Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.
Thursday’s 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas….. "The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including _ but by no means limited to _ new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
The problem I see with this case is that the argument for the landowners IS the argument of the cities. As close as the Supreme Court vote was, it’s an indication to me that this was probably not a decision the justices wanted to come to. Rather than make the argument that the city can only do specific things that are not legally defined, the lawyers IMO should have made the argument of specifically detailing what the city could do in regards of improving the tax base. I don’t know if these houses were considered a blight or were upscale. The problem with argument is that there is no real definition of what blight is. One man’s castle is another man’s blight. This just strikes me as a poorly argued case.
Net result? I’m no lawyer, so take this for what it’s worth. Look for federal legislation to come out of the federal House rectifying and clarifying this decision. Then, look for the Supreme Court to hear it again challenging that legislation. If it comes to that, I bet the homeowners win due to the vagaries that currently exist giving localities the ability to take property.
But, that will be too late for those owners.
In order to stop this in the future, everyone needs to contact their
Congressman and tell them to better define the rules of eminent domain.
There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about — whats this with all these reforms — you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation.”
Humans have grown like a cancer. We’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.
Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, wed be against it.
And, finally, for the sake of this article, this one:
Were looking for good lawsuits that will establish the interests of animals as a legitimate area of concern in law.
Well, she got some:
I just think this is too precious. I have to wonder what Adria and Andrew are thinking right now, after being charged, having worked for someone that wishes all humans would vanish from the Earth? Ingrid doesn’t even show sympathy for her workers that will now endure a trial and potential lifetime of prison, she’s just concerned it will “hurt our work”. Most animals have more compassion than Ingrid.
What I also found compelling about this story is PETA is not denying it kills animals every single day. They are just saying they do it more compassionately than other people. That sure doesn’t support the idea of “animal liberation” that I envision. I mean, killing is killing is it not, Ingrid?
Now, I live in a very rural area. There are two farms I am aware of that take abandoned dogs that are healthy and allows them to roam the farm. This isn’t purely puritanical, the dogs chase off animals that might harm the farm animals. Plus, they just love large dogs. Our pound here doesn’t have to concern itself with wackos like PETA. They know that if those people promise to take care of the dogs, it means they’ll live a normal life in the environment most dogs enjoy most. It doesn’t mean they’ll be hugged as they’re intentionally killed.
PETA’s actions are more unethical than the pound disposing of unwanted dogs. Not only do they acheive the same end for the animal, but, they put other scavengers at risk as well by just dumping the carcasses in very accessible locations. Yeah, Ingrid, this SHOULD hurt your cause. I truly hope it does.
20
Jun
Primarily due to time constraints that do not allow me to maintain the number of blogs I’ve gotten myself into, I’ve decided to shut down the Economic Webdream blog. I have moved all the posts from that blog to here, they are THAT good and worth keeping. I feel they fit here as most of the posts wound up discussing the economic ramifications of political decisions and policies. They fit in here quite well. I want to thank once again KentM for his contributions to that blog and hope that he continues his input over here.
20
Jun
Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, said Sunday on CBS News’ Face The Nation that he intends to run for president in 2008.
But Biden, who also sought the nomination in 1988, said he would give himself until the end of this year to determine if he really can raise enough money and attract enough support.
Going after the nomination "is a real possibility," he said.
"My intention, as I sit here now, is, as I’ve proceeded since last November as if I were going to run. I’m quite frankly going out, seeing whether I can gather the kind of support," Biden said.
Biden said he was taking his "game on the road, letting people know what I think."
He added, "If, in fact, I think that I have a clear shot at winning the nomination by this November or December, then I’m going to seek the nomination."
As pointed out in the article, Biden ran in 1988. He was the guy the dropped out after a round of plagiarism scandals. As with Howard Dean’s squeal, Biden’s plagiarism problems made for a lot of good humor. Teaming these two together would probably make for a lot of laughs, but that’s about it.
Biden is testing the water to see how warm it is. I get the impression he’s not so sure how well he can do, and is looking for public support ( read donations ), to re-assure him that he can be a contender. However, I have two words that should make him think harder: HILLARY CLINTON. Now, this isn’t even a statement that I think Hillary is intending on running, but, I am making it a statement that Hillary is doing the exact same thing at this time that Biden is. The difference is Hillary is very good at this part. Much more so than Joe. Joe is probably a better candidate. His only real skeleton I am aware of his is penchant to quote others without attribution. Compared to Hillary’s skeletons, that’s NOTHING. But, what I see Joe doing is testing basically the same water Hillary has already tested and tapped. If that happens, Joe will not run.
