You wonder if they are jonquils, if she favors
Daffodils, if you or someone else remembered
Not to say, "get well soon", as the nurse arrived.
You recollect that no other distance comes first.
And she was the first to give that fear a name:
A fear of what is, the person you fear to become.
You cannot imagine her in that hospital room,
Her hair turned gray, a nimble thread pulled out,
A kind of quicksilver held between your fingers.
No less enduring than now, her matchless eyes:
Transparent, small, revealed by cautious eyelids
She draws like blinds to shelter herself somehow.
The moonlight settles on her mother's house
With outlines of opal that trace the fluttering trees.
The crossroad flashes and flags the slowing train.
The thrill and the vertigo could not go quietly.
Between exultant lips, she fathoms the risk
For both of you, as she awaits your kiss.
Sunday, February 29, 2004
Friday, February 27, 2004
Saturday, February 21, 2004
NOW YOU SEE HIM, NOW YOU DON'T
by Grayson.
12:53 p>m> EST
"MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. The President, a short time ago, concluded his meeting with some economic leaders. This was a good discussion about the steps that we have taken to strengthen our economy even more, so that we can create as robust an environment as possible for job creation.
A lot of the issues that were discussed centered on addressing rising health care costs, promoting trade, making the tax cuts permanent, and passing a comprehensive energy plan. Those are all important parts of the President's six-point plan to strengthen our economy even more.
And that's the quick readout from the meeting. With that, I'll be glad to go right into your questions.
Q. On the attendance records of the National Guard, it said he had 56 out of a required 50 points. Is that considered a good attendance record, do you know? Or do you know what the maximum number of points you can get--
MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, we were pleased to be able to provide you all with these additional records that just recently came to our attention. These documents clearly show that the President fulfilled his duties. And we had previously released some of the point summaries that you are referencing. There is more complete information relating to those point summaries that document the fact that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties when he was serving in the National Guard back in the early 70's.
Q. Scott, a couple of questions I have---the records that you handed out today, and other records that exist, indicate that the President did not perform any Guard duty during the months of December 1972, February and March of '73. I'm wondering if you can tell us where he was during that period. And also, how is it that he managed to not make the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, the records that you're pointing to, these records are the payroll records; they're the point summaries. These records verify that he met the requirements necessary to fulfill his duties. These records--
Q. That wasn't my question, Scott.
MR. McCLELLAN: These payroll records--
Q. Scott, that wasn't my question, and you know it wasn't my question. Where was he in December of '72, February and March of '73? And why did he not fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status?
MR. McCLELLAN: These records--these records I'm holding here clearly document the President fulfilling his duties in the National Guard. The President was proud of his service. The President--
Q. I asked a simple question; how about a simple answer?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, if you'll let me address the question, I'm coming to your answer, and I'd like--
Q. Well, if you would address it--maybe you could.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, John. But this is an important issue that some chose to raise in the context of an election year, and the facts are important for people to know. And if you don't want to know the facts, that's fine. But I want to share the facts with you.
Q. I do want to know the facts, which is why I keep asking the question. And I'll ask it one more time. Where was he in December of '72, February and March of '73? Why didn't he fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status in 1972?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President recalls serving both when he was in Texas and when he was in Alabama. And that is what I can tell you. And we have provided you these documents that show clearly that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties. And that is the reason that he was honorably discharged from the National Guard. The President was proud of his service.
Q. Scott, when Senator Kerry goes around campaigning, there's frequently what they call "a band of brothers," a bunch of soldiers who served with him, who come forward and give testimonials for him. I see, in looking at our files in the campaign of 2000, it said that you were looking for people who served with the President to verify his account of service in the National Guard. Has the White House been able to find, like Senator Kerry, "a band of brothers" or others who can testify about the President's service?
MR. McCLELLAN: All the information that we have we shared with you in 2000, that was relevant to this issue. And all the additional information that has come to our attention we have shared with you. The President was asked about this in his interview over the weekend, and the President made it clear, yes, I want all records to be made available that are relevant to this issue; that there are some out there that were making outrageous, baseless accusations. It was a shame that they brought it up four years ago. It was a shame that they brought it up again this year. And I think that the facts are very clear from these documents. These documents--the payroll records and the point summaries verify that he was paid for serving and that he met his requirements.
Q. Actually, I wasn't talking about documents, I was talking about people--you know, comrades-in-arms--
MR. McCLELLAN: Right. That's why I said everything that came to our attention that was available, we made available at that time, during the 2000 campaign.
Q. But you said you were looking for people--and I take it you didn't find any people?
MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, obviously, we would have made people available. And we--Mr. Lloyd, who has provided a statement to put some of this into context for everybody, made some public statements during that time period to verify the records that the President had fulfilled his duties. And he put out an additional statement now to put this into context. He's someone with some technical expertise and someone that understands these matters, because he was in the National Guard at the time.
Q. Scott, can I follow on this, because I do think this is important. You know, it might strike some as odd that there isn't anyone who can stand up and say, I served with George W. Bush in Alabama, or in Houston in the Guard unit. Particularly because there are people, his superiors who have stepped forward--in Alabama and in Houston--who have said in the past several years that they have no recollection of him being there and serving. So isn't that odd that nobody--you can't produce anyone to corroborate what these records purport to show?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, we're talking about some 30 years ago. You are perfectly welcome to go back and talk to individuals from that time period. But these documents--
Q. Hey, we're trying. But I would have thought you guys would have had a real good handle on--
MR. McCLELLAN: --these documents make it very clear that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties--
Q. Well, that's subject to interpretation.
MR. McCLELLAN: No. When you serve, you are paid for that service. And these documents outline the days on which he was paid. That means he served. And these documents also show that he met his requirements. And it's just really a shame that people are continuing to bring this issue up. When--
Q. I understand--
MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, no, no. People asked for records to be released that would demonstrate he met his requirements. The records have now been fully released. The facts are clear--
Q. Do you know that a lot of these payroll records are--
MR. McCLELLAN: --the facts are clear--
Q. --you can't read them. Have you looked at these? You can't--how are we supposed to read these?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you can talk--one, we put it out on email. It's a lot easier to read, I think, on the email version because that was the--
Q. Oh, you did put it on our email?
MR. McCLELLAN: We are going to, if we haven't already. But it was sent to us in email form from the Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado.
Q. One other thing on this. To corroborate these records, will the President do two things--one, will he authorize the relevant defense agency in Colorado to release actual pay stubs for the President? And if those don't exist, will the President file a form, as he can do at the IRS, to at least look for a '72 or '73 tax return that would corroborate what you claim are payroll summaries that he actually got paid for his duty?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think this information is his payroll records. It is my understanding this is the information that is available from his payroll records. And it shows the days on which he was paid. So that's the information that I understand is available. In terms of tax returns, the President, like most Americans, does not have his tax returns from some 30 years ago.
Q. But it's possible that he could file a form requesting the IRS to search if they have a return for '72 or '73. Is he willing to do that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Obviously, if there's any additional information that came to our attention that was relevant, we would make that information available.
Q. Well, it could be relevant if he would file a form--
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that these documents clearly show that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties. I mean, these were the documents that people questioned and said should be made available. And we went back to double-check. We thought we had all the information that existed previously, but we went back to double-check after the comments that were made over the weekend, to see if there was any additional information available. And when we contacted the Personnel Center in Colorado, it was our understanding that the Personnel Center in St. Louis and Colorado were already working to put this information together, and that this is the information that they have that is relevant to this topic.
Q. So it's your position and it's the President's position that these documents put this issue to rest, period?
MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, I think these documents show that he fulfilled his duties. These documents show that he met his requirements.
Q. Scott, two questions, one on the documents, one on the issue. There seems to be a discrepancy now in the President's record that I wondered if you could help me with. These documents that you're holding up show that the President showed up for duty in October and November of '72, January, April and May of '73. But the President's officer effectiveness report, filed by his commanders, Lieutenants Colonel Killean and Harris, both now deceased, for the period 01 May '72 to 30 April, '73, says he has not been observed at this unit, where he was supposed to show up and earning these points on these days. How do you square--
MR. McCLELLAN: You're talking about which unit?
Q. The Texas--at the Ellington Air Force Base.
MR. McCLELLAN: From '72 TO '73?
Q. Correct. And certainly by--the President said he returned to Texas in November of '72. So some of these dates of service, which are in these records, ought to have been noted by his commanding officers, who, nevertheless, said, twice, he has not been observed here. Can you explain that?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure about these specific documents. I'll be glad to take a look at them. But these documents show the days on which he was paid for his service. And the President--as I've said, and we previously said during the 2000 campaign--recalls serving both in Texas and in Alabama during the time period you're bringing up.
Q. So he served, but his commanding officers didn't know it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I don't know the specific documents you're referring to. If you want to bring those to me, I'll be glad to take a look at them and get you the answers to your questions.
Q. Okay. Then on the general issue, Senator Kerry has said that the National Guard was one way for people to avoid service in Vietnam. The President and the White House have taken umbrage at that, saying that's denigrating the National Guard. In 1994, the President told the Houston Chronicle, in relation to his joining the National Guard, "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment, nor was I willing to go to Canada, so I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." It sounds like the President, himself, acknowledged that he went into the National Guard because he didn't want to go to Vietnam.
MR. McCLELLAN: The President--again, Terry, this issue has been addressed fully. Now, we're trying to change into different issues here. The President was proud of his service in the National Guard. He fulfilled his duties; he was honorably. . . BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. . . ."
Well, I think we can see where this is going, now. Normally, you have to pay good money for theatre like this. But you can see more of this tangled web for no extra charge. Just turn your blog finder to Press Briefing by Scott McClellan.
12:53 p>m> EST
"MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. The President, a short time ago, concluded his meeting with some economic leaders. This was a good discussion about the steps that we have taken to strengthen our economy even more, so that we can create as robust an environment as possible for job creation.
A lot of the issues that were discussed centered on addressing rising health care costs, promoting trade, making the tax cuts permanent, and passing a comprehensive energy plan. Those are all important parts of the President's six-point plan to strengthen our economy even more.
And that's the quick readout from the meeting. With that, I'll be glad to go right into your questions.
Q. On the attendance records of the National Guard, it said he had 56 out of a required 50 points. Is that considered a good attendance record, do you know? Or do you know what the maximum number of points you can get--
MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, we were pleased to be able to provide you all with these additional records that just recently came to our attention. These documents clearly show that the President fulfilled his duties. And we had previously released some of the point summaries that you are referencing. There is more complete information relating to those point summaries that document the fact that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties when he was serving in the National Guard back in the early 70's.
Q. Scott, a couple of questions I have---the records that you handed out today, and other records that exist, indicate that the President did not perform any Guard duty during the months of December 1972, February and March of '73. I'm wondering if you can tell us where he was during that period. And also, how is it that he managed to not make the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, the records that you're pointing to, these records are the payroll records; they're the point summaries. These records verify that he met the requirements necessary to fulfill his duties. These records--
Q. That wasn't my question, Scott.
MR. McCLELLAN: These payroll records--
Q. Scott, that wasn't my question, and you know it wasn't my question. Where was he in December of '72, February and March of '73? And why did he not fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status?
MR. McCLELLAN: These records--these records I'm holding here clearly document the President fulfilling his duties in the National Guard. The President was proud of his service. The President--
Q. I asked a simple question; how about a simple answer?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, if you'll let me address the question, I'm coming to your answer, and I'd like--
Q. Well, if you would address it--maybe you could.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, John. But this is an important issue that some chose to raise in the context of an election year, and the facts are important for people to know. And if you don't want to know the facts, that's fine. But I want to share the facts with you.
