Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama's Support for the New Graham-Lieberman Secrecy Law
It was one thing when President Obama reversed himself last month by announcing that he would appeal the Second Circuit's ruling that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) compelled disclosure of various photographs of detainee abuse sought by the ACLU. Agree or disagree with Obama's decision, at least the basic legal framework of transparency was being respected, since Obama's actions amounted to nothing more than a request that the Supreme Court review whether the mandates of FOIA actually required disclosure in this case. But now -- obviously anticipating that the Government is likely to lose in court again (.pdf) -- Obama wants Congress to change FOIA by retroactively narrowing its disclosure requirements, prevent a legal ruling by the courts, and vest himself with brand new secrecy powers under the law which, just as a factual matter, not even George Bush sought for himself.
The White House is actively supporting a new bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman -- called The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009 -- that literally has no purpose other than to allow the government to suppress any "photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States." As long as the Defense Secretary certifies -- with no review possible -- that disclosure would "endanger" American citizens or our troops, then the photographs can be suppressed even if FOIA requires disclosure. The certification lasts 3 years and can be renewed indefinitely. The Senate passed the bill as an amendment last week.
Just imagine if any other country did this. Imagine if a foreign government were accused of systematically torturing and otherwise brutally abusing detainees in its custody for years, and there was ample photographic evidence proving the extent and brutality of the abuse. Further imagine that the country's judiciary -- applying decades-old transparency laws -- ruled that the government was legally required to make that evidence public. But in response, that country's President demanded that those transparency laws be retroactively changed for no reason other than to explicitly empower him to keep the photographic evidence suppressed, and a compliant Congress then immediately passed a new law empowering the President to suppress that evidence. What kind of a country passes a law that has no purpose other than to empower its leader to suppress evidence of the torture it inflicted on people? Read the language of the bill; it doesn't even hide the fact that its only objective is to empower the President to conceal evidence of war crimes.
That this exact scenario is now happening in the U.S. is all the more remarkable given that the President who is demanding these new suppression powers is the same one who repeatedly vowed "to make his administration the most open and transparent in history." After noting the tentative steps Obama has taken to increase transparency, the generally pro-Obama Washington Post Editorial Page today observed: "what makes the administration's support for the photographic records act so regrettable" is that "Mr. Obama runs the risk of taking two steps back in his quest for more open government."
What makes all of this even worse is that it is part of a broader trend whereby the Government simply retroactively changes the law whenever it decides it does not want to abide by it. For decades, we had laws in place authorizing citizens to sue their telecommunication carriers if the telecoms allowed government spying on their communications in violation of the law, but when it was revealed that the telecoms did exactly this, the Congress simply changed the law retroactively so that it no longer applied. For decades, we had laws imposing civil and criminal liability on government officials who engaged in or authorized torture, but when it was revealed that our government did that, the Congress just retroactively changed the law to protect the torturers. And now that courts have ruled that our decades-old transparency law compels disclosure of this torture evidence, the Congress is just going to retroactively change the law -- again -- this time to empower the President to suppress that evidence anyway.
Other than creating an illusion of transparency and accountability, what's the point of having laws that purport to restrict what the Government can do if political officials just retroactively waive those laws whenever they want? What's the point of having a FOIA law if the Government will simply pass a new law exempting itself from FOIA's mandates any time it loses in court and wants to conceal evidence anyway? And what conceivable rationale is there for limiting the President's new secrecy powers to post-9/11 photographs? Given that anything which reflects poorly on our Government can be said to endanger our troops and American citizens, why stop here? Why not just have a general power of suppression whereby the President can keep any evidence secret as long as his Defense Secretary decrees that its disclosure will "endanger" the troops?
The debate over whether there is value in disclosing these specific photographs is entirely misplaced. That isn't how open government works. The burden isn't on citizens to prove that there is value in disclosure. Everything that government does is supposed to be transparent to the public unless there is a compelling reason for secrecy -- and the whole point of FOIA always has been that mere embarrassment, the mere fact that information reflects poorly on our government, isn't a legitimate ground for concealment. That's a critical principle for open government. This new law explicitly guts that principle. It institutionalizes the pernicious notion that secrecy is justified where disclosure would reflect badly on the Government and thus "endanger" American citizens and/or our troops.
Combine all of this with the increasingly disturbing spectacle taking place in a California federal court in the Al-Haramain case -- where the Obama DOJ is on the verge of being sanctioned by a federal judge for defying the court's order to make available documents relating to Bush's illegal eavesdropping activities -- and the infatuation with excessive presidential secrecy, the linchpin of government abuse, appears alive and well in the new administration. Is there really anyone who wants to argue that defiance of a federal court's order and enacting a new law authorizing suppression of torture evidence -- the disclosure of which is compelled both by courts and FOIA -- are remotely consistent with anything Obama said he would do, or remotely consistent with what a healthy democratic government would do?
76 Comments so far
Show AllArticle I, sec. 9.
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Another piece of the Constitution falls to the ruling elite.
The ruling elite don't give a crap about the laws of this nation. Like George Bush called the US Constitution: "It just a scrap of GD paper."
As events continue to unfold that are increasingly outrageous, I am less and less shocked by each new progression in deterioration of even any pretense of the US being an actual democratic republic. I guess it's certainly questionable as to whether we ever were faithfully, consistently true to the principles upon which we were supposedly founded and our laws written and established in the US Constitution.