What Joe needs to do is tap his own resolve. If he wants to be President, then he better announce right now that he intends to be President. If he keeps sending signals that he’ll only run if people tell him to run, then he doesn’t the personal resolve it would take to win and compared to the ball-busting nature of Hillary, his will be busted whether she intends to run or not. Whether she runs for President or not, Hillary and her significant other are the perceived power brokers of the Democrat Party. That was made perfectly clear during the 2004 Presidential campaign. The crash and burn that will be Dean’s tenure at the DNC will be example number two very shortly.
If I were running Biden’s camp, if he really wanted to sacrifice everything he was to be President, I would be telling him to announce his candidacy at this time and mention Hillary as his running mate every single time he opened his mouth whether he wanted her as his running mate or not.
18
Jun
It’s about time.
"I can’t believe that when our men and women are fighting in Iraq, that we would move forward with legislation like this when we need to draw countries together," said Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., who cosponsored the Lantos alternative.
The problem, Representative Shays, is that the UN did nothing to draw countries together in the first place. The reason our men and women are fighting in Iraq right now is 100% because of the failure of the United Nations to resolve the issue peacefully the previous twelve years. The reason Congress found it so easy to support demanding the UN resolve the accounting issues is because the United Nations failed to resolve the US-Iraq conflict the previous twelve years primarily because members of the United Nations were personally profiting from the conflict. Surely Representative Shays knows all that?
This legislation is dead on perfect. Open up the books and I doubt the US will have any further reasons to even want to withhold it’s money.
18
Jun
A lot has been made of the comments Dick Durbin made on June 14. I’ll get to the specifics of that. But, what has not been discussed much is why he made the comments. If the comments themself do not convince you Durbin has a screw loose, think about this: The comments were made in regards to renewable fuels. Here’s the transition that Durbin took:
…….What it means, of course, is China will be our competitor for that oil in the years to come. If we do not take care to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we will find ourselves in a predicament even worse than today, where the cost of oil will be increasing because of increased demand for limited resources, and our dependence will be increasing at the same time. What a recipe for economic disaster in America.
I will tell you one thing that is troubling. Remember the only provision in this bill related to fuel efficiency that I mentioned earlier that wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by a million barrels a day? We just got an official statement from the Bush White House today–they oppose that provision. They want to take it out of the bill. That is the only provision in the bill relative to fuel efficiency and fuel economy, and they want to have it taken out of the bill.
This is the same administration that does not concede the fact that there is global warming, the same administration which last week had to dismiss a man who was doctoring environmental documents and statements to make it look as if there is no threat of global warming. This same administration says they want to take out the only provision in the bill that would move us toward less dependence on foreign oil. What are they thinking? This is the leadership in the White House?
The President can walk, literally hand in hand, with a Saudi prince at his ranch in Texas, but does America want to walk hand in hand with a Saudi prince for the next 20 years? Not me–no. I want to see us move toward energy independence. It is not likely we will reach it in its entirety in my lifetime, but don’t we owe it to future generations to lessen our dependence on foreign oil?
Which moves me to a second topic, which is related. That dependence on foreign oil draws us into a lot of predicaments around the world. Ask the 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq today. Ask whether we would be as focused as we are on the Middle East and its stability if we were not dependent on those oil tankers every single day leaving that Arabian peninsula, the Arabian area, coming into the United States with this oil we need so desperately. I do not think it is likely we would be there with that much intensity of feeling. But we are there.
Because of our dependence on foreign oil, we have been drawn into a conflict, now more than 2 years in length, with no end in sight. I was one of 23 Senators who voted against the Use of Force Resolution that authorized President Bush to invade Iraq. That was not because I had any sympathy for Saddam Hussein–I never have had–but because I believed this administration had misled the American people about the real threat in Iraq. It turns out afterward we were misled, there were no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons, no connection with 9/11. It turns out the threats we were told existed did not exist. The American people were misled.
Sadly, this administration took the best military in the world and
invaded Iraq and very quickly made short order of Saddam Hussein and his troops but didn’t know what to do next. They won the war. They couldn’t figure out how to win the peace. And we still pay the heaviest possible price every single day because of their lack of preparedness.