Q. I do want to know the facts, which is why I keep asking the question. And I'll ask it one more time. Where was he in December of '72, February and March of '73? Why didn't he fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status in 1972?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President recalls serving both when he was in Texas and when he was in Alabama. And that is what I can tell you. And we have provided you these documents that show clearly that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties. And that is the reason that he was honorably discharged from the National Guard. The President was proud of his service.
Q. Scott, when Senator Kerry goes around campaigning, there's frequently what they call "a band of brothers," a bunch of soldiers who served with him, who come forward and give testimonials for him. I see, in looking at our files in the campaign of 2000, it said that you were looking for people who served with the President to verify his account of service in the National Guard. Has the White House been able to find, like Senator Kerry, "a band of brothers" or others who can testify about the President's service?
MR. McCLELLAN: All the information that we have we shared with you in 2000, that was relevant to this issue. And all the additional information that has come to our attention we have shared with you. The President was asked about this in his interview over the weekend, and the President made it clear, yes, I want all records to be made available that are relevant to this issue; that there are some out there that were making outrageous, baseless accusations. It was a shame that they brought it up four years ago. It was a shame that they brought it up again this year. And I think that the facts are very clear from these documents. These documents--the payroll records and the point summaries verify that he was paid for serving and that he met his requirements.
Q. Actually, I wasn't talking about documents, I was talking about people--you know, comrades-in-arms--
MR. McCLELLAN: Right. That's why I said everything that came to our attention that was available, we made available at that time, during the 2000 campaign.
Q. But you said you were looking for people--and I take it you didn't find any people?
MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, obviously, we would have made people available. And we--Mr. Lloyd, who has provided a statement to put some of this into context for everybody, made some public statements during that time period to verify the records that the President had fulfilled his duties. And he put out an additional statement now to put this into context. He's someone with some technical expertise and someone that understands these matters, because he was in the National Guard at the time.
Q. Scott, can I follow on this, because I do think this is important. You know, it might strike some as odd that there isn't anyone who can stand up and say, I served with George W. Bush in Alabama, or in Houston in the Guard unit. Particularly because there are people, his superiors who have stepped forward--in Alabama and in Houston--who have said in the past several years that they have no recollection of him being there and serving. So isn't that odd that nobody--you can't produce anyone to corroborate what these records purport to show?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, we're talking about some 30 years ago. You are perfectly welcome to go back and talk to individuals from that time period. But these documents--
Q. Hey, we're trying. But I would have thought you guys would have had a real good handle on--
MR. McCLELLAN: --these documents make it very clear that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties--
Q. Well, that's subject to interpretation.
MR. McCLELLAN: No. When you serve, you are paid for that service. And these documents outline the days on which he was paid. That means he served. And these documents also show that he met his requirements. And it's just really a shame that people are continuing to bring this issue up. When--
Q. I understand--
MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, no, no. People asked for records to be released that would demonstrate he met his requirements. The records have now been fully released. The facts are clear--
Q. Do you know that a lot of these payroll records are--
MR. McCLELLAN: --the facts are clear--
Q. --you can't read them. Have you looked at these? You can't--how are we supposed to read these?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you can talk--one, we put it out on email. It's a lot easier to read, I think, on the email version because that was the--
Q. Oh, you did put it on our email?
MR. McCLELLAN: We are going to, if we haven't already. But it was sent to us in email form from the Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado.
Q. One other thing on this. To corroborate these records, will the President do two things--one, will he authorize the relevant defense agency in Colorado to release actual pay stubs for the President? And if those don't exist, will the President file a form, as he can do at the IRS, to at least look for a '72 or '73 tax return that would corroborate what you claim are payroll summaries that he actually got paid for his duty?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think this information is his payroll records. It is my understanding this is the information that is available from his payroll records. And it shows the days on which he was paid. So that's the information that I understand is available. In terms of tax returns, the President, like most Americans, does not have his tax returns from some 30 years ago.
Q. But it's possible that he could file a form requesting the IRS to search if they have a return for '72 or '73. Is he willing to do that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Obviously, if there's any additional information that came to our attention that was relevant, we would make that information available.
Q. Well, it could be relevant if he would file a form--
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that these documents clearly show that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties. I mean, these were the documents that people questioned and said should be made available. And we went back to double-check. We thought we had all the information that existed previously, but we went back to double-check after the comments that were made over the weekend, to see if there was any additional information available. And when we contacted the Personnel Center in Colorado, it was our understanding that the Personnel Center in St. Louis and Colorado were already working to put this information together, and that this is the information that they have that is relevant to this topic.
Q. So it's your position and it's the President's position that these documents put this issue to rest, period?
MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, I think these documents show that he fulfilled his duties. These documents show that he met his requirements.
Q. Scott, two questions, one on the documents, one on the issue. There seems to be a discrepancy now in the President's record that I wondered if you could help me with. These documents that you're holding up show that the President showed up for duty in October and November of '72, January, April and May of '73. But the President's officer effectiveness report, filed by his commanders, Lieutenants Colonel Killean and Harris, both now deceased, for the period 01 May '72 to 30 April, '73, says he has not been observed at this unit, where he was supposed to show up and earning these points on these days. How do you square--
MR. McCLELLAN: You're talking about which unit?
Q. The Texas--at the Ellington Air Force Base.
MR. McCLELLAN: From '72 TO '73?
Q. Correct. And certainly by--the President said he returned to Texas in November of '72. So some of these dates of service, which are in these records, ought to have been noted by his commanding officers, who, nevertheless, said, twice, he has not been observed here. Can you explain that?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure about these specific documents. I'll be glad to take a look at them. But these documents show the days on which he was paid for his service. And the President--as I've said, and we previously said during the 2000 campaign--recalls serving both in Texas and in Alabama during the time period you're bringing up.
Q. So he served, but his commanding officers didn't know it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I don't know the specific documents you're referring to. If you want to bring those to me, I'll be glad to take a look at them and get you the answers to your questions.
