Jun. 26th, 2008

unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
A Penis Festival


Marvel at the candy.

WHY don't I live in Japan,already? (And Lord would I DIE to see this in teh States. Teh explosion of fundy heads could be be heard all the way to the MOON!

Via: [profile] sansa1970

PEOPLE!!!!

Jun. 26th, 2008 06:54 pm
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
Feingold gets FISA delayed



On www.my.barackobama.com, there is a new group that has been formed to lobby him to change his vote on FISA. Join up and post on the blog! Ready? Set? GO!


Senator, PLEASE Vote against FISA



By the way, feel free to remind him of the Senator's Oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Via : Glenn Greenwald

And Senator Dodd's barn-burning speech (video there) on June 25, 2008:

ExpandBeginning )



But if you see a vast dragnet for millions of Americans’ private conversations, conducted by a government agency that acted without a warrant, acted outside of the rule of law—then, I believe, you’ll recognize what’s at stake here. You’ll see that what’s at stake is the sanctity of the law and the sanctity of our privacy. And you’ll probably come to a very different conclusion.


Maybe that sounds overdramatic. Perhaps some will ask, “What does it matter, at the end of the day, if a few corporations aren’t sued? These people sue each other all the time.”


Others may say, “This seems a small issue. Maybe the Administration went too far, but this seems like an isolated case.”


Indeed, Mr. President – as long as this case seems isolated and technical, they win. As long as it’s about another lawsuit buried in our legal system and nothing more, they win. The Administration is counting on the American people to see nothing bigger than that – “Nothing to see here.”


But there is plenty to see here, Mr. President – and it is so much more than a few phonecalls, a few companies, a few lawsuits.


What is at stake is nothing less than equal justice—justice that makes no exceptions. What is at stake is an open debate on security and liberty, and an end to warrantless, groundless spying.


This bill does not say, “Trust the American people; Trust the courts and judges and juries to come to just decisions.” Retroactive immunity sends a message that is crystal clear:


“Trust me.”


And that message comes straight from the mouth of this President. “Trust me.”


What is the basis for that trust? Classified documents, we are told, that prove the case for retroactive immunity beyond a shadow of a doubt.


But we’re not allowed to see them! I’ve served in this body for 27 years, and I’m not allowed to see them! Neither are a majority of my colleagues. We are all left in the dark.

I cannot speak for my colleagues—but I would never take “trust me” for an answer, not even in the best of times. Not even from a President on Mount Rushmore.


I can’t put it better than this:


“Trust me” government is government that asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what’s best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties.


Those words were not spoken by someone who took our nation’s security lightly, Mr. President. They were spoken by Ronald Reagan -- in 1980. They are every bit as true today, even if times of threat and fear blur our concept of transcendent values. Even if those who would exploit those times urge us to save our skins at any cost.


But again, Mr. President:



“Why should I care?”


The rule of law has rarely been in such a fragile state. Rarely has it seemed less compelling. What, after all, does the law give us anyway? It has no parades, no slogans. It lives in books and precedents. And, we are never failed to be reminded, the world is a very dangerous place.



Indeed, that is precisely the advantage seized upon, not just by this Administration but in all times, by those looking to disregard the rule of law. As James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said more than two centuries ago, “It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger…from abroad.”



With the passage of this bill, his words would be one step closer to coming true. So it has never been more essential that we lend our voices to the law, and speak on its behalf.



What is this about, Mr. President?



It’s about answering the fundamental question: do we support the rule of law…or the rule of men? To me, this is our defining question—indeed it may be the defining question that confronts every generation.



This is about far more than a few telecoms – it is about contempt for the law, large and small.



Mr. President, I’ve said that warrantless wiretapping is but the latest link in a long chain of abuses when it comes to the rule of law.



This is about the Justice Department turning our nation’s highest law enforcement offices into patronage plums, and turning the impartial work of indictments and trials into the pernicious machinations of politics.


Contempt for the rule of law.


This is about Alberto Gonzales, the nation’s now-departed Attorney General, coming before Congress to give us testimony that was at best, wrong—and at worst, outright perjury.


Contempt for the rule of law – by the nation’s foremost enforcer of the law.


This is about Congress handing the president the power to designate any individual he wants as an “unlawful enemy combatant,” hold him indefinitely, and take away his right to habeas corpus—the 700-year-old right to challenge your detention.


If you think that the Military Commissions Act struck at the heart of the Constitution, you’d be understating things—it did a pretty good job on the Magna Carta while it was at it.


And if you think that this only threatens a few of us, you should understand that the writ of habeas corpus belongs to all of us—it allows anyone to challenge their detention.


Rolling back habeas rights endangers us all: Without a day in court, how can you prove that you’re entitled to a trial? How can you prove that you are innocent? In fact, without a day in court, how can you let anyone know that you have been detained at all?


Thankfully, the Supreme Court recently rebuked the President’s lawlessness and ruled that detainees do indeed have the right to challenge their detention.


Mr. President, the Military Commissions Act also gave President Bush the power some say he wanted most of all: the power to get information out of suspected terrorists—by virtually any means.


The power to use evidence gained from torture.


Profile

unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
unusualmusic_lj_archive

February 2020

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

Expand All Cut TagsCollapse All Cut Tags
Page generated Jul. 7th, 2025 10:49 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios