am probably on some list. Me... I will carry a spider out of the house before I will harm it. Some risk.

But I think and I write. That's dangerous in a society that isn't free. We live still in the belief that we are free. It now appears that this could all change on a dime. The data-miners have been making their lists for a long time.

It has all happened before. It could happen again. Our forefathers certainly warned us. I don't see anyone in Congress raising a finger to stop it. Investigations here and there, but nothing to STOP IT. Nothing that would over-rule the president should he suddenly decide to declare martial law.

I'm sitting here at my desk in the middle of the night and I can't believe... I am afraid. I'm in America, where I grew up... in Indiana no less. Everything around me is familiar. And yet, it is all becoming surreal.

Please... is there any hope? Can we pull out of this dive? Or is the fat lady warming up?

I know you aren't my representative, but frankly you're the only person I'd believe. I'd give anything to hear you say that I'm imagining all of this, and that democracy is fine and well. Please tell me that so I can sleep.

Thank you.

Truth or consequences

I wonder if we as Americans can ever break free of media influence and elect a president that will really represent us.

Oh we have plenty of leaders: candidates with integrity, honesty, new and creative solutions to serious national issues - even a little 'fire in the belly' from time to time. We also have legislators with strong records of defending our interests in congress, instead of toeing the lobbyist line.

Yet for some mysterious reason, we we allow our television media - and powerful corporate donors - to pick our candidates for us, and the best people seem to fall right off the radar. If a candidate doesn't have that desired 'look' or 'slick packaging', they are marginalized - ignored - summarily dismissed as irrelevant. We are letting corporations and the media dictate our democracy to us, based on... appearances and sound bites.

Why is that? Can't we think for ourselves anymore?

I often find myself comparing our current, broken electoral system with the one that was in place just before the Civil War, when the fledgling Republican party had recently formed out of a coalition of former Whigs, Northern Democrats, and Free-Soilers who opposed the expansion of slavery (hint to angry Democrats and Republicans - we've formed new parties before, and quite successfully.)

Abraham Lincoln made made a national name for himself as an outspoken critic of slavery, and as a brilliant orator during a series of debates with popular and charismatic Democrat Stephen A. Douglas in 1858 (both were running for the US Senate seat from Illinois.) In spite of his gawky, tall frame, ill-fitting suits and high, reedy voice, Lincoln had a rare gift: he could inspire an audience by connecting with them on a human level, and by telling them the truth.

Lincoln lost the Senate race in 1858, but beat Douglas two years later in the 1860 presidential campaign, to become President of the United States. By this time, everyone knew who he was and remembered his fiery and persuasive arguments from the Illinois debates.

The two differed in more than background and education (Douglas received a classical education, and Lincoln was from a humble background and self-taught.) Douglas had chaired the Senate Committee on Territories, and helped enact the Compromise of 1850, which included the highly controversial Fugitive Slave Act. Passage of the Fugitive Slave Act outraged many abolitionists, and heightened their resolve to put an end to slavery once and for all. This act also served to bring the the subject of slavery squarely into the public eye, and many people who had previously been ambivalent began to question the morality of the institution.

Douglas was a proponent of 'Popular Sovereignty,' and was responsible for the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which led to the outbreaks of unprecedented violence in Kansas. In contrast, Lincoln represented the growing anti-slavery movement that was taking hold across the nation, and believed that the country could not survive as one nation, half slave and half free. The country was being torn apart by the divisive issue of slavery, and people were paying close attention to the opinions held by each candidate - as demonstrated in both their words, and their actions.

The media of the time - which consisted solely of newspapers - was undoubtedly every bit as slanted as it is today, with the exception that there was no television: the people actually read, and thus were able to see actual transcripts of the candidates' speeches and debates, rather than relying on sound bites picked out by the television media. By reading the actual words of the candidates, citizens could discern where each one stood on important issues. And if a candidate was a talented writer/speaker, he could often sway many readers solely by his choice of words, the intensity of his argument, and his intellectual prowess as he made his case.

People have a pretty good sense for when they are being told the truth. In recent years, our contact with our candidates has been carefully screened by 'handlers' and edited by the powerful, corporately-owned media. But surely, people really do want the truth. They crave the truth. They have simply lost track of how to connect with the authenticity of the person for whom they plan to vote.

In the old days of 'stumping,' the people gathered around and actually listened to live speeches and debates. There was no hiding for these politicians - no lights, no make-up, no leading questions. They duked it out in a clever and intelligent war of words, and to the victor went both popular support... and the nod of his party. In those days, intelligence and grasp of issues easily trumped looks, lighting or corporate sponsors. The candidate sank or swam on his own merit.

Candidates were picked by their own party leaders - who had known them for years, and could vouch for their character. The chosen candidate's intelligence and ability was well established, and generally anyone who was picked to represent his party in a general election had the education, stability and leadership skills to eventually run the nation. It is believed that members of Lincoln's new party underestimated his independent nature, and expected him to take direction from more powerful leaders behind the scenes and basically toe the party line.

