Rep. John Kline (R-MN) was elevated to the top minority spot on the House Education and Labor Committee not because he has any expertise in education or much knowledge about economics and labor. No, he was the highest ranking available Republican not tainted by scandals involving prostitutes, diapers, corruption or some combination thereof.
So consider this little snippet of Kline displaying his ignorance in a New Hampshire newspaper:
Voting yes: Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes, both Democrats.
Abusive student discipline: Voting 262 for and 153 against, the House on Wednesday passed a bill (HR 4247) setting federal standards and authorizing grants to states to curb the abusive discipline of K-12 students in public and private schools. Now before the Senate, the bill addresses practices such as duct-taping and other forcible restraints that inflict harm, seclusion in locked rooms and the application of drugs not prescribed by the student's doctor. The bill would extend to schools the same federal protection against physical abuse that applies to hospitals and other community institutions receiving federal funds.
Rep. George Miller, a Democrat from California, said: "When these abuses occur, it isn't just the individual victim who suffers. It hurts their classmates who witness these traumatizing events. It undermines the vast majority of teachers and staff who are trying to give students a quality education. It's a nightmare for everyone involved."
Rep. John Kline, a Republican from Minnesota, said the bill infringes on state authority and is "an invitation to trial lawyers who will eagerly take every opportunity to sue school districts. . . . In fact, there's a very real danger that schools will stop addressing safety issues entirely out of fear they could be sued."
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
This bill is to prevent restraining kids with duct tape, locking in closets or restraining kids in ways that torture or even lead to killing children.
Kline is more concerned about trial attorneys than he is with the safety of our nation's children.
You may recall from my rant last week about how the Minneapolis Star Tribune will not frontpage any bad news concerning Republicans. Well here's something that I guarantee will not make the paper:
Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, U.S.A. has filed a Complaint with the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) in The Hague against U.S. citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales (the "Accused") for their criminal policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition" perpetrated upon about 100 human beings. This term is really their euphemism for the enforced disappearance of persons and their consequent torture. This criminal policy and practice by the Accused constitute Crimes against Humanity in violation of the Rome Statute establishing the I.C.C.
The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute. Nevertheless the Accused have ordered and been responsible for the commission of I.C.C. statutory crimes within the respective territories of many I.C.C. member states, including several in Europe. Consequently, the I.C.C. has jurisdiction to prosecute the Accused for their I.C.C. statutory crimes under Rome Statute article 12(2)(a) that affords the I.C.C. jurisdiction to prosecute for I.C.C. statutory crimes committed in I.C.C. member states.
(Daily Kos)
While neither the news columns of the StarTribune nor the idiot box's news shows ever mention the phrase, a small group of us are demanding accountability for torture. Virtually every weekday since Nov. 12, 2009, we have conducted a daily one-hour vigil in front of the U.S. Courthouse, otherwise known as the Federal Building, in Minneapolis. B. Todd Jones, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota, has his offices in that building. Regrettably, Mr. Jones has forgotten we are a nation of laws. Usually the vigil is only a single person, dressed in an orange jumpsuit and a black hood, with a sign and sometimes with leaflets.
Our efforts have had to confront the "what-First-Amendment?" response of court security personnel. I was the guinea pig on the first day of the vigil. After about ten minutes sitting there with my sign that said "I Am Waiting" on one side and "For Justice" on the other, three guards approached me from different angles and asked me to remove my hood. They frisked me, asked for an i.d., refused to let me go retrieve a cap that I had a half block away (it was cold and windy that day), checked me for federal warrants, and told me I couldn't wear the hood. I told them about the First Amendment and that people had been wearing such hoods in demonstrations all across the country, even in front of the White House. The fellow in charge told me there was a Minnesota law prohibiting it, and that even if a lawyer argued the Minnesota law didn't apply, I couldn't wear the hood because it was alarming to people. I asked if my sign and orange jumpsuit alarmed people, would I have to stop using them as well? He said he would talk to those people instead. I suggested that if there were any place that the First Amendment should apply, surely it would apply in front of the Federal Building.