We are unquestionably symptomatic of being a declining empire, the progression of deterioration only being expedited by the Obama gang. It seems the choices we the people have in response are to just get out of the way as the first American experiment hurtles to toward its crashing demise, or to organize in overwhelming numbers and yank the reins of government away from the presumably irreparably corrupt power structure that is flying the express jet straight into the ground.
I think the latter is an unlikely, nearly impossible task that did not happen in other notorious empires. Along with the ability to communicate across the world in seconds comes the immense distractibility of too many options of media to tune into. With the mediums that have traditionally reached the most people, that have the ability to unite the population in the kinds of numbers required for a unignorable public protest (like they seem to be easily able to do for a Super Bowl or the finals of American Idol) compliant, even cooperative with the corrupt government, a very creative unifying event or series of events and means of communication about it would be required. I don't know if or how it can happen. The mental energy in a forum like CD is potentially effective but the numbers of people who even know about such entities, let alone pay attention to them would have to increase considerably just to work their way up to miniscule.
Any workable ideas? I give up.
This ugly law makes one long back to the years of the American Revolution when even the taxing of spirits triggered a civil war. Even the name of this miscreant is a deliberate lie because it has nothing to do with "Preservation".
President Obama is wont to compare himself to FDR and JFK, if not Lincoln. Unfortunately for him he is light years removed from Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, or John Adams.
If our country ever was a true "Constitutional Republic" it is now beginning to morph into a "Constitutional Dictatorship".
How can it be that a President cedes executive powers to the Secretary of Defense? How can it be that a law is passed that cannot be challenged in the Supreme Court?
Bring America Back !!!!...........We all need to face it, this Obama guy is a one-Termer, already failing miserably on all key elements promised us in His campaign ! There is no basis to presume we could support his candidacy in the next election.
****We need to get a Progressive candidate now, get him out in front of all these issues--a Voice for us with influence on the Hill who by 2012 could muster a serious run for the White House vs Obama.
****I nominate Dennis Kucinich==if he is disgusted enough with the Saviour's cave-ins, and the Demmys failure to make necessary Change==would he turn Progressive and build a Party to mount a good campaign.
****Meantime, we are really enjoying this third term of King George the Bush. !
Granted that Obama is a hypocrite and liar who fooled a lot of people by callously playing on their hopes and naivety, the question is: What do we do about this a$$hole?
From the Wall Street bailout and the offshoring of GM and Chrysler plants, to his cover up of torture and war crimes, this guy is a disaster. He and his crew are literally destroying the country.
We've got to make a lot of noise and act now, and not wait. We must NOT "give him more time" to continue screwing us. We've got a burglar in the house and he's working quickly.
Let's stop him the same way we stopped Bush, with parades, letters and phone calls.
"...Let's stop him the same way we stopped Bush..."
- Umm, we didn't "stop Bush" at all. He accomplished everything he tried, except for privatizing Social Security (which Obama will probably succeed in doing).
Sarcasm.
I am indeed aware we stopped nothing and went so far as to elect him again in the form of Obama.
"privatizing Social Security"
AKA the scheme to re-inflate the Wall Street Ponzi scheme. Funny how we don't hear much about that now that the market has crashed.
I think we would be much better off organizing for a strong 3rd party progressive. The sooner we all unite and begin, the better our chances in 2012.
I agree.
Joe Lieberman, AIPAC and the rest of the Zionists should get
their noses out of our democracy. The Israelites should be
gratefull that it was the USA that rescued them from the
atrocities of Europe.
Imagine if the Germans had done this after WWII and no American had been a witness to the Holocaust. Would you have believed any of the stories about the concentration camps?
Other than to protect the guilty, what good does suppression do?
"Agree or disagree with Obama's decision, at least the basic legal framework of transparency was being respected, since Obama's actions amounted to nothing more than a request that the Supreme Court review whether the mandates of FOIA actually required disclosure in this case."
Mr. Greenwald, come on...
"But now -- obviously anticipating that the Government is likely to lose in court again (.pdf) -- Obama wants Congress to change FOIA by retroactively narrowing its disclosure requirements, prevent a legal ruling by the courts, and vest himself with brand new secrecy powers under the law which, just as a factual matter, not even George Bush sought for himself."
So why not say that agree or disagree, at least the basic purpose of legislature is being respected? I mean, come on...
Enough of this, Obama DID promise increased transparency. That should not have meant that we would have to go to the Supreme Court to demand the release of these pictures and videos (many which have already been leaked).
GG cares; the rest of America doesn't want to know and doesn't really care anyway.
That's what "they" know about "us" that a small few of "us" are still unwilling to accept.
Why do you think Cheney and his fellow travelers proudly brag about ordering the torture of humans - because they know we ain't gonna do shit about it. Because we don't wanna know, and we don't really care anyway.
Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman were active proponents of the illegal war upon Iraq with the resulting destruction, plunder, killing, maiming, torture, rape, sodomy and other assorted atrocities. This is their way of supressing evidence of their part in the Global Warcrimes Of Terror and the JudeoRepublican Enhanced In-Terror-gation techniques. We all know that Obams has ignored his oft repeated oath of office and pledged allegiance to AIPAC.
