A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company's owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince 'views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe,' and that Prince's companies 'encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life.'
Showing posts with label face the nation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label face the nation. Show all posts
Aug 6, 2009
Blackwater Founder Implicated in Murder
Jeremy Scahill has the story in The Nation:
Jul 11, 2008
This Supreme Court Might Let FISA Stand
The ACLU, joined by numerous co-plaintiffs, has filed a challenge to the FISA law.
Thh ACLU brief asserts that the FISA is unconstitutional, allowing "the executive branch sweeping and virtually unregulated authority to monitor the international communications - and in some cases the purely domestic communications - of law-abiding U.S. citizens and residents. The amended law (the "challenged law") eviscerates the "[c]lear legal standards and effective oversight and controls" that the Senate Church Committee concluded in 1978 were necessary to ensure that government surveillance did "not itself undermine the democratic system it [was] intended to protect." [Amnesty International USA et al v. John McConnell (U.S. Director of National Intelligence) et al, complaint for a Declaratatory and Injunctive Relief]
The Bush-Cheney acceleration of warrantless surveillance and presidential claims of executive power to spy on American citizens under the umbrella of national security and the inherent power of the presidency has modern U.S. precedent—the Nixon administration.
But 1972 saw a unanimous Supreme Court shoot down Nixon’s attempt to legalize his monarchical claims of his presidency through warrantless wiretapping in UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972).
Justice Lewis Powell, writing for a unanimous Court, denounced the Nixon administration’s warrantless wiretapping program not just on Fourth Amendment grounds, but as a betrayal of the sovereign rights of citizens in a democracy to criticize their own government.
History abundantly documents the tendency of Government - however benevolent and benign its motives - to view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies. Fourth Amendment protections become the more necessary when the targets of official surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect ‘domestic security.’ Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. ... The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjection to an unchecked surveillance power. Nor must the fear of unauthorized official eavesdropping deter vigorous citizen dissent and discussion of Government action in private conversation. For private dissent, no less than open public discourse, is essential to our free society.
- Justice Lewis Powell (UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972))
One wonders if today's Supreme Court will vote to protect Fourth Amendment freedoms as did its predecessor. We live in different, worse, times than we did during Nixon.
- Part of the above copy has been previously published. -
Thh ACLU brief asserts that the FISA is unconstitutional, allowing "the executive branch sweeping and virtually unregulated authority to monitor the international communications - and in some cases the purely domestic communications - of law-abiding U.S. citizens and residents. The amended law (the "challenged law") eviscerates the "[c]lear legal standards and effective oversight and controls" that the Senate Church Committee concluded in 1978 were necessary to ensure that government surveillance did "not itself undermine the democratic system it [was] intended to protect." [Amnesty International USA et al v. John McConnell (U.S. Director of National Intelligence) et al, complaint for a Declaratatory and Injunctive Relief]
The Bush-Cheney acceleration of warrantless surveillance and presidential claims of executive power to spy on American citizens under the umbrella of national security and the inherent power of the presidency has modern U.S. precedent—the Nixon administration.
But 1972 saw a unanimous Supreme Court shoot down Nixon’s attempt to legalize his monarchical claims of his presidency through warrantless wiretapping in UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972).
Justice Lewis Powell, writing for a unanimous Court, denounced the Nixon administration’s warrantless wiretapping program not just on Fourth Amendment grounds, but as a betrayal of the sovereign rights of citizens in a democracy to criticize their own government.
History abundantly documents the tendency of Government - however benevolent and benign its motives - to view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies. Fourth Amendment protections become the more necessary when the targets of official surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect ‘domestic security.’ Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. ... The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjection to an unchecked surveillance power. Nor must the fear of unauthorized official eavesdropping deter vigorous citizen dissent and discussion of Government action in private conversation. For private dissent, no less than open public discourse, is essential to our free society.
- Justice Lewis Powell (UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972))
One wonders if today's Supreme Court will vote to protect Fourth Amendment freedoms as did its predecessor. We live in different, worse, times than we did during Nixon.
- Part of the above copy has been previously published. -
Mar 23, 2008
Turning the Corner in Iraq
Iraq still has many corners.
Rightwing Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) just said on Face the Nation that we have "turned a corner" in Iraq, an ridiculous assertion that goes unchallenged by the young Bob Schieffer clone masquerading as a journalist this morning.
