So now the government is redacting legal opinions to support their case for indefinite detention? What?!?!

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/13/a_tale_of_2_gitmo_opinions

US v Comstock

Indefinite detention after registered sex offenders serve term
What implications does this have for the war on terror? The analogy isn't perfect (here, ex-offenders would be held in "civil commitment" after serving their term, while terror suspects are held without a right to challenge their detention before trial).

The Torture Memo John Yoo Should Have Written

The Torture Memo John Yoo Should Have Written: "

On February 19, the Department of Justice released the long-awaited 261-page Report of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which concluded, among other things, that in his legal memos on torture and Presidential power, John Yoo had 'committed intentional professional misconduct when he violated his duty to exercise independent legal judgment and render thorough, objective, and candid legal advice.' A senior Justice Department official, acknowledged that he had not reviewed all the documents available to the OPR, found that Yoo exercised 'poor

read more

"

(Via Truthout - Opinion.)

Authorizing Civilian Massacres

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/02/19/report-bush-lawyer-said-president-could-order-civilians-to-be-massacred.aspx

A new check on the Congress?

It just struck me that the president doesn't get to exert his check on the Congress (the veto) unless the bill in question is passed by both houses. Considering that the Senate is much more reactionary than the House and that it has its own tools to obstruct bills from ever getting to the president's desk, should we start thinking about providing the president with another check on the more reactionary, less representative Senate when they kill bills?

Why the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy is doomed

Recently, the Pentagon went on record in favor of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT). Two columnists from WaPo think that this position undermines the government's assertion that allowing openly queer individuals to serve in the military would be a threat to national security. Now we finally get to call a spade a spade! We can finally assert that discrimination against gays serving in the military is unequal protection under the laws. In other words, it's violative of the 14th Amendment.

Why the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy is doomed: "Washington Post - By David B. Rivkin Jr., Lee A. Casey - Feb. 13 (Opinion) - When the Pentagon's top brass announced last week that they no longer believe military unit cohesion suffers from the presence of openly gay men or women in the ranks, they effectively transformed a policy question into a legal one, to which the answer is clear: Congress can no longer mandate discrimination in the armed forces on the basis of sexual orientation.

NewsTrust Rating: 4.4 average (not enough reviews) - See Reviews » - Review It        Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

"

(Via NewsTrust - Politics - Most Recent Stories.)

Under plan, intelligence agencies would be consulted before reading of rights

Under plan, intelligence agencies would be consulted before reading of rights: "Washington Post - By Walter Pincus - Feb. 13 (News Report) - The Justice Department and the FBI will consult with the intelligence community on information about terrorist suspects arrested in the United States before deciding whether to read them their Miranda rights under a plan now under review in the White House, according to senior administration offi...

NewsTrust Rating: 3.1 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It        Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

"

(Via NewsTrust - Politics - Most Recent Stories.)

Obama Is Making Plans to Use Executive Power for Action on Several Fronts

Obama Is Making Plans to Use Executive Power for Action on Several Fronts:

Although it will be painful, Obama should refuse to exert executive power in order to pass the agenda that Congress refuses to. Caving to pressure would continue the dangerous practice of undermining the checks and balances built into the Constitution. Just as bad, the bandage that he stands to create can be revoked by the next occupant of the White House is not the solution.

Quiz Time!

Which branch of the United States Government at the federal level doesn't even have one elected official? For the answer, try consulting the tags for this post!

Kucinich Right, Greenwald Wrong

Kucinich Right, Greenwald Wrong: "

Kucinich Right, Greenwald Wrong

By David Swanson

On Democracy Now! on Tuesday, Congressman Dennis Kucinich said he was working on a Constitutional Amendment to address both 'Citizen's United' and 'Buckley v. Valejo,' meaning the Supreme Court decisions giving corporations outrageous and destructive powers of 'free speech' and defining the spending of money as 'speech.'

read more

"

(Via Let's Try Democracy.)

Can Bosses Do That? As It Turns Out, Yes They Can

Can Bosses Do That? As It Turns Out, Yes They Can: "

Could you be fired for having a political bumper sticker on your car — or even having a beer after work? Lewis Maltby says its more than possible — its happened. His new book, Can They Do That? details the predicaments many workers find themselves in.

» E-Mail This     » Add to Del.icio.us

"

(Via Top Stories.)

Why do you always have to come up with solutions?

10 Ways to Stop Corporate Dominance of Politics: "

Its not too late to limit or reverse the impact of the Supreme Courts disastrous decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Heres how.

"

(Via AlterNet.org: Rights and Liberties.)

Rep Donna Edwards Intros Constl Amendment to Undo Corporate "Free Speech"

Rep Donna Edwards Intros Constl Amendment to Undo Corporate "Free Speech": "

 

JOIN THIS CAMPAIGN!

read more

"

(Via Let's Try Democracy.)

Kaptur resolution vs. Citizens decision

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-hc13/show

Resolution to Get Rid of the FILIBUSTER!!!!