Q. Okay. Then on the general issue, Senator Kerry has said that the National Guard was one way for people to avoid service in Vietnam. The President and the White House have taken umbrage at that, saying that's denigrating the National Guard. In 1994, the President told the Houston Chronicle, in relation to his joining the National Guard, "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment, nor was I willing to go to Canada, so I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." It sounds like the President, himself, acknowledged that he went into the National Guard because he didn't want to go to Vietnam.
MR. McCLELLAN: The President--again, Terry, this issue has been addressed fully. Now, we're trying to change into different issues here. The President was proud of his service in the National Guard. He fulfilled his duties; he was honorably. . . BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. . . ."
Well, I think we can see where this is going, now. Normally, you have to pay good money for theatre like this. But you can see more of this tangled web for no extra charge. Just turn your blog finder to Press Briefing by Scott McClellan.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
TROLLING FOR DOLLARS AND THUMPING DISSENT
Each new incursion against dissent under George W. Bush needs to be placed in context with the outlandish policy of Ashcroft's Justice Department and his associates in the FBI and JTTP (Joint Terrorism Task Force). Let's not forget the nakedly totalitarian proposal Ashcroft made, after 9/11, to enlist Americans to spy on one another. Apparently, we were spared the Orwellian Nightmare of one minder for each adult; owing to the fact that senior congressional figures cried out sharply that such a proposal was, in no respect, American.
During the last few days, much emphasis has been put on the Drake University case. Prosecutors in the current administration made a concerted effort to subpoena records from university sources at the Iowa school. They did this by conflating a trespassing case (a protest staged at Iowa National Guard headquarters) with a protest forum that took place at Drake University on the previous day. The campus chapter of the National Lawyer's Guild soon discovered that its membership information was sought by the federal authority and that four protesters were being brought before a grand jury, by subpoena. A potent outcry by journalists, webloggers, and Lawyer's Guild officials caused a quick reversal of this action and a dropping of the subpoenas.
The programic aspect of this assault on liberty is superbly presented in Salon articles by Michelle Goldberg: Outlawing Dissent, and her companion piece A thousand J. Edgar Hoovers. She makes her readers aware of monetary incentives , federal money dispersed to local police to infiltrate protest groups and harass certain activists. Ms. Goldberg also exposes dangerously unsophisticated police attitudes toward protesters, as well as a similar approach by some departments to dissent itself.
In Fresno County, California, a police infiltrator was killed in a motorcycle accident and his double-identity was subsequently discovered.
"Peace Fresno has since been assured by the Fresno Sheriff's Department that it is not under investigation and never has been under investigation. That may be true in some bureaucratic sense, but the fact remains that an anti-terrorism agent spent half a year surveilling them"...[according to Peace Fresno organizer, Nicholas DeGraff] 'It's equating dissent with terrorism'...'It's saying if you dissent, you're a terrorist'."
"In fact, that's exactly what some law enforcement officers have said."
"On April 2 of last year, the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center, which is under the auspices of the state Justice Department but whose regional task forces include FBI agents, issued a bulletin warning police about potential violence at an anti-war protest scheduled for the port of Oakland. An Oakland Tribune investigation found that the Anti-Terrorism Information Center had little substantive information regarding possible violence. 'Intelligence records released under open-government laws reveal the thinking of CATIC and Oakland intelligence officials,' said a June 1 story by Ian Hoffman, Sean Holstege and Josh Richman. The agencies, they wrote, 'blended solid facts, innuendo and inaccurate information about anti-war protesters expected at the port'."
"The protest did in fact turn violent, but according to documentary evidence the violence was precipitated by the police, who fired on demonstrators with wooden bullets and beanbags. The Tribune reported that, according to videotapes and transcripts of radio transmissions of the event, there's no evidence of 'protesters throwing objects at the police or engaging in civil disobedience until 20 minutes after police opened fire'."
"So why was the warning issued in the first place? In an interview with the Tribune, Mike Van Winkle, spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center, issued a remarkably broad definition of terrorism. 'You can make an easy link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war against international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest,'...You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act'." [my italics]
"Of course, whether Van Winkle actually believes that anti-war protesters are as dangerous to the citizens of California as al-Qaida is impossible to say. But it's not just rhetorical excess or fascistic impulses that lead officials to speak of demonstrators as terrorists. They may actually have a bureaucratic and financial incentive to do so."
" 'This is a good way for police officers to get terrorism points,' says Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the ACLU. 'They have to justify the dollars they're receiving from the federal government for homeland security. We've seen a massive inflation of terrorist statistics on the federal level. Every Arab with a phony driver's license is now called a terrorist by the Justice Department.' "
" 'This is a perfect example of not learning the lessons of 9/11.' he continues. 'The FBI was not sufficiently focused on the possibility that a group like al-Qaida would commit a serious terrorist attack. One real failure since 9/11 is that, when they call everything a 'terrorist', they're still not sufficiently focused on actual terrorists. There's an overbroad definition of domestic terrorism in the PATRIOT Act, and it's had a spillover effect into state and local governments who want to justify their anti-terrorism funding and mission'."
Michelle Goldberg also gives her essay a sobering historical perspective, that parallels the Vietnam and Iraq protest experiences.
"In the early 1970s, after the exposure of COINTELPRO, a program of widespread FBI surveillance and sabotage of political dissidents, reforms were put into place to prevent government from spying on political groups when there was no suspicion of criminal activity. But once again, protesters throughout America are being watched, often by police who are supposed to be investigating terrorists"..."It' too early to tell if America is entering a repeat of the COINTELPRO era. But Jeffrey Fogel, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Law in Manhattan, says, 'There are certainly enough warning signs out there that we may be'."
"Such local, community-based spying is nothing new. In the 60s and 70s, says the ACLU's legislative counsel, Timothy Edgar, local police established counterintelligence squads that mimicked COINTELPRO -- and they were actually responsible for the harassment of activists."
" 'Most people who have any memory of the civil rights era and may have attended a demonstration and been observed by government, the people who were tracking what they were doing, nine times out of 10 that would have been a state or local intelligence squad, not the FBI, says Edgar, 'It's really many J. Edgar Hoovers that pose the greatest threat to civil liberties'."