However once elected, Lincoln showed creativity and an unusual willingness to embrace non-partisanship, by picking for his cabinet political opponents and politicians who frankly and openly disliked him - all on the basis of their credentials. Lincoln demonstrated a remarkable ability to pick the most effective and competent person for each of his cabinet positions, and placed his loyalty to party - and personal comfort - behind the best interests of the nation as a whole.

We don't have to go back to Lincoln's time to find examples of political courage and devotion to 'nation over partisanship.' Lately we have been treated to some rather remarkable acts of political courage and devotion to truth, in presidential debates and on the House floor.

Last Wednesday, Dennis Kucinich claimed an hour of time on the House floor, and delivered a powerful and truthful expose on the inner workings of the oil industry and their designs on Iraqi oil. Kucinich explained how this lust for Iraqi oil led us directly into this current and disastrous war, and implied that we will never extricate ourselves while the Iraqi people manage to hold out against the interests of Exxon, Chevron and BP.

This was amazing, truthful and critically relevant testimony. Yet it received no mainstream, corporate media coverage, was largely ignored by other members of the House - even members of the Democratic party. I find it hard to imagine that something so critical and so fundamental to our current situation could have been swept under the rug, but there it is: it happened.

Kucinich is often laughed at or simply ignored by the national media. Whereas Lincoln was 'too tall,' Kucinich is apparently 'too short'; he speaks his mind, and sometimes comes across as a bit folksy or 'off the cuff,' (similar in many ways to Lincoln and his famous yarns.) The media pundits will also tell you something else - something that would have spelled disaster for Lincoln if he were to run for the presidency today. According to television media 'experts,' Kucinich doesn't look presidential.

I have often wondered if 'doesn't look presidential' really translates to 'we can't bully, influence or control you.'

The media would have us believe that issues are of far less importance... than how the candidate looks, and how well he or she 'spins.' Since most Americans claim that they do not want a president that lies or 'spins' every word, but rather gives it to us straight: it would appear that the television media and our best interests are at cross purposes.

In his own time, Lincoln suffered many of the same, lame media abuses. Cartoonists mocked him, portrayed him as an ape, a hillbilly and made fun of his home-spun humor, while describing him as an ignorant farmer. Of course as we know today, the truth was vastly different. Lincoln was one of the sharpest minds and wits in our presidential history, with a firm grasp of law, government, and even military strategy.

Somehow, the people saw through all of the media slander and connected with the character of the man. And they were rewarded with 'presidential courage,' and dedicated, bipartisan leadership during a time of national crisis.

If not for Lincoln's leadership, America would be two separate nations today... or perhaps it would have ceased entirely to exist. Perhaps we would now be a region of Canada, a 'state' in Mexico, or worse... the Nazis or Japanese would have eventually invaded and enslaved us during WWII. It is impossible to know where we would be today, had there been no President Abraham Lincoln to bring us through the bloody Civil War as one nation, intact.

I often wonder if we have lost our way as people, and as a nation. We seem to have forgotten to use our minds, but instead sit dumbly and passively in front of the television set, feeding on whatever garbage the media has served up for our consumption. Perhaps this is the result of several generations of Americans growing up with televisions as glorified babysitters; or perhaps there is some other brain deadening effect built into the medium that allows us to abandon our natural skepticism and reason when we flip on the set.

Do we really want the truth? Because candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul would be happy to tell us everything we say we want to hear, and more. Or are we instead willing to settle for a political 'American Idol;' with blow-dried, clean-cut and good-looking actor/politicians, posing for the cameras while carefully avoiding the issues - or heaven forbid - letting slip with any comments that might be construed as an actual opinion?

What about the pathetic state of our health care system, our disappearing jobs, the poisoning of our food, pollution, climate change, inflation, loss of our constitutional protections, and this horrific, bloody, illegal and budget-breaking war? These are issues that affect us all, every single day. Who on earth really cares or is affected by how much John Edwards paid for a haircut? How on earth can that possibly be relevant in a presidential campaign? When will we tire of this media circus, and demand some real honesty, authenticity and straight answers?

Dennis Kucinich gave us issues and answers, and he sounded a very loud trumpet of alarm. So did Ron Paul, when he lectured Rudy Giuliani on the finer points of U.S. history - and our years of intervention in Middle Eastern politics - during the second GOP debate. It is time for us to pay attention... even if this means occasionally watching C-Span, to find out what is really happening in our government (yes, it is boring to watch the House and Senate plod around.) It is time for us to break free of media influence, especially that of television, and instead turn on our active brains and doggedly pursue the truth.