H.Res.1018 Requesting the Senate to adjust its rules to reflect the intent of the framers of the Constitution by amending the Senate's filibuster rule, Rule 22, to facilitate the consideration of bills and amendments.: "Requesting the Senate to adjust its rules to reflect the intent of the framers of the Constitution by amending the Senate's filibuster rule, Rule 22, to facilitate the consideration of bills and amendments."

(Via Open Congress : Top 20 Most Viewed Bills.)

Tangle Of Detainee Rules Leads To Court Confusion

Tangle Of Detainee Rules Leads To Court Confusion: "

One year after President Obama pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, 200 detainees remain there. A new study finds judges using wildly different criteria to review the cases — the result of a lack of clear guidelines on issues such as the use of coercion — and how to define an enemy combatant.

» E-Mail This     » Add to Del.icio.us

"

(Via Top Stories.)

SCOTUS: Foreign Corporations Have Rights, Too!

SCOTUS: Foreign Corporations Have Rights, Too!: "

Politico's Josh Gerstein has a great story today pointing out that, in the wake of yesterdays Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, theres really nothing to stop foreign companies from supporting or opposing US candidates. It would be as easy as setting up a US subsidiary and having the subsidiary spend the money. Some of Gersteins sources argue that foreign corporations would be reluctant to interfere in US politics because it could bring bad press. But that doesnt seem like much of a deterrent to the worst corporations. Do foreign corporations like Gazprom that are largely state-owned really care what the US press writes about them? Law professor Mark Kleiman has more: 

One aspect of the ruling that hasn’t gathered much attention: as far as I can tell, the analysis doesn’t distinguish between domestic and foreign corporations.  Not that it would matter much, since a foreign corporation can always establish a domestic subsidiary, or buy an American company:   Cities Service, for example, is a unit of PDVSA, the Venezuelan state oil company.  So the ruling allows Hugo Chavez to spend as much money as he wants to helping and harming American politicians.   If the Russian, Saudi, and Chinese governments don’t currently have appropriate vehicles for doing so, you can count on it:  they soon will.

Nor is this a problem that can be handled by 'disclosure.'  The ad on TV praising the opponent of the congressman who did something to annoy Hugo Chavez won’t say 'Paid for by Hugo Chavez.'  It will say 'Paid for by Citizens for Truth, Justice, and the American Way,' which in turn will have gotten a contribution from 'Americans for Niceness,' which in turn will have gotten a contribution from a lobbyist for a subsidiary of Cities Service that no one has ever heard of.

This week just keeps getting better.

1 Comment | Post Comment

     

"

(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)

Guantanamo Panel Supports Indefinite Detention

Guantanamo Panel Supports Indefinite Detention: "

A presidential task force is recommending that 47 Guantanamo Bay detainees be held indefinitely without charge and that about three dozen inmates face trial or military commissions, according to two government officials. Such prosecutions would likely take place in the U.S.

» E-Mail This     » Add to Del.icio.us

"

(Via Top Stories.)

Grassroots movement for Free Speech for People ONLY!

http://freespeechforpeople.org/

Proposed: Constitutional Amendment to undo the disastrous Citizens United decision

SUCH A GOOD IDEA!!!

savedemocracy.net

Via Graysons website (savedemocracy.net), here are the six bills 'and what they aim to accomplish,':

1. The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431): Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.


2. The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435): Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges.


3. The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434): Prevents for-profit corporations that receive money from the government from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute.


4. The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432): Requires publicly-traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than to promoting their products and services.


5. The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433): Applies antitrust law to industry PACs.


6. The End the Hijacking of Shareholder Funds Act (H.R. 4487): This bill requires the approval of a majority of a public company’s shareholders for any expenditure by that company to influence public opinion on matters not related to the company’s products or services.

The fifth measure has already gained the support of Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the chair of the House Judiciary committee, Grayson said. Grayson hopes the committee might hold a hearing on that bill sometime in the next 30 days. Grayson circulated his proposals among his colleagues on Thursday.  He has a decent record with winning support for populist ideas— last year he signed up over 100 cosponsors for Texas Republican Ron Pauls bill to audit the Federal Reserve.

Still, what Grayson could really use is the support of President Barack Obama, who has slammed the Supreme Court decision and promised a 'forceful' legislative response. Graysons bills would certainly qualify. The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder has reported that the White House and other Hill Democrats are seriously considering three options for responding to the decision, including one that bears a resemblance to Graysons sixth bill—requiring shareholders to approve of independent political expenditures. When we spoke, Grayson also voiced support to another idea Ambinder says is under consideration—a 'Stand by Your Ad' requirement. As Ambinder describes it, 'The head of an insurance company would be forced to say, Im Honus Wagner, the CEO of Acme, and I stand by this ad.' Grayson emphasized that such a move would be consistent with the Supreme Courts decision today, which explicitly allowed Congress to pass tough disclosure requirements.

2 Comments | Post Comment

     

"

(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)