This Saturday, a time bomb will start ticking. The eight-year statute-of-limitations period applicable to the Federal Torture Statute will soon expire. Then, for time immemorial, it will be official: If you torture or conspire to torture in the name of the United States of America, no consequences will follow. We will have officially sanctioned torture.
Why this Saturday? On January 9, 2002, a memo not as well known as the so-called "torture memos" was completed by John Yoo and Robert Delahunty. Addressed to Defense Department General Counsel William Haynes II, and titled "Application of Laws and Treaties to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees," it is one scary memo. It may be the first evidence of our national policy of torture, what Major General Antonio Taguba, the man selected by the Pentagon to report on Abu Ghraib, called "a systematic regime of torture." The John Yoo and Jay Bybee memos that followed in August of 2002, with their it's-not-torture-until-organ-failure-occurs, have gotten much more publicity. But the Jan. 9 memo, written in much less inflammatory legalese, was the memo that may well have given the green light for torture. This is where the conspiracy to torture may have begun. Here's why.
You guessed right if you guessed the problem with the right's assertion that constitutional rights apply only to citizens is most rights apply to persons, not citizens. Take partial credit if you guessed some rights are granted under treaties, since treaties are law and we have ratified human rights treaties addressing the treatment of prisoners. However, even if we hadn't ratified any such treaties, non-citizens would still be protected under the Constitution.
If you want to hear it from people with actual credentials as constitutional experts, here's a transcript of a panel discussion on the rights of non-citizens held by the American Constitution Society. It you read the transcript, what's striking is how assumed it is that non-citizens are protected, even by a panelist from the Bush administration.
Here's that same assumption in an interview with a constitutional law professor posted on Free Republic. Seriously, yes, that Free Republic, though the comments were less than supportive. I noticed though the commenters just didn't like non-citizens having rights. They didn't actually dispute that they do, I suppose because if even a fringe site like that admits it, it's tough not to believe it.
However, you can see this yourself in the text of the Constitution.
(This should be a good one! - promoted by Joe Bodell)
One of the common defenses conservatives make for using torture and illegal imprisonment (secret detention, imprisonment without charge or trial, no access to lawyers, secret evidence, etc.) is that only citizens have constitutional rights. At least they're acknowledging that citizens have some rights, even if they can't name any except the right to own guns. Still when it comes to how we treat terrorism suspects, they have only such rights as we choose to give them at our whim, so there's no right to complain about the conditions of their imprisonment or the conduct of their trials, even if prisoners are tortured.
Though I've been having fun with debunking the right, I see a need to debunk something on the left too. Specifically, I'm referring to this moroseness afflicting many of us who were getting ready to party a year ago as we looked forward to a new Congress and new president. Plenty has gone wrong this year, sure. We poured our personal wealth and elbow grease into electing people who in some cases have disappointed us. It seems we're always having to give up something really good in hopes of getting just something.
However, a lot has gone right in this year ending tonight, more than many of us have recognized. The health care bill has sucked the air out of the proverbial room. More troops heading to Afghanistan has grabbed most of the attention available for foreign policy. The biggest complaint of many on the left, me included, has been the continuation of Bush policies in regard to civil liberties and human rights.
It's been long enough since I posted part 2 (and here's part 1) that I felt a need to explain the point of these posts again. My own experience is I thought this would be one post, and I was surprised when I finished part two that there was plenty for a part 3.
That's a good thing.
What got me to finally get on this today is something I just learned, and that I'm pretty sure is not common knowledge, but should be. Ever wondered why the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, but the Voting Rights Act was passed separately in 1965? Because the only way to get the Civil Rights Act past the conservative (including the dixiecrats who make up the base of the modern GOP) filibuster was to drop voting rights. Voting rights? And we thought dropping the public option was tough! But voting rights got through the next year, so don't anyone despair about having to do things incrementally.
So let's get started, and I think I'll start with what I expect will be the most controversial silver lining (you can tell me in comments if I'm right), the things that went right in regard to war crimes, human rights and civil liberties.