Jim Shea,
I'm re-evaluating my vote, too, as are you. For me, "O" was my first winning candidate in eleven presidential contests; now I wish I'd joined Gracchus and Socialist in backing McKinney.
I should have listened to those first trepidations I felt when Obama, for political expediency, distanced himself from his largely correct Pastor Wright.
It's even more self-deceptive to vote for a non-duopoly presidential candidate on the utterly false belief that a true progressive could acquire the power to produce structural change. The Senate has to confirm the officials that staff the executive branch, and in a Senate where the vote was 90-6 not to close Gulaguantanamo, where would the political power to make appointments that would enact structural change come from?
The very acquisition of political power within the rules obliges the candidate, even the purest, to make the sort of deals that debase the project in the first place. The only possibility is changing the political field entirely; and that is called revolution.
gotta say, i'm a little disappointed at the posts i've seen so far plenty are happy to say Obama's a criminal, a snake, a patsy, the government's corrupt, etc., etc., etc.
Coming from someone who agrees, i'd hope more will find the time to explain why they believe something...have a stimulating discussion.
For example...I think these photos should be released. But the question remains, by whom? To whom? To anyone who cares to look? It seems to me they should be released in a court of law, submitted as evidence in a trial against those who perpetrated the abuse. The ACLU is trying to get the released under FOIA, but there is no movement to actually indict anyone for torture, abuse, rape, etc.
Given that the detainees have been roundly denied the right to sue their abusers/captors in court, how can they American people get justice for the crimes committed in their name? Our sham legal system is obviously incapable of finding a legal remedy.
This federal government today is an absolute joke.
Bush let it be known we were cruel war criminals, Obama makes it appear that way AND that we are fools.
The Senate passed this bill last week?! Why is Susan Boyle's exhaustion so much more important news than the subversion of our Constitution? Our nation is so preoccupied with trivial gossip it doesn't even notice the criminals in our midst emptying our treasury and stealing our rights. I really didn't expect Obama to turn out to be such a fascist.
Cee Miracles, I think you're exactly right. I had just turned 21 when Kennedy was shot and I was stunned that everyone was swallowing the story that Oswald did it after the entire country had seen the Zapruder tape over and over. I decided that it was fear that made them go along. That if they spoke the truth (and in fact the few who did were killed as well), they would have to face the fact that we were not a democracy, a free country. So they stuck their heads in the sand. And I, a young idealist, went into a depression that my country was not what I thought it was and my countrymen were cowards unwilling to fight for freedom. I thought of all the people who died to break away from England, who died in the labor movement during the Robber Baron era. And here we are again in the new Robber Baron era. And when Obama started disappointing me (I had expected some disappointment but not such a complete betrayal) I thought at least he won't start shooting people if they take to the streets. But now I really don't know the man or what he would do to protect the interests of the rich. So far, they have been his priority. He has destroyed the UAW, what's next?
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
"...I had just turned 21 when Kennedy was shot and I was stunned that everyone was swallowing the story that Oswald did it after the entire country had seen the Zapruder tape over and over..."
- Actually, virtually NO ONE saw the Zapruder tape "over and over." In fact, they didn't even see it a single time -- not until 1975, when (of all people) Geraldo Rivera showed it on national TV. That was the first time the American public saw the Zapruder film.
A small group of jurors saw it in 1969, during the case Jim Garrison brought against Clay Shaw, in New Orleans.
RichM, I'm not sure whose film I saw but the whole country saw a film of Kennedy being shot, which we always assumed was the Zapruder film. They played it constantly for days after the assassination. I was there. The country came to a halt. Commercial TV stopped oompletely; no commercials, no shows for four days until after the funeral. They replayed everything about JFK, the film of the assassination, the Oswald shooting by Ruby in the Dallas jail basement, Jackie covered with his blood next to LBJ being sworn in, the body lying in state. I still can't hear The New World Symphony without feeling my heart wrench. After that, the film disappeared.
Doing some research, I read that actually several cameras rolled at Dealey Plaza. In addition to many pictures being snapped. Many consider the Warren Commission a farce (the magic bullet). Some who testified said they weren't allowed to say anything the Commission didn't want to hear. Sounds familiar.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
No, I'm sorry, but you are remembering incorrectly. (It was after all over 45 years ago.) You may THINK "the whole country saw a film of Kennedy being shot" -- but your memory is playing tricks on you. No such thing ever happened.
There were STILL photographs (ie, selected frames) from the Zapruder film that were printed in Life Magazine one week after the assassination -- but of course, still photos are hardly the same as a film, and Life Mag was very careful about WHICH frames the public would be shown. The Zapruder film wasn't shown on TV until 1975, as I said.
This is not "just my opinion." I've read a good 20 books on the assassination, including last year's "JFK and the Unspeakable," by James Douglass. I'm not guessing about this. The fact that the film footage was withheld from the public for 12 years is an important part of the history.
Take a look at Wikipedia to refresh your memory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film#History
You're right that there were several cameras rolling in Dealey Plaza that day, but only 1 or 2 of them (the Nix film & possibly Mary Muchmore's) caught any of the actual shots, & NONE of the others caught all the shots, like the Zapruder film did. Furthermore, NONE of the others were ever shown on TV in the days (or weeks, or in fact years) after Nov 22 1963.