Those not vested in the lie that is the Iraq War know fully well that administration liars have been saying this for years now.
Hundreds of examples of corner-turning, turning-point, real-progress, yada yada lies can be listed from the inception of this imbecilic war, but these below ought to suffice:
- Turning the Corner in Iraq, Democrats are ignoring real progress (National Review Online, (April 13, 2007)
From May 1, 2006, ThinkProgress:
BUSH: A turning point will come in less than two weeks. On June the 30th, full sovereignty will be transferred to the interim government. The Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, an American embassy will open in the capital of a free Iraq. [6/18/04]
The January 2005 Iraq election:
BUSH: Tomorrow the world will witness a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom, and a crucial advance in the war on terror. The Iraqi people will make their way to polling centers across their nation. [1/29/05]
MCCLELLAN: The election is a victory for the Iraqi people. It’s a significant step forward for freedom and it is a defeat for the terrorists and their ideology. It marks a turning point in Iraq’s history and a great advance toward a brighter future for all Iraqis, one that stands in stark contrast to the brutality and oppression of the past. [1/31/05]
CHENEY: The basic point, and one I’ve made already that I believe that the elections were the turning point. And we had that election in January — first free election in Iraq in decades. [12/18/05]
All of 2005:
BUSH: There’s still a lot of difficult work to be done in Iraq, but thanks to the courage of the Iraqi people, the year 2005 will be recorded as a turning point in the history of Iraq, the history of the Middle East, and the history of freedom. [12/12/05]
CHENEY: I think about when we look back and get some historical perspective on this period, I’ll believe that the period we were in through 2005 was, in fact, a turning point; that putting in place a democratic government in Iraq was the - sort of the cornerstone, if you will, of victory against the insurgents. [2/7/06]
Last year about this time, As Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) said, “When you’ve ‘turned the corner’ in Iraq more times than Danica Patrick at the Indy 500, it means you are going in circles.”
Rightwing Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) just said on Face the Nation that we have "turned a corner" in Iraq, an ridiculous assertion that goes unchallenged by the young Bob Schieffer clone masquerading as a journalist this morning.
Those not vested in the lie that is the Iraq War know fully well that administration liars have been saying this for years now.
Hundreds of examples of corner-turning, turning-point, real-progress, yada yada lies can be listed from the inception of this imbecilic war, but these below ought to suffice:
- Turning the Corner in Iraq, Democrats are ignoring real progress (National Review Online, (April 13, 2007)
From May 1, 2006, ThinkProgress:
President Bush today called the formation of a new Iraqi government "a turning point" after hearing from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld about their weekend meeting with that country’s prime minister designate. (NYT, Bush Hails a 'Turning Point' in Iraq, May 1, 2006)The 2004 transfer of sovereignty:
BUSH: A turning point will come in less than two weeks. On June the 30th, full sovereignty will be transferred to the interim government. The Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, an American embassy will open in the capital of a free Iraq. [6/18/04]
The January 2005 Iraq election:
BUSH: Tomorrow the world will witness a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom, and a crucial advance in the war on terror. The Iraqi people will make their way to polling centers across their nation. [1/29/05]
MCCLELLAN: The election is a victory for the Iraqi people. It’s a significant step forward for freedom and it is a defeat for the terrorists and their ideology. It marks a turning point in Iraq’s history and a great advance toward a brighter future for all Iraqis, one that stands in stark contrast to the brutality and oppression of the past. [1/31/05]
CHENEY: The basic point, and one I’ve made already that I believe that the elections were the turning point. And we had that election in January — first free election in Iraq in decades. [12/18/05]
All of 2005:
BUSH: There’s still a lot of difficult work to be done in Iraq, but thanks to the courage of the Iraqi people, the year 2005 will be recorded as a turning point in the history of Iraq, the history of the Middle East, and the history of freedom. [12/12/05]
CHENEY: I think about when we look back and get some historical perspective on this period, I’ll believe that the period we were in through 2005 was, in fact, a turning point; that putting in place a democratic government in Iraq was the - sort of the cornerstone, if you will, of victory against the insurgents. [2/7/06]
Last year about this time, As Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) said, “When you’ve ‘turned the corner’ in Iraq more times than Danica Patrick at the Indy 500, it means you are going in circles.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)