Minnesota's foremost proponent of torture, Robert Delahunty may get off the hook. The University of Saint Thomas Law School professor may get off the hook because his collaborator on the infamous torture memo, John Yoo, may get off the hook as well. This memo was critical in the Bush Administration's rationalization that the Geneva conventions against torture didn't apply to people capture in the War on Terror.
The Holder Justice Department has filed a sweeping amicus brief in the Padilla v. Yoo case before the Ninth Circuit, seeking to make absolute the immunity granted Justice Department lawyers who counsel torture, disappearings, and other crimes against humanity. The case was brought by Jose Padilla, who claims that he was tortured as the direct result of memoranda written by Yoo, now a law professor at Berkeley. At this stage, the case does not address the factual basis of Padilla's claims, but documents that have been declassified by the Department of Justice make it clear that the charges have a firm basis in fact. Here's the portion of the opinion authored by a lifelong Republican, Bush-appointed judge that the Justice Department found so objectionable:
"Like any other government official, government lawyers are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct...."
The Holder Justice Department insists that they are absolutely not responsible, and that they are free to act according to a far lower standard of conduct than that which governs Americans generally. Indeed, this has emerged as a sort of ignoble mantra for the Justice Department, uniting both the Bush and Obama administrations.
(Harper's)
This is yet another instance of where Hope and Change meet the same ol' same old. Keith Olbermann discussed this on Countdown tonight with Jonathan Turley.
We are running out of time. In 2002, the United States began an official policy of torture. It was "legalized," authorized and ordered at the highest levels of our government.
Torture and conspiracy to torture are federal crimes. 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2340 and 2340A is the federal statute that criminalizes torture. The statute of limitations is eight years, which means that starting some time in 2010, those who conspired to torture in 2002 will no longer be prosecutable under the torture statute.
The evidence that we tortured people is overwhelming. Major General Antonio Taguba wrote in a 2008 preface to a "Physicians for Human Rights" report that "the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture." FBI Guantanamo interrogator, Ali Soufan, reported "borderline torture" to his superiors in Washington. Judge Susan Crawford, the convening authority for the Guantanamo military commissions, said earlier this year, "We tortured Qahtani. His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case [for prosecution]." (The Washington Post, January 14, 2009)
Yet not one single person has been charged for these and numerous other crimes. The statute of limitations will soon begin to expire. We will then become a nation that officially sanctions torture.
The Convention Against Torture requires President Obama and Attorney General Holder to investigate allegations where there is a "reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed." The U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota, B. Todd Jones, whose office is on the 6th floor of the U.S. Courthouse in Minneapolis, also has jurisdiction. So far, none of them seems to recognize we are a nation of laws.
This Thursday, Dec. 10, is Human Rights Day. Tackling Torture at the Top, a committee of WAMM, will be protesting the lack of investigation, let alone prosecution, of the torture and conspiracy to torture committed in our names.
This multi-part Demonstration Against Torture will occur at the U.S. Courthouse in Minneapolis, 300 South 4th St. You are welcome to participate in any or all of it.
a) Meet at 11:00 a.m. in front of the Federal Courthouse (300 So Fourth Street, Minneapolis) to obtain leaflets and/or orange jumpsuit/black hood attire and signs if you want. From about 11:00 a.m. to 11:45 a.m., those of us in orange "Close Guantanamo" jumpsuits will individually (or in small groups) walk around the downtown area, with signs and/or leaflets.
b) At 11:45 we will gather back in front of the U.S. Courthouse in a silent protest of the torture committed on detainees around the world and the lack of prosecution for those complicit in this torture. Some people may individually, but not as part of the "Tackling Torture at the Top" group, attempt to wear the black hoods, which are symbolic of what the detainees have been forced to wear. (Note: People have worn such hoods in peaceful protests all across the country, including in front of the White House and at the large march at the start of the RNC in St. Paul, as expressive communication protected by the First Amendment. But Court Security has previously advised that wearing a hood could violate a State anti-mask law or that it could be alarming.)
c) After a short time of silent demonstration (aprox. 30 minutes), some people will attempt to turn themselves in to the federal authorities at the Courthouse for our own complicity in the torture committed in our names. People will describe their confessions to any media outside and hopefully to the authorities inside the U.S. Attorney's office on the sixth floor.