Here's a list of all the known films: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Video_Clips_-_Motorcade_Films
RichM, I think you're right. I do remember at the time of the assassination I didn't believe it was Oswald. But also, I was in shock as was most of the country. It wasn't just Kennedy, I felt we had lost our innocence.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Hi Beforkids. Since you were old enough to vote back in Kennedy's time, maybe you could help me answer this curious what if question. What would Kennedy's chances of getting reelected in 1964 have been had he been able to make it to that year? I know he could not possibly win the landslide victory LBJ won even if it were Kennedy vs Goldwater. Some historians have reported that JFK was a conservative Democrat and a few went to say that he was hesitant like Eisenhower on deal with the civil rights issue while LBJ boldly pushed for it. I know LBJ was bold but some say he was a centrist like Clinton and Obama.
Wow, CarlaWaters ... I started to answer your questions above, but it would take a few pages at least. But here's a cursory take.
I would recommend you read Kennedy's speeches and papers available at the Kennedy library, and I think you will find a massive shift in this thinking in that last uncompleted third year of his presidency. That massive shift which, in my opinion, was visionary is what, I believe, got him killed. Very intelligent, classy man ... with foibles ... But a strength was that he knew war actively and intimately.
I think it took two years and various serious crises for Kennedy to get his sea legs and the full grasp of what was happening in the world, and then his own gestalt understanding began to yield a much higher vision ... for the whole world.
Any programs about Kennedy highlight his inaugural speech. It's his speeches that last year of 1963 that indicate growth of vision and a very different man that entered the office in 1960. He had a global vision of a world at peace and how to get there, and wanted an International Criminal Court; he and Jackie were finally in synch and talked about the challenge of eliminating world poverty. Maybe also he was going to try to truly control the Federal Reserve or eliminate it. Obviously, he immediately woke the Sleeping Dragons, whose eyes are always really peering through the slits. They are now truly devouring us. But obviously, JFK was becoming his own man, with his own quite fine visions, and he was talking about them. Shortly thereafter he was assassinated.
If he'd lived, I think he would have been re-elected. There was a magic that had happened with the whole Jack & Jackie thing, Caroline and John-John, and the Kennedy clan, and I don't think the voters would have let that go.
I was 24 when I voted for him, the first time I could vote in a presidential election. [You had to be 21 then] Nixon always struck me viscerally as a really sick, twisted cookie, right from the get-go. [My parents, both Republicans thought he was wonderful.] The debate between JFK and Nixon revealed the chasm between the personalities and styles of the two men clearly. JFK was put on the map with that first-time-ever presidential debate on our black-and-white screens which did not flatter Nixon at all. But certainly JFK won by a whisker, and there is suggestive evidence that his father was instrumental in making sure he won.
There's a lot to say about the Cuban missile crisis, for which JFK took the rap at its failure, but that was engineered in Eisenhower's last year by Alan Dulles, then head of the C.I.A. JFK knew nothing about it, and was furious when he found out what was in the works after he got into office, and wouldn't support it. Alan Dulles went ahead with it, expecting JFK to change his mind in terms of naval and air support, but he didn't. The two men became enemies. The COLD WAR was hot; COMMUNISM was perceived as only one thing no matter what country or what area of the world - BAD, DANGEROUS, TERRIBLE. Kennedy also inherited from Eisenhower the beginnings of Vietnam, and the Civil Rights movement was still at a back-and-fill stage.
I wouldn't call Kennedy a conservative Democrat. I think he was just beginning to grow into who he was going to become as a President. I think he might have turned out more toward the Liberal/Progressive side if he had made it through a full two terms, and I don't think, from what I've read, that we would have ended up with fifteen years of a Vietnam War. JFK was possibly planning to de-escalate our involvement because the records reveal that he thought we were getting in over our heads.
In Obama's third year, he also will be a very different person. However, because he has jumped in so fast as cheerleader for and seems to be tied at the hip to the Banksters, Corporations, Israel ... no matter what, and has now waffled and shown himself to be a very disappointing fellow in terms of strength of moral character, we are in deep doo-doo, and I do not see him being able to even come close to a 180-degree turn-around. Looks like he's locked himself in big-time, and the people of this country too. For most of us The Way is called DOWN.
And then there's all those Sleeping Dragons of all stripes out there who want it their $way$ and their $way$ only. And Obama is not likely to put himself on the edge of a precipice with all those Sleeping Dragons around who breathe fire.
Hope this helps. Your best bet is to read the actually writings of JFK himself in the Kennedy Library, contents available on the Net.
peace, cm
Cee Miracles, I have not read quite a lot about JFK's vision for liberalizing us all. Besides the media always saying that JFK was a conservative Democrat every time they wanted to divide the party in support of one Reagan/Bush tax cut for the wealthy and corporations or another, my thought was his cutting the corporate tax from 90 to 30 something percent made it look like so.
When BeForKids said about innocense lost after JFK was assasinated, I'm still not sure I can completely agree with that. In the Democratic Party, we still tend to elect pols based on charm, personality, and even looking innocent. Bill Bradley himself wrote about this back in 2005 when he said a lot about what's wrong with the way the Democratic Party works.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0330-26.htm
"we are still hypnotized by Jack Kennedy, and the promise of a charismatic leader who can change America by the strength and style of his personality. The trouble is that every four years the party splits and rallies around several different individuals at once. Opponents in the primaries then exaggerate their differences and leave the public confused about what Democrats believe. "
I can't see any other reason Obama was lucky to win that primary.
I wasn't born until the 1970s but given what you said, I still think that there is something that would have prevented Kennedy from fulfilling his vision of world peace that you mentioned even if he had made it alive. I am aware that he inherited Eisenhower's Vietnam War mess though it was nowhere as messy as Obama inheriting Dubya's Iraq war mess but unless JFK made any promises on the campaign trail to end the war, wouldn't the default assumption have been that he'll stay it even if the public opposed it at large? I don't want to characterize JFK as a conservative Democrat unlike Clinton and Obama but the guy is so mysterious.
Carla, Kennedy was fairly centrist (which would be liberal today) for his time. But like some Supreme Court justices, people change. He inherited some messes from Eisenhower, and made mistakes early on, as has Obama. But he learned and began to fill the shoes of the presidency. Vietnam was a small police action at first and the general public (including me) wasn't paying attention to it. But Kennedy gave a speech in October of 1963 that he wanted to withdraw from Vietnam. He saw the writing on the wall. It wasn't until many years later that I learned that he also wanted to end the Federal Reserve Board (now THAT was liberal!) and return the control of money to the government. I believe that's what got him killed.
Johnson invited him to Dallas, but stayed away. Johnson and Connally weren't friends either. The motorcade route had a last minute change to go past Dealey Plaza. That gave the Secret Service no time to do a safety check. A president's life is in the hands of the rulers of America.
I think the lesson Obama has learned from history is don't stick your neck out. Change must come from the bottom. After all, we still (so far) have the power of the vote. We're just not using it. That's why I'm proposing the Mainstream Party. All social issues off the table, strictly economic issues. On which 60% of the voters agree. So sculpt a party on what people agree with and leave out the rest. We can fight over the rest later after we take our country back from the corporations and bankers. I still believe Obama would back us up on that but he won't lead us there. Anyone trying to would get shot but you can't shoot 60% of the voters. We need to start with Congress. It's become a cesspool.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
You nailed it on the last paragraph. As much as I don't like Obama saying that we have to push for change either, man does he know where to avoid the dangers. I'll bet that most of us on this site would love your idea of Mainstream Party. It might resonate out here in Northern VA if not the rest of the state that's used to Republicans or Mark Warner Democrats.
P.S.: On another topic of today, maxpayne reminded me that I need to get out there and vote for Brian Moran in the Democratic Primary for governor and stop Terry Mcauliffe. Moran supports single payer healthcare and most of the populist progressive positions while Mcauliffe does not and has in fact been taking huge donations from the Republican interests and especially the insurance and pharma creeps. TM ruined the Democratic Party and I don't want him ruining the state as governor. Creigh Deeds is unknown but not getting far. Like maxpayne said though, if we can get Brian Moran to win as governor, we might have a shot at having him primary Mark Warner by 2014 so that Baucus will have at least one less corporate ally to count on.
Cee Miracles, excellent outline. I was 18 and newly married when he was elected. I had other things on my mind, but I was paying some attention. The election was very close, and it really was stolen from Nixon, but Kennedy quickly became very popular. I think he would have easily won reelection. Of course the Cuban Missile Crisis had everyone's attention. Even on the West Coast we were scared. It was after he was killed that I seriously looked into what was going on in his last year before he was shot, being that I never believed for a moment that it was Oswald. For a long time I thought it was because he started talking about pulling out of Vietnam. Many years later I learned he wanted to end the Fed and I now think that was probably why he was killed.
Kathy
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
"The election was very close, and it really was stolen from Nixon, but Kennedy quickly became very popular."
Ouch. That one was a bit too harsh. I believe that Nixon also had some foul play coverups during the election he didn't want to share so he let Kennedy go. I'll need to read the details somewhere. I can only be thankful that Kennedy was not the kind of wimp we saw in Gore of 2000 when Gore allowed Dubya to steal the election. I can't imagine what Nixon would have been like were he to win in 1960 and what this country would have been like as a result.
Carla, it's true. In 1960 Kennedy went to Richard Daley, the powerful mayor of Chicago and asked him how many votes could he deliver in Cook County. Daley asked him how many did he need. Did you think the Republicans have a monopoly on election theft? Nixon knew what was going on. He demanded two Cook County recounts. He never had a chance. It was Florida-Gore all over again. In politics we don't have the good guys and bad guys. We have winners and losers.
Kennedy almost didn't get elected because he was a Catholic. Rockefeller couldn't get through the primary because he had been divorced.
Nixon did get elected in 1968 in a landslide. I guess we should start worrying when our president says "I am not a crook". Actually he was more liberal than Clinton - but don't get me started on Clinton.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
"Did you think the Republicans have a monopoly on election theft?"
Before you gave the details, I would have said yes other than Democrats stopping Nader from making it to the ballots.
"Nixon did get elected in 1968 in a landslide."
I assume you meant to say 1972. I thought 1968 was close. From www.uselectionatlas.org that someone earlier posted, Nixon was electorally way ahead but popular vote was he was close.
Richard Daley? I've read all about his support for NAFTA and denying minimum wage increase. Or am I mixing that up with another Daley in Chicago? The name I can't stand.
My maternal grandmother once said that Kennedy's father had a mafia to help JFK buy the election in 1960 though I initially refused to believe it. Speaking of crooks, no doubt about it. Today's really expensive elections would make yesterday's mafia look "clean" in pale comparison.
CARLA,
There are two Richard Daleys. The current mayor of Chicago (Richard M Daley, of which you speak) is the son of the former mayor of Chicago (Richard J Daley, of which BEFORKIDS speaks).
Seventhson,
Thanks. This is just another reason why political dynasties should not be allowed to continue. All I have to say for both Daleys is like father like son. Both are SOBs ! No wonder Chicago hasn't stopped bleeding !
Indeed! And no one knows that better than those of us originally FROM Chicago.
Jim Shea
Congratulations to Glen Greenwald, again.
This should be front-page news, but my guess is that it will hardly be mentioned at all. The American people have been appropriately called "sheeple". And Obama belongs in the same class as all the other political liars who have been President recently. Unfortunately, I voted for him, mostly because I thought he'd be better than McCain and Palin. I am furious with him and his administration. Another of his recent despicable actions was the granting of 14 mountaintop removal permits by his EPA. I thought he was a liberal, but he's just another pawn in the hands of the militarists and the moneyed interests.
'I thought he was a liberal'
He's a Democrat. There's no such thing as a liberal or progressive Democrat. They're Democrats, aka Republican Lite.
'Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.' - Pete Townsend
There are a few rare exceptions such as Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, and a few others whose names I forgot.
Yeah, and it happens every time. Carter, Clinton and now Obama. They offer us a phony alternative, then go along with the status-quo and their corporate paymasters.
Same as it ever was. It seems it is all a kabuki act, or a "good cop, bad cop" routine.
And the beat goes on...
The long coup d'etat began with the bullets to the head of John F. Kennedy who dared talk about the major priority for the world, that is, the imperative to focus on and move toward World Peace among all nations, and also who dared, by Executive Order 11110, to give back to Congress the right to generate its own coinage and printed money, thus undercutting the Federal Reserve to a degree, with--I'm assuming--the intention to do away with this private banking consortium and return economic power and strategies to the government and the people.
Assassinations and Wars later to the bogus 2000 election, filled with the same cast of characters that cut their teeth on chicancery for power grabs in the time of JFK and then LBJ, with Nixon of the late '50's lurking and consorting with these fresh-faced minions [Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove et al.] to have his chance at the Imperial Presidency, which of course he got. The 2000 selection and then the planned and carried out travesty of 9-11, escalated the take-over and here we are, just about done in.
It is clear Barack Obama is a minion. He can talk about restoring American values all he wants, but he is going to help finish the job on the United States of America, with Israel as partner and pro-Zionist cheering squads in our very own congressional bodies and administrations.
It's high gear now to that ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, governed by the elites, the financial establishments [check out the primary stockholders of the Fed] ... and the corporatocracy ... as David Rockefeller, unapologetically, describes so clearly in his memoirs as the goal.
No more of this nonsensical, messy autonomy, he says.
We've got to get it. Our 80-90 per cent apathetic countrymen/women have got to get it.
Read the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE for inspiration and for its passionate call.
In the meantime, the demise of our nation is moving right along. Oh, the play will go on: the feverish, moneyed election scenes and all that, but we are being gutted, and our Constitution is being turned into silly old pieces of paper, as GW described it. And as far as American moral values? They have been sent to the dark cellars, the dungeons, and the torture chambers. Expect a police state with big teeth.
We've got to get it ... all of us.
The 4th Reich is upon us.
peace, cm
Excellent post.
what's the big deal here? if g.g. accepts the national security act of '47 and FOIA as legit in a "democracy", whereby it's basically impossible for us to know what our gov't is doing overseas, if he accepts that "national security" framework, why complain now about a hasty ad hoc response to some torture photos?
and obama's position threatens his campaign promise for more "open gov't"? well, boo friggin' hoo. anybody thinking obama would honor that, what w/all the crap the US doing is abroad, is laughably naive.
In all of Greenwald's litany of obvious abuses of power involved with the Graham/Lindsey bill, I don't see that he mentioned once the word constitution, or the appropriate role of the courts in containing just such abuses. Is there a reason for this omission, in that a new Justice is about to undergo confirmation hearings, and the pro and con people on her nomination are equally ignoring where she would tend to come down on any abuse of executive powers cases that might come before the Court, as many such cases have come before it in the past? With a domination-minded presidency and a no-minded Congress ready to give the 500 pound gorilla Great Man "whatever he wants," one would think that the Supreme Court is the last hope (however a forlorn one) that anything like a constitutional governmnent can survive in this country. Is our constitutional form of government about to go out with a whimper because people are so terrified of the bang?
Good catch.
Unfortunately discussion and questioning regarding Sotomayor will probably begin with gay marriage and end with abortion (the narrow spectrum of dialogue allowable on cable t.v. news).
She'll be easily approved with little understanding of where she stands on the limits of executive power and government transparency.