Why are we in Iraq? What is the best plan of action to get our troops out? Every voting American should be asking these questions and actively seeking out the candidate that will best accomplish this end. John Edward's haircut has nothing to do with our nation's role in this bloody 'War on Terror.' Mitt Romney's declaration that he would like to 'double the size of Guantanamo,' and Rudy Giuliani's shameless promotion of torture are frighteningly relevant to our future as a nation.

What do we the people of this nation think it means to be 'American,' and what is our system of values? What do we believe in - what do we consider moral? Is torture moral? Are cluster bombs that kill hundreds of innocent civilians... moral? And are we truly willing to give up our democracy for a little 'temporary safety?' If not, we had better get off the couch and take charge of our government: it is ours, and we have been entrusted with its protection so that it will survive for future generations.

The Internet provides many new opportunities to hear our candidates as they wish to be heard, speaking in their authentic voices - whether via personal blogs, their own video and YouTube presentations (free of media influence,) or their own written dispatches. There is no longer any reason to settle for sugar-coated drivel dished out by mainstream television pundits. We don't need a cynical middle man editing our democratic dialog... we need truth.

I believe it was Mulder of 'X-Files' fame who said "the truth is out there." The opportunity to wake up, pay attention, and meet our candidates is available to us. The choice is in our hands.

The question of torture

Torture hurts everyone.

Torture obviously hurts the victim, but it also damages the psyche of the torturer. It hurts the morale of the army forced to listen to the screams of the suffering - not to mention the personal safety of any American soldier that might be captured by insurgents.

Torture hurts our credibility and democratic principles, and deeply undercuts our leadership throughout the world. We’ve lost the respect of even our closest allies since we lowered ourselves to this level of thug behavior. We are behaving no better than a banana republic.

That we overthrew Saddam - partly on the argument that he tortured Iraqis and used chemical weapons against his own people - and we later used his very prison of Abu Ghraib to torture Iraqi citizens (most of them completely innocent of any wrongdoing,) is unconscionable. It is also incredibly, unbelievably STUPID.

Lastly, advocating torture hurts all Americans - it destroys our credibility as a democratic and 'just' nation, and has done immeasurable damage to our reputation around the world.

Our grandparents’ generation stormed the beaches in Normandy to overthrow fascism, and many saw first hand the results of Nazi torture when they liberated the concentration camps. They were liberators and heroes, and many people came to see America as a force for good in the world. We have betrayed our parents and grandparents with this abominable behavior. It is completely unworthy of their example and their sacrifices.

During the second GOP debate, John McCain said simply “it’s not about the terrorists, it’s about us. It’s about what kind of country we are.” That anyone on that stage had the temerity to promote torture in front of a former Vietnam POW... defies reason. But then, as Al Gore will tell you, 'reason' is hard to come by these days.

And as for these strange, pro-torture, ‘Christian’ presidential candidates like Romney... I challenge you to find any positive mention of torture - anywhere - in the New Testament. Christ taught his followers to ‘turn the other cheek.’ Christ said ‘blessed are the peace makers.’

The only mention of torture in the entire New Testament is the torture inflicted on Jesus himself: and if you want to line up on THAT side, please refrain from using the word ‘Christian’ when describing yourselves.

UPDATE: 5/23/2007 - terrific article about the disastrous fallout from the use of torture techniques in Iraq, "Torture Betrays Us," by by Charles C. Krulak & Joseph P. Hoar
(Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.)

Impeachable

Have Bush and his neocon cronies committed impeachable crimes? I'd say a better question is... how many will it take?

Impeachable... let us count the ways:

1. Invading a country that posed no threat to the U.S.
2. Misleading Congress and the American people into supporting a war on false pretenses
   
3. Acting in direct opposition to the Bill of Rights and Constitution, which Bush swore to uphold
4. Seizing U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and holding them indefinitely - without charges, a trial, an attorney or even the right to remain silent
5. Illegally spying on American citizens without a court order
6. Breaking Geneva Conventions by torturing prisoners
7. Abolishing habeas corpus
8. Issuing hundreds of signing statements and indicating that he (Bush) did not intend to uphold any portion of any bill that he did not like
9. Authorizing the use of depleted uranium shells in Iraq, thus endangering the life and health of Iraqi civilians and U.S. Troops for generations to come
   
10. Authorizing the use of phosphorus bombs against Fallujah, a civilian target
11. Deliberately blowing the cover of a CIA agent to get revenge on her husband, a whistle blower
12. Using party email systems to avoid leaving behind possibly incriminating presidential documents (in violation of the Hatch Act)

It is very likely that the Bush administration deliberately destroyed Rove's emails - before or after they were subpoenaed - and it is quite likely that before too much longer, we will see proof that the Republican Party stole the 2004 election in Ohio and actual documents that lead directly to Rove and the White House.

We already know they stole the election in 2000... from these very Democrats who refuse to do anything about it.

Madam Pelosi... what will it take for you to put impeachment on the table? You're making Neville Chamberlain look like a bulldog by comparison...