In her essay, Goldberg reports that Joint Terrorism Task Force printouts of activist websites were obtained from the intelligence unit of the Police Department in Denver, by the Colorado ACLU. And she refers to a leaked FBI memo which was revealed last November in a New York Times article. Both the printouts from April 2002 and November's FBI memo implicate the local JTTFs in the investigation of protest activity, making it clear that local police are being advised to report to them. The parties under scrutiny in the Denver case, were the American Friends Service Committee, the Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace, the Rocky Mountain Independent Media Center and Denver's Justice and Peace Committee.
During the last few days, much emphasis has been put on the Drake University case. Prosecutors in the current administration made a concerted effort to subpoena records from university sources at the Iowa school. They did this by conflating a trespassing case (a protest staged at Iowa National Guard headquarters) with a protest forum that took place at Drake University on the previous day. The campus chapter of the National Lawyer's Guild soon discovered that its membership information was sought by the federal authority and that four protesters were being brought before a grand jury, by subpoena. A potent outcry by journalists, webloggers, and Lawyer's Guild officials caused a quick reversal of this action and a dropping of the subpoenas.
The programic aspect of this assault on liberty is superbly presented in Salon articles by Michelle Goldberg: Outlawing Dissent, and her companion piece A thousand J. Edgar Hoovers. She makes her readers aware of monetary incentives , federal money dispersed to local police to infiltrate protest groups and harass certain activists. Ms. Goldberg also exposes dangerously unsophisticated police attitudes toward protesters, as well as a similar approach by some departments to dissent itself.
In Fresno County, California, a police infiltrator was killed in a motorcycle accident and his double-identity was subsequently discovered.
"Peace Fresno has since been assured by the Fresno Sheriff's Department that it is not under investigation and never has been under investigation. That may be true in some bureaucratic sense, but the fact remains that an anti-terrorism agent spent half a year surveilling them"...[according to Peace Fresno organizer, Nicholas DeGraff] 'It's equating dissent with terrorism'...'It's saying if you dissent, you're a terrorist'."
"In fact, that's exactly what some law enforcement officers have said."
"On April 2 of last year, the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center, which is under the auspices of the state Justice Department but whose regional task forces include FBI agents, issued a bulletin warning police about potential violence at an anti-war protest scheduled for the port of Oakland. An Oakland Tribune investigation found that the Anti-Terrorism Information Center had little substantive information regarding possible violence. 'Intelligence records released under open-government laws reveal the thinking of CATIC and Oakland intelligence officials,' said a June 1 story by Ian Hoffman, Sean Holstege and Josh Richman. The agencies, they wrote, 'blended solid facts, innuendo and inaccurate information about anti-war protesters expected at the port'."
"The protest did in fact turn violent, but according to documentary evidence the violence was precipitated by the police, who fired on demonstrators with wooden bullets and beanbags. The Tribune reported that, according to videotapes and transcripts of radio transmissions of the event, there's no evidence of 'protesters throwing objects at the police or engaging in civil disobedience until 20 minutes after police opened fire'."
"So why was the warning issued in the first place? In an interview with the Tribune, Mike Van Winkle, spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center, issued a remarkably broad definition of terrorism. 'You can make an easy link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war against international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest,'...You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act'." [my italics]
"Of course, whether Van Winkle actually believes that anti-war protesters are as dangerous to the citizens of California as al-Qaida is impossible to say. But it's not just rhetorical excess or fascistic impulses that lead officials to speak of demonstrators as terrorists. They may actually have a bureaucratic and financial incentive to do so."
" 'This is a good way for police officers to get terrorism points,' says Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the ACLU. 'They have to justify the dollars they're receiving from the federal government for homeland security. We've seen a massive inflation of terrorist statistics on the federal level. Every Arab with a phony driver's license is now called a terrorist by the Justice Department.' "
" 'This is a perfect example of not learning the lessons of 9/11.' he continues. 'The FBI was not sufficiently focused on the possibility that a group like al-Qaida would commit a serious terrorist attack. One real failure since 9/11 is that, when they call everything a 'terrorist', they're still not sufficiently focused on actual terrorists. There's an overbroad definition of domestic terrorism in the PATRIOT Act, and it's had a spillover effect into state and local governments who want to justify their anti-terrorism funding and mission'."
Michelle Goldberg also gives her essay a sobering historical perspective, that parallels the Vietnam and Iraq protest experiences.
"In the early 1970s, after the exposure of COINTELPRO, a program of widespread FBI surveillance and sabotage of political dissidents, reforms were put into place to prevent government from spying on political groups when there was no suspicion of criminal activity. But once again, protesters throughout America are being watched, often by police who are supposed to be investigating terrorists"..."It' too early to tell if America is entering a repeat of the COINTELPRO era. But Jeffrey Fogel, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Law in Manhattan, says, 'There are certainly enough warning signs out there that we may be'."
"Such local, community-based spying is nothing new. In the 60s and 70s, says the ACLU's legislative counsel, Timothy Edgar, local police established counterintelligence squads that mimicked COINTELPRO -- and they were actually responsible for the harassment of activists."
" 'Most people who have any memory of the civil rights era and may have attended a demonstration and been observed by government, the people who were tracking what they were doing, nine times out of 10 that would have been a state or local intelligence squad, not the FBI, says Edgar, 'It's really many J. Edgar Hoovers that pose the greatest threat to civil liberties'."
In her essay, Goldberg reports that Joint Terrorism Task Force printouts of activist websites were obtained from the intelligence unit of the Police Department in Denver, by the Colorado ACLU. And she refers to a leaked FBI memo which was revealed last November in a New York Times article. Both the printouts from April 2002 and November's FBI memo implicate the local JTTFs in the investigation of protest activity, making it clear that local police are being advised to report to them. The parties under scrutiny in the Denver case, were the American Friends Service Committee, the Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace, the Rocky Mountain Independent Media Center and Denver's Justice and Peace Committee.
