Saturday, November 17, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Chris Hedges -- On Voting
"I will not vote for a Democrat. I was in there, the last
election, voting for members of the Revolutionary Socialist Party... I
didn't even know who they were. I don't care. I'm quite happy to muck up
the system but ... stop thinking that the route to reform is electoral
politics." [24:30]
The two parties in the US are completely bought and paid for by multinational corporations and the super-wealthy. They have national elections (and some local elections) completely sealed up. All this hand wringing about Dems v Repugs is nonsense. Of course it's amusing to watch Mitt piss all over himself, but it doesn't really matter. Both candidates are hand picked by big money. And I think at this point they are throwing Mitt under the bus. They are done with him. Obama can get the job done, just as well, or better. He can cut taxes on the rich (he's already done it). He can up the wars (we'll be invading Iran in no time). He can protect the interests of the big banks (almost all his cabinet members have a connection to Wall St.). And, in broad daylight, he is fighting the ruling of a NYC judge that holding people indefinitely w/o charge or trial is unconstitutional. Obama knows the constitution quite well. He knows it's unconstitutional; he just doesn't care. This is the guy they want. And why not? Why replace an effective administrator for their interests with a total screw up who ties his dog to the roof of the family truckster?
The two parties in the US are completely bought and paid for by multinational corporations and the super-wealthy. They have national elections (and some local elections) completely sealed up. All this hand wringing about Dems v Repugs is nonsense. Of course it's amusing to watch Mitt piss all over himself, but it doesn't really matter. Both candidates are hand picked by big money. And I think at this point they are throwing Mitt under the bus. They are done with him. Obama can get the job done, just as well, or better. He can cut taxes on the rich (he's already done it). He can up the wars (we'll be invading Iran in no time). He can protect the interests of the big banks (almost all his cabinet members have a connection to Wall St.). And, in broad daylight, he is fighting the ruling of a NYC judge that holding people indefinitely w/o charge or trial is unconstitutional. Obama knows the constitution quite well. He knows it's unconstitutional; he just doesn't care. This is the guy they want. And why not? Why replace an effective administrator for their interests with a total screw up who ties his dog to the roof of the family truckster?
Friday, June 8, 2012
Obama continues to fight for indefinite detention without trial
Judge says indefinitely detaining US citizens without charge or trial is unlawful. Obama administration asks the judge to reconsider this ruling.
Terrorism Detention Provision Is Blocked - NYTimes.com
Terrorism Detention Provision Is Blocked - NYTimes.com
Monday, May 21, 2012
Conspiracy Uncovered
Cigarette companies secretly formed a group which they called the National Association of State Fire Marshals to push for flame retardants in furniture. Companies that manufacture flame retardants formed an equally deceptive "advocacy" group that they called Citizens for fire safety to push for laws requiring furniture flame retardants.
These secret alliances pushing an agenda with hidden motives are conspiracies. They happen all the time. Yet, we are told, it is crazy to believe that people get together in secret to plan and to manipulate policy to suit their purposes.
Are You Safe on That Sofa? - NYTimes.com
These secret alliances pushing an agenda with hidden motives are conspiracies. They happen all the time. Yet, we are told, it is crazy to believe that people get together in secret to plan and to manipulate policy to suit their purposes.
Are You Safe on That Sofa? - NYTimes.com
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Indefinite military detention without trial struck down by NY court
New York federal district judge Katherine Forrest yesterday struck
down a provision in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Bill, signed
into law by President Obama on New Year's Eve of last year, that would allow the US military to indefinitely detain anyone, without charge or trial, indefinitely.
The lawsuit was brought against President Barack Obama and other government officials by seven journalists and activists including Christopher Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, Jennifer Bolen, Alexa O'Brien, Kai Warg All, and Hon. Brigitta Jonsdottier, M.P., as well as US Day of Rage. The plaintiffs charged that the law was already having chilling effect on free speech by exposing them to the risk of imprionment without trial. The judge ruled that the legislation indeed violates both the first (right to free speech and association) and the fifth (right to due process) amendments to the Constitution.
Columnist Glenn Greenwald, a steadfast critic of post 9/11 federal courts, almost immediately lauded the decision, calling it "extraordinary and encouraging." Greenwald has consistently criticized the President's signing of NDAA, but said that he had not covered the lawsuit in his writings, saying frankly that he hadn't expected it to succeed. Other critics of the legislation have included Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar (retired four-star Marine generals), Jonathan Turley (professor of law at George Washinton University), the ACLU, and Human Rights Watch.
This is an amazing victory. However, despite Greenwald's enthusiastic support of the decision, the constitutional lawyer was careful to note that "this is only a preliminary injunction (though the court made it clear that she believes plaintiffs will ultimately prevail). It will certainly be appealed and can be reversed. There are still other authorities (including the AUMF) which the DOJ can use to assert the power of indefinite detention."
Thank you for reading the Newark Progressive Examiner. To keep up to date on issues affecting New Jersey, click "subscribe" above. It's free. You can also find the Newark Progressive Examiner on Facebook.
The lawsuit was brought against President Barack Obama and other government officials by seven journalists and activists including Christopher Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, Jennifer Bolen, Alexa O'Brien, Kai Warg All, and Hon. Brigitta Jonsdottier, M.P., as well as US Day of Rage. The plaintiffs charged that the law was already having chilling effect on free speech by exposing them to the risk of imprionment without trial. The judge ruled that the legislation indeed violates both the first (right to free speech and association) and the fifth (right to due process) amendments to the Constitution.
Columnist Glenn Greenwald, a steadfast critic of post 9/11 federal courts, almost immediately lauded the decision, calling it "extraordinary and encouraging." Greenwald has consistently criticized the President's signing of NDAA, but said that he had not covered the lawsuit in his writings, saying frankly that he hadn't expected it to succeed. Other critics of the legislation have included Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar (retired four-star Marine generals), Jonathan Turley (professor of law at George Washinton University), the ACLU, and Human Rights Watch.
This is an amazing victory. However, despite Greenwald's enthusiastic support of the decision, the constitutional lawyer was careful to note that "this is only a preliminary injunction (though the court made it clear that she believes plaintiffs will ultimately prevail). It will certainly be appealed and can be reversed. There are still other authorities (including the AUMF) which the DOJ can use to assert the power of indefinite detention."
Thank you for reading the Newark Progressive Examiner. To keep up to date on issues affecting New Jersey, click "subscribe" above. It's free. You can also find the Newark Progressive Examiner on Facebook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)