Orange jumpsuits are available for purchase ($10) or to borrow if you'd like to participate this way in the Human Rights Day demonstration, but feel free to come watch and support in your normal dress too.
Tackling Torture at the Top (T3), after successfully chasing Condoleezza Rice out of town, returned to its work at the University of St. Thomas Law School and Prof. Robert Delahunty of the-Geneva-Conventions-do-not-apply-to-al-Qaeda-and-Taliban-detainees fame. At the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, he co-authored that memo, and several others, with John Yoo.
Last Saturday morning, St. Thomas Law School held an open house for prospective law students. We T3ers attended too. We had our banners, our signs, our orange jumpsuits and black hoods, and our leaflets with a quote from a 2005 Delahunty-Yoo article: "The Geneva Convention makes little sense when applied to a terrorist group or a pseudo-state. If we must fight these kinds of enemies, we must create a new set of rules. In that important respect, the Geneva Convention will become increasingly obsolete."
The first war criminal to visit Minnesota since the infamous RNC dropped in to Beth El Synagogue, Sunday, November 8 for a big time fund raiser. Condoleezza Rice, the queen of torture, helped build the coffers of the synagogue and her own pocket with a private discussion with a few hundred close contributors. A dedicated group of peace lovers and torture detesters (150 or so) gathered to welcome her appropriately, peacefully and piercingly.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Several dozen cameras covered the outside events and a few were allowed in. According to footage aired by the MSM, no recording was permitted of her remarks. Don Shelby introduced her and Norm Coleman was seen in rapt attention.
(Coleen will be giving a quick update on these issues tonight on the "Minnesota Matters - Friday Edition" on AM-950 KTNF - the show runs from 6 to 7pm - promoted by TwoPuttTommy)
I've been sending out a weekly e-mail describing upcoming peace events for some time now, so thought it might be good to also publish it on the MPP. Hopefully the "Minnesota Matters" AM 950 radio show with Tommy Two Putt, the Big E and their friends will find a few minutes on Fridays to talk about some of the upcoming events too.
Upcoming Peace Events
Free speech is important every day of the year, but on Halloween it takes some interesting forms.
(An exceptionally important story - and a call to action, too. - promoted by TwoPuttTommy)
This past summer, Beth El Synagogue in St. Louis Park invited former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to appear in its National Speaker Series on Nov. 8. Starting in mid-July, Phil Freshman, a synagogue member, tried to raise through internal channels his concerns about the invitation and was rebuffed at every turn. He submitted an open letter to the Shofar, Beth El's monthly newsletter -- not allowed. He tried to distribute his letter by leaving copies around the synagogue -- not permitted. He asked for ten minutes to discuss the issue at the synagogue's annual meeting in August -- forget it. So he went public, first in the Minnesota-wide bi-weekly, the American Jewish World, on Sept. 18, and then in the Sept. 23 edition of the StarTribune. The synagogue now is justifying its invitation of the Secretary on the ground that it seeks dialogue on difficult issues. Some of that dialogue appeared here earlier. And the dialogue continues. A synagogue officer responded to Phil in the American Jewish World on Sept. 30:
(I think the word for "twisty and turny" is TORTUOUS -- but the play on words is nevertheless a stroke of genius, as is the use of the simple "if a=b and b=c, then a=c" logical construct on the poor staffer. Great work! - promoted by Joe Bodell)
Some time ago I wrote of my mission to get my Congressman and our two Judiciary-Committee-member Senators to say they supported the prosecution of torturers.
I made considerable progress yesterday. I called the Washington office of Senator Klobuchar, and after some discussion with a staff member, she told me the Senator does support enforcement of the federal laws currently on the books. I then asked if there were federal laws against torture on the books. She agreed there probably were. Then I asked her to take that monumental next step -- just like from "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man." to "Socrates is mortal." -- to the Senator supports the prosecution of torturers. I was so, so close, but the leap was just too much for her.
Torturous progress, but progress nonetheless. Next time, though, I'll probably get a different staff member and have to start over from scratch.