Sunday, February 15, 2004
copeland morris MIDWINTER
Have you never seen the World of the Dead?-
Or tasted the time remaining?
Your father standing like a grand tree
In the photograph in the forest. You recognize
Midwinter with all its whiteness. Here
He never sighs with disappointment. Streams
Of spangled snow come through his branches.
The snow builds up on his fingers,
The last of the color as you close his eyes.
You already imitate his secret gaze
And reach with outspread arms and fingertips.
Or tasted the time remaining?
Your father standing like a grand tree
In the photograph in the forest. You recognize
Midwinter with all its whiteness. Here
He never sighs with disappointment. Streams
Of spangled snow come through his branches.
The snow builds up on his fingers,
The last of the color as you close his eyes.
You already imitate his secret gaze
And reach with outspread arms and fingertips.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
SUBPOENAS QUASHED IN IOWA UNIVERSITY CASE
Here are excerpts from Associated Press writer, Ryan J. Foley, via SFGate.com:
"Federal prosecutors withdrew a subpoena Tuesday ordering Drake University to turn over a list of people involved in an anti-war forum in November, as well as subpoenas ordering four activists to testify before grand jury.."
"The US attorney's office had no immediate comment on why the subpoenas were withdrawn just one day after federal prosecutor Stephen O'Meara issued a statement acknowledging an investigation was under way."
"O'Meara said the focus of the probe was alleged trespassing at Iowa National Guard headquarters in Johnston that happened while a protest against the war in Iraq was taking place nearby on Nov. 16. He said the protest, in which 12 were arrested, was not the problem."
"As part of the probe, prosecutors had served a subpoena last week asking the university to turn over the names of participants in the forum."
"Drake [University] was preparing legal motions to fight the subpoena when Steve Serck, a lawyer representing the school, received word that it had been dropped."
"If it was just a trespassing investigation, why seek the membership records of the National Lawyer's Guild? asked Ben Stone, executive director of the ICLU. "If this was an attempt to chill protests through the aggressive policing of a run-of-the-mill crime, weve got a serious problem in America."
TalkLeft posted a victory announcement made by Michael Avery, President of the National Lawyer's Guild:
"The government was forced to back down in this case and it shows that people can and should stand up to the government when it is abusing its powers. The Lawyer's Guild is grateful to our many friends and allies who supported us in the face of the attack by government. This experience demonstrates that the American people cherish their right to free expression and the right of political groups to dissent"...
"The Guild is calling for congressional hearings to determine the extent to which the FBI and the Justice Department are gathering information on student political groups", according to Executive Director of the Guild, Heidi Boghosian.
Sources via Pacific Views.
"Federal prosecutors withdrew a subpoena Tuesday ordering Drake University to turn over a list of people involved in an anti-war forum in November, as well as subpoenas ordering four activists to testify before grand jury.."
"The US attorney's office had no immediate comment on why the subpoenas were withdrawn just one day after federal prosecutor Stephen O'Meara issued a statement acknowledging an investigation was under way."
"O'Meara said the focus of the probe was alleged trespassing at Iowa National Guard headquarters in Johnston that happened while a protest against the war in Iraq was taking place nearby on Nov. 16. He said the protest, in which 12 were arrested, was not the problem."
"As part of the probe, prosecutors had served a subpoena last week asking the university to turn over the names of participants in the forum."
"Drake [University] was preparing legal motions to fight the subpoena when Steve Serck, a lawyer representing the school, received word that it had been dropped."
"If it was just a trespassing investigation, why seek the membership records of the National Lawyer's Guild? asked Ben Stone, executive director of the ICLU. "If this was an attempt to chill protests through the aggressive policing of a run-of-the-mill crime, weve got a serious problem in America."
TalkLeft posted a victory announcement made by Michael Avery, President of the National Lawyer's Guild:
"The government was forced to back down in this case and it shows that people can and should stand up to the government when it is abusing its powers. The Lawyer's Guild is grateful to our many friends and allies who supported us in the face of the attack by government. This experience demonstrates that the American people cherish their right to free expression and the right of political groups to dissent"...
"The Guild is calling for congressional hearings to determine the extent to which the FBI and the Justice Department are gathering information on student political groups", according to Executive Director of the Guild, Heidi Boghosian.
Sources via Pacific Views.
Monday, February 09, 2004
QUO VADIS, GENERAL ASHCROFT?
"Each of us is a center of creation, and the universe is shattered when they hiss at you: 'you are under arrest'."
-Alexander Solzhenitsyn
There is a consistency in the encroachments of John Ashcroft and his Justice Department. The liberties that Americans prize, and the constitutional protections which bless their country have been weakened by those who are most clearly charged with defending these freedoms. This has not been an overwhelming onslaught; but it looks to be a methodical war of attrition against America's democratic covenant. Intimidation is its chief instrument, and its objectives are to stigmatize and hamper dissent, and to bully those who would speak out against the deranged policy of the present Administration. As the Patriot Act makes citizens feel like outcasts in their own country, darkening the horizon with its Sneak and Peek, with home invasion that allows government to surreptitiously copy one's personal papers and copy computer disks; we feel anything but secure. But the worst is yet to come, if the Attorney General has his way. The federal authority is now apparently committed to open political harassment of its critics.
The mind-set of the top law enforcement officer embraces the notion of electronic surveillance of all Americans, to protect those same folks from their terrorist enemies. Executive letters can be written which can place a selected citizen outside the realm of due process and the access of the accused to a lawyer. Recently, this Administration has ignored international law and custom, deporting a passport-bearing Canadian national to a third country (Syria) in order to subject him to torture. What kind of country is ours becoming, that it can stoop to such thuggery?
The John Ashcroft, who has made his presence felt as Attorney General, is the same man who accused his critics of hysteria, when America's librarians reacted with alarm over federal surveillance of library records. There were reports of librarians who purged electronic records and warned library patrons of the new snooping into traditional areas of privacy.