Cygnus: Well I for one won't settle for that foregone conclusion when the effort to use the confirmation hearings as a national forum on executive abuse of powers has not even been attempted. No wonder there can't be any traction on an impeachment move when people aren't even interested in questioning a Supreme Court nominee on issues of constitutionality. I've been pushing this point in several posts on CD articles and I'm frankly not seeing many others besides yourself who see the relevance of what I'm pushing.
I'm sure that many CD readers see the relevance. It seems to me, though, that most conservative Americans are actively opposed to the basic principles of American democracy, and most liberals simply don't give a damn about them. Americans are primarily concerned with pragmatic issues, and they view questions of Constitutional law in the same way they view Euclidean geometry - abstract stuff that they don't have to know or care about. If it's not affecting their lives in the here and now, it's unimportant to them.
John, I agree that Americans have no interest in availing themselves of the rights the Constitution and bill of rights provide, but it seams to me that most Americans are not "primarily concerned with pragmatic issues". Unless the definition of pragmatic is:
Pronunciation:
\prag-ˈma-tik\
Variant(s):
also prag·mat·i·cal
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
USA brain dead couch potatoes who live only to be entertain by television while stuffing their face with fried foods (the USA)
Latin pragmaticus skilled in law or business, from Greek pragmatikos, from pragmat-, pragma deed, from prassein to do(the rest of the world)
Ask anyone about sports or who won the most votes in American Idol and they know the answer. Ask them what percentage rate they pay on their MasterCard and they don't know. You give the American public way too much credit. I'm not saying that everyone is like that but there seems to be enough of them to keep the status quo rolling strong.
Most of the people who voted for W and Obama did so because they could relate to them. They never bothered to look beyond the velvet cover. If they had Cynthia Mckinney or Ralph Nader would be the pressident of this country and the house of representatives would consist of a mix of Greens, Independents, libertarians, Dems and Repugs. The Senate and Supreme Court would take a long time to reform but Rome wasn't build in one day.
Good one Jerry...Seek and you shall find.
Thanks, Jim. I'm getting a lot of "seek and ye are a naive fool who thinks any good can come in this world" from commenters on this thread. With friends like these...
Most here on CD are very aware that the constitution is under attack. It's the great masses of the general population who are clueless (30%-50% of the country still believe Bin-Laden was in cahoots with Saddam Hussein!)
Most of the Obama supporters I talked to prior to the election were unaware of his vote on FISA and the Patriot Act (or any Constitutional issue for that matter).
We are a Constitutionally illiterate society far removed from an understanding of the document and why it came into being.
Unfortunately, most Americans still get their "news" from the corporate media. So they're hyper-aware of the horrors of a terrorist attack in the "homeland". But they have no clue what's been stolen from them in the name of keeping them "safe"...namely the entire Bill of Rights. Why? Because its almost never mentioned in the mass media.
The President swears to protect the Constitution from all enemies: foreign and DOMESTIC.
A DOMESTIC enemy to me includes someone who wants to steal all my liberties.
Their is zero chance the corporate media will facilitate an in-depth discussion of this topic during the nomination of Sotomayor.
She'll be nominated and we won't have a clue where she stands on the limits of executive power and government transparency. (Perhaps Feingold will be able to lob one question her way?)
"We are a Constitutionally illiterate society far removed from an understanding of the document and why it came into being.
Unfortunately, most Americans still get their "news" from the corporate media. So they're hyper-aware of the horrors of a terrorist attack in the "homeland". But they have no clue what's been stolen from them in the name of keeping them "safe"...namely the entire Bill of Rights. Why? Because its almost never mentioned in the mass media."
How can people be Constitutionally literate when a big portion of the public school system doesn't (and hasn't for quite some time now) even teach its students what the Constitution is? Useless stuff like courses in civics have been replaced with important things, like passing government designed/mandated standardized tests. The money the school system gets appropriated (OUR tax $$$) is directly influenced by the scores on these standardized tests. Anybody ever watched "Jay Walking" where Jay Leno goes out and asks people on the street questions a third grader should be able to answer about our government, but can't? It would be funny if it weren't so frigging SAD!!! Heck, try it yourself sometime...go out and ask someone what the three branches of our government are, or what checks and balances are, hell, ask them if California is on the Atlantic or Pacific coast for that matter. Combine a lack of education with the propaganda the corporate MSM spouts day in and day out, and you get what we have for a government. A criminal disaster.
'Most of the Obama supporters I talked to prior to the election were unaware of his vote on FISA and the Patriot Act (or any Constitutional issue for that matter).'
How true and how sad. Most Obama supporters knew next to nothing about the man they were going to vote for except that he could say 'hope and change'. They never even heard of a voting record nor did they pay any attention to what he wrote in his books or said in some of his speeches - and many STILL don't know anything about him.
Your point on the illiterate society in respects to the Constitution also rings sadly true. As my wife sometimes says when I point out such things to her 'We're all doomed'
'Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.' - Pete Townsend
I recently talked to a lot of the die-hard Obama supporters and most of them sound like partisan shills still. Some will say "oh he has to do it for national security", "he'll revise FISA", or even "give him some time". Most Obama supporters don't want to or care to know anything about him. They just want to worship him as some celebrity "toughie" Democrat. The same thing will likely happen in 2012 and the GOP will most likely put up an ultraconservative as the nominee. The Republicans want Obama to stay so that he can happily damage the name of the Democratic Party further beyond repair as if Bill Clinton didn't do enough of that already.
Sioux Rose
CYGNUS: So well-stated, and so true about the average citizen being completely unaware of what's already been lost, so long as they like the leader's smile and hear his words of comfort.
I often wonder if they're unaware out of fate or if they really chose to make it so. I come across people who purposely don't want to be aware of the issue. It's easily noticeable amongst the die-hard Obama supporters. The more aggressive they behave when I try to tell them, the more they fear the truth and will do anything to try not to know it. Raygun, Dubya, and Obama are so good at being so seductive in "personality" and convincing the public to fall hook, line, and sinker.
Great: more control by the zionists. joe lie-berman is part of a far more dangerous conspiracy. please follow this link to see what is really up:
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=251277
The White House is actively supporting a new bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman...
----------------
Remember, Obama called Joe Lieberman his mentor (upon election to the Senate) and actively campaigned for him over progressive Ned Lamont.
Easy Prediction:
The corporate media will be consumed with the lady singer from overseas and the killing of the abortion doctor. Obama's support to smash the FOIA into a million pieces will pass with hardly a mention.
Stating the Obvious:
The only thing TRANSPARENT about our government is its criminality.
Sioux Rose
CYGNUS: Well-said. And I predict that your prediction will pan out!
The statues on Mt. Rushmore should be replaced with the see no evil, hear no evil monkeys.
Sioux Rose
GK91: Right-on satire!
With the powerful examples Mr. Greenwald gives, the pattern being laid like elaborate tile is that ANY law is now essentially mutable functioning as just an extension of what the latest "unitary executive" says it means. And while Mr. Greenwald did not specify this dangerous outcome, it seems that legislation is moving in the direction of holding any who publish photos (or the damning evidence that acts as witness for the truth) or written documentation under legal investigation, or worse still cast as a "terrorist" or enemy of the state by virtue of "violating" its labyrinth of secrets.
If these rulings pass, law becomes almost totally meaningless; and when the next administration takes power it will have set as precedent, a complete misuse of the rule of law. Every tenet exists in a vacuum to award a consequence-free presidency to the next comer, who follows in the blood soaked tracks of predecessors like Bush & Co. Between their WARS based on FIXED causes, and their pretending they were good stewards of the public's money by citing the enormous numbers of persons newly blessed by home ownership, they managed to leave just as the tent collapsed. Not only are all the conspirators and perpetrators enjoying their embarassment of riches, not a one has been made to account when collateral damage of a variety of sorts has decimated the lives of millions of people (one way or another).
I remember when Rumsfeld said something about how history would judge them, but meanwhile they would make their own reality. This deception is still at work as laws are being retrofitted to serve crime and criminals, a complete and diabolical usurpation of the very CONCEPT of law itself!
Obama fooled many voters. He is nothing more than a smooth talking snake oil salesman. Because he and the DOJ are covering for war crimes, does that not make them complicit, and therefore, prosecutable?
No...no..not a snake oil salesman, but a smooth talking snake!
Any voter with a 3 digit IQ fooled themselves.
Obama's campaign speeches and Senate votes made it perfectly clear that he is a fascist. Anybody who didn't catch on was either not paying attention or in denial.
After his sterling vote on FISA, he knew he had a bunch of saps voting for him. And they're a nasty bunch - mention a third party, and they'll act like you're SATAN or something.
I voted for Nader. I'm proud of my vote. How about we let the people who voted for Obama to pay for his give-away to the banks?
Nader also is a good vote.
Oregoncharles
A great man, I might add. He will go down in history, as someone who challenged the Democratic Party and sold out Al Gore - Al Gore, the "environmentalist" who wrote a self serving book after having received from the League of Conservation Voters a measly 64% lifetime rating. A "D" grade! That's some environmentalist, eh? For comparison, John Kerry has a lifetime rating in the high 90s.
If you want further proof that Al Gore is a fraud, search the net for "Snopes tale of two houses"
I had the opportunity to meet him at a book signing event. He is a very approachable, gracious, and intelligent man.
I voted for Cynthia McKinney.
Cynthia McKinney was a great candidate.
Check out "Cynthia McKinney takes on Donald Rumsfeld" on you tube.
Cynthia McKinney was a great candidate.
Check out "Cynthia McKinney takes on Donald Rumsfeld" on you tube.
I did too, and I knew she had no chance of winning, given the phony and corrupt democratic system. I would guess that 80% of voters did not even know who she was, let alone vote for her. In the almost absent media coverage of her campaign, she was often smeared, misrepresented and cast as the lunatic fringe. What do you expect in a corporate media dictated, billion dollar election? We have the best democracy money can buy. No money, no democracy.
Now, after seeing this type of thing for decades, it might be time to demand structural changes in our system, not just window dressing. Otherwise we must be content to live in a One-Party state. It is a vicious cycle fraught with dilemmas at every turn.
socialist: amen from another frustrated McKinney supporter. Where can we get us some of that good "structural change" stuff?
d
Unfortunately those dilemmas I mentioned depend on collective action. Unless a critical mass of people demand those structural changes, there is no hope. Change can only come from the bottom-up. The Ruling Classes will not give away their power without a struggle. When material conditions deteriorate enough for that critical mass of people, they will be spurred into action. The tactics of the Ruling Class is to buy off just enough people to prevent that from happening.