And every time the Administration wants to further impoverish the freedom of America's open society, they remind us of 9/11. But this gathering repression has become overt, and it is now poised to strike directly at dissent.
In an article entitled, "Feds Win Rights to War Protesters Records", Associated Press writer, Ryan J. Foley, reports an ugly incursion. From Des Moines, Iowa, ..."In what may be the first subpoena of its kind in decades, a federal judge has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of anti-war activists."
"In addition to the subpoena of Drake University, subpoenas were served on four of the activists who attended a Nov. 15 forum at the school, ordering them to appear before a grand jury"...
"Federal prosecutors refuse to comment on the subpoenas."
"The group, once targeted for its alleged ties to communism in the 1950s, announced Friday it will ask a federal court to quash the subpoena."
"The law is clear that the use of the grand jury to investigate protected political activities or to intimidate protesters exceeds its authority", guild President Michael Ayers said in a statement."
"Representatives of the Lawyer's Guild and the American Civil Liberties Union said they had not heard of such a subpoena being served on any U.S. university in decades."
"Those served supoenas include the leader of the Catholic Peace Ministry, the former coordinator of the Iowa Peace Network, a member of the Catholic Worker House, and an anti-war activist who visited Iraq in 2002."
"They say the subpoenas are intended to stifle dissent."
"This is exactly what people feared would happen", said Brian Terrell of the peace ministry, one of those subpoenaed...."The civil liberties of everyone in this country are in danger. How we handle that here in Iowa is very important on how things are going to happen in this country from now on."
"The forum, titled 'Stop the Occupation! Bring the Iowa Guard Home!' came the day before 12 protesters were arrested at an anti-war rally at Iowa National Guard headquarters, in Johnston. Organizers say the forum included nonviolent training for people planning to demonstrate."
"Mark Smith, a lobbyist for the Washington-based American Association of University Professors, ...said that the case brings back fears of the 'red squads' of the 1950s and campus clampdowns on Vietnam War protesters."
Source via Jim Hightower's Weblog
-Alexander Solzhenitsyn
There is a consistency in the encroachments of John Ashcroft and his Justice Department. The liberties that Americans prize, and the constitutional protections which bless their country have been weakened by those who are most clearly charged with defending these freedoms. This has not been an overwhelming onslaught; but it looks to be a methodical war of attrition against America's democratic covenant. Intimidation is its chief instrument, and its objectives are to stigmatize and hamper dissent, and to bully those who would speak out against the deranged policy of the present Administration. As the Patriot Act makes citizens feel like outcasts in their own country, darkening the horizon with its Sneak and Peek, with home invasion that allows government to surreptitiously copy one's personal papers and copy computer disks; we feel anything but secure. But the worst is yet to come, if the Attorney General has his way. The federal authority is now apparently committed to open political harassment of its critics.
The mind-set of the top law enforcement officer embraces the notion of electronic surveillance of all Americans, to protect those same folks from their terrorist enemies. Executive letters can be written which can place a selected citizen outside the realm of due process and the access of the accused to a lawyer. Recently, this Administration has ignored international law and custom, deporting a passport-bearing Canadian national to a third country (Syria) in order to subject him to torture. What kind of country is ours becoming, that it can stoop to such thuggery?
The John Ashcroft, who has made his presence felt as Attorney General, is the same man who accused his critics of hysteria, when America's librarians reacted with alarm over federal surveillance of library records. There were reports of librarians who purged electronic records and warned library patrons of the new snooping into traditional areas of privacy.
And every time the Administration wants to further impoverish the freedom of America's open society, they remind us of 9/11. But this gathering repression has become overt, and it is now poised to strike directly at dissent.
In an article entitled, "Feds Win Rights to War Protesters Records", Associated Press writer, Ryan J. Foley, reports an ugly incursion. From Des Moines, Iowa, ..."In what may be the first subpoena of its kind in decades, a federal judge has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of anti-war activists."
"In addition to the subpoena of Drake University, subpoenas were served on four of the activists who attended a Nov. 15 forum at the school, ordering them to appear before a grand jury"...
"Federal prosecutors refuse to comment on the subpoenas."
"The group, once targeted for its alleged ties to communism in the 1950s, announced Friday it will ask a federal court to quash the subpoena."
"The law is clear that the use of the grand jury to investigate protected political activities or to intimidate protesters exceeds its authority", guild President Michael Ayers said in a statement."
"Representatives of the Lawyer's Guild and the American Civil Liberties Union said they had not heard of such a subpoena being served on any U.S. university in decades."
"Those served supoenas include the leader of the Catholic Peace Ministry, the former coordinator of the Iowa Peace Network, a member of the Catholic Worker House, and an anti-war activist who visited Iraq in 2002."
"They say the subpoenas are intended to stifle dissent."
"This is exactly what people feared would happen", said Brian Terrell of the peace ministry, one of those subpoenaed...."The civil liberties of everyone in this country are in danger. How we handle that here in Iowa is very important on how things are going to happen in this country from now on."
"The forum, titled 'Stop the Occupation! Bring the Iowa Guard Home!' came the day before 12 protesters were arrested at an anti-war rally at Iowa National Guard headquarters, in Johnston. Organizers say the forum included nonviolent training for people planning to demonstrate."
"Mark Smith, a lobbyist for the Washington-based American Association of University Professors, ...said that the case brings back fears of the 'red squads' of the 1950s and campus clampdowns on Vietnam War protesters."
Source via Jim Hightower's Weblog
Saturday, February 07, 2004
THE ANTIDOTE TO EMPIRE by Copeland Morris
"In the great cities of Europe and America, where a few years ago these things would only have been whispered, now people are openly talking about the good side of imperialism and the need for a strong empire to police an unruly world. The new missionaries want order at the cost of justice. Discipline at the cost of dignity. And ascendancy at any price."
-Arundhati Roy, "The New American Century", The Nation, Feb. 9, 2004
Prominent in her recent article in The Nation, is Roy's premise that the threat of capital flight is as much a matter of coercion to non-compliant nations as being in the cross-hairs of a cruise missile. And the fusion of select corporate interests with the objective of imperial power has never been more obvious than it is in Iraq. Add to this her assertion that the corporate media are institutional accomplices in this process. In this light, George W. Bush's pretension to the New American Century is exposed for what it is.
"There isn't a country on God's earth that is not caught in the cross-hairs of the American cruise missile and the IMF checkbook."
The logic of the analysis must place the most unfortunate of emerging nations in the category of those who own (or claim to own) their natural resources. The incumbent Bush Administration is only the most recent American government to use privatization as a Trojan Horse. Once inside the walls, this instrument plays havoc with the vulnerable and the marginalized, and rewards the Empire's sponsors, the most unscrupulous of the corporate elite. This elite is indifferent to any concept of the public good; and it is as comfortable with exploitation at home, as it is with depredations in a country like Iraq.
Arundhati Roy, with her characteristic wit, comes to the crux of the problem:
"Let's look this thing in the eye once and for all. To applaud the US Army's capture of Saddam Hussein, and therefore in retrospect justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq, is like deifying Jack the Ripper for disemboweling the Boston Strangler. And that after a quarter-century in which the Ripping and Strangling was a joint enterprise. It's an in-house quarrel. They're business partners who fell out over a dirty deal. Jack's the CEO."
Political moderates, liberals, and some conservatives on the American scene now acknowledge the perfidity of George W. Bush; and many of these same people now concede that the violence done to Iraq was an agenda, already in place, and not reflecting a credible reaction to 9/11. Bush, The Junior, is an embarrassment of a President. He has only functioned (to the degree that he does function) as a shill for the New American Century, the New World Order, ...or the American corporate interests, CEOs, Senior Management, Accountant Agencies and Financial Analysts who place their own enrichment above any public good or civic responsibility.
And the rogue process that goes by the name of globalization has an internal as well as an external aspect. The "New Imperialism" has a domestic as well as an international impact. Americans come into contact with this corruption (See the article in AlterNet.org: "The High Price of Wal-Mart").
Seduced by the cheapest prices the market can bear, the undiscerning consumer becomes a silent partner in the globalization project overseas, and also enables misery for the home country. Wal-Mart employees are advised how to apply for social services, at the time of their hiring; owing to the fact that the job they have secured will not provide a living wage.
"Faced with mounting criticism over low pay, sex-discrimination, exploitation of undocumented immigrants, violation of child labor laws and hard-line anti-union tactics, Wal-Mart has tapped it's $250 billion in annual revenues to shower conservatives in Washington with money. According to a study by the non-partisan Center for Responsive politics, Wal-Mart is now the second highest contributor to the 2004 elections."
Rejection of violence and exploitation, and a commitment to humane instincts such as compassion and solidarity and courage; these are the only known antidotes to Empire. What other antidote is there? We, who have become subjects of this corruption, must be wise enough to take the cure.
-Arundhati Roy, "The New American Century", The Nation, Feb. 9, 2004
Prominent in her recent article in The Nation, is Roy's premise that the threat of capital flight is as much a matter of coercion to non-compliant nations as being in the cross-hairs of a cruise missile. And the fusion of select corporate interests with the objective of imperial power has never been more obvious than it is in Iraq. Add to this her assertion that the corporate media are institutional accomplices in this process. In this light, George W. Bush's pretension to the New American Century is exposed for what it is.
"There isn't a country on God's earth that is not caught in the cross-hairs of the American cruise missile and the IMF checkbook."
The logic of the analysis must place the most unfortunate of emerging nations in the category of those who own (or claim to own) their natural resources. The incumbent Bush Administration is only the most recent American government to use privatization as a Trojan Horse. Once inside the walls, this instrument plays havoc with the vulnerable and the marginalized, and rewards the Empire's sponsors, the most unscrupulous of the corporate elite. This elite is indifferent to any concept of the public good; and it is as comfortable with exploitation at home, as it is with depredations in a country like Iraq.
Arundhati Roy, with her characteristic wit, comes to the crux of the problem:
"Let's look this thing in the eye once and for all. To applaud the US Army's capture of Saddam Hussein, and therefore in retrospect justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq, is like deifying Jack the Ripper for disemboweling the Boston Strangler. And that after a quarter-century in which the Ripping and Strangling was a joint enterprise. It's an in-house quarrel. They're business partners who fell out over a dirty deal. Jack's the CEO."
Political moderates, liberals, and some conservatives on the American scene now acknowledge the perfidity of George W. Bush; and many of these same people now concede that the violence done to Iraq was an agenda, already in place, and not reflecting a credible reaction to 9/11. Bush, The Junior, is an embarrassment of a President. He has only functioned (to the degree that he does function) as a shill for the New American Century, the New World Order, ...or the American corporate interests, CEOs, Senior Management, Accountant Agencies and Financial Analysts who place their own enrichment above any public good or civic responsibility.
And the rogue process that goes by the name of globalization has an internal as well as an external aspect. The "New Imperialism" has a domestic as well as an international impact. Americans come into contact with this corruption (See the article in AlterNet.org: "The High Price of Wal-Mart").
Seduced by the cheapest prices the market can bear, the undiscerning consumer becomes a silent partner in the globalization project overseas, and also enables misery for the home country. Wal-Mart employees are advised how to apply for social services, at the time of their hiring; owing to the fact that the job they have secured will not provide a living wage.
"Faced with mounting criticism over low pay, sex-discrimination, exploitation of undocumented immigrants, violation of child labor laws and hard-line anti-union tactics, Wal-Mart has tapped it's $250 billion in annual revenues to shower conservatives in Washington with money. According to a study by the non-partisan Center for Responsive politics, Wal-Mart is now the second highest contributor to the 2004 elections."
Rejection of violence and exploitation, and a commitment to humane instincts such as compassion and solidarity and courage; these are the only known antidotes to Empire. What other antidote is there? We, who have become subjects of this corruption, must be wise enough to take the cure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)