Convinced he’s nuts yet? Wanna have some REAL fun? Here’s his ENTIRE rant on RENEWABLE ENERGY:
Mr. DURBIN. This is probably a task we should not undertake because it is momentous, but we will try anyway. This is the Energy bill. It is a big bill, as you can tell. I sat down and did something kind of unique: I decided to read it, just to decide what we are voting on. I don’t say that entirely in a negative fashion because some of this is so technical, you need to have staff go through and figure out exactly what is happening in this bill.
The one thing that is most important about this bill is not the fact that Senator Domenici of New Mexico has worked so hard on it with
Senator Bingaman and done such a good job on a bipartisan basis to bring it to us. That is a positive thing, and I complimented Senator Domenici about it earlier. What is troubling about this bill is it is setting out to establish:
the enhancement of the energy security of the United States.
Since it is setting out to establish America’s energy policy, you would think to yourself, How do most Americans come in contact with energy each day? Certainly when you flip the lights on in the morning or in the evening, you come in contact with electricity, but equally so, when you get into that car or into that truck or on that bus, you are in contact with the energy policy of America.
If that is an important part of our life experience with energy, if over 60 percent of all the oil we bring into the United States is used to fuel vehicles, trucks and cars, you would just assume that a large part of this bill of almost 800 pages must be devoted to the whole question of the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks. Isn’t that obvious?
Wouldn’t that be one of the first things?
Sadly, you are going to have to search long and hard to find any reference in here to the fuel economy and fuel efficiency of cars and trucks in America. The question I have asked over and over again is,
How can you have an honest energy policy for America and not talk about that? How can you really have a policy that reduces our dependence on foreign oil if we do not talk about more fuel-efficient cars and trucks–more conservation?
I don’t think you can. The only provision in this bill that addresses that, in the most indirect and oblique way, says that over the next 10 years, we will reduce the demand for oil in America by 1 million barrels a day. That is a good thing. I support that. It doesn’t spell out how we will do it. Frankly, it doesn’t reflect the ambition we should have in putting together this bill because we can do better. We can do a lot better.
Tomorrow, Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington is going to offer the amendment from the Democratic side about energy policy. It is our lead amendment. The reason it is our lead amendment is we believe it gets to the heart of the question. Here is what we believe in our Democratic Senate caucus. We think we should add to this bill language which says:
Over the next 20 years, we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil in America by 40 percent.
Frankly, I think we can do better, but we establish a standard of 40 percent. Today, 58 percent of all of the oil that we burn each day in
America comes from overseas–58 percent. Unchecked, unchanged, it is estimated that in 20 years, it will be 68 percent. More than two out of every three barrels of oil will be imported into the United States.
If the Democratic amendment is adopted–and I hope it is, on a bipartisan basis–if we reduce the foreign imports by 40 percent over the next 20 years, the number will go from 58 percent to 56 percent.
That is still too high, but to do nothing means that our dependence on foreign oil will grow.
Depending on foreign oil means depending on the people who own it. I do not want my future, the future of my children or grandchildren, in the hands of the Saudi Royal Family. That is what their future will be tied to–in a world where there will be even more competition over OPEC oil.
You cannot pick up a magazine or an article anywhere that does not refer to the growth of China and its economy. They are just sucking away jobs from America, to paraphrase Ross Perot, and creating new opportunities for jobs in a country that is deficient in energy. So they are looking all over the world to find where they can import gas and oil so they can fuel the growing Chinese economy.
What it means, of course, is China will be our competitor for that oil in the years to come. If we do not take care to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we will find ourselves in a predicament even worse than today, where the cost of oil will be increasing because of increased demand for limited resources, and our dependence will be increasing at the same time. What a recipe for economic disaster in America.
I will tell you one thing that is troubling. Remember the only provision in this bill related to fuel efficiency that I mentioned earlier that wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by a million barrels a day? We just got an official statement from the Bush White
House today–they oppose that provision. They want to take it out of the bill. That is the only provision in the bill relative to fuel efficiency and fuel economy, and they want to have it taken out of the bill.
This is the same administration that does not concede the fact that there is global warming, the same administration which last week had to dismiss a man who was doctoring environmental documents and statements to make it look as if there is no threat of global warming. This same administration says they want to take out the only provision in the bill that would move us toward less dependence on foreign oil. What are they thinking? This is the leadership in the White House?
The President can walk, literally hand in hand, with a Saudi prince at his ranch in Texas, but does America want to walk hand in hand with a Saudi prince for the next 20 years? Not me–no. I want to see us move toward energy independence. It is not likely we will reach it in its entirety in my lifetime, but don’t we owe it to future generations to lessen our dependence on foreign oil?
Which moves me to a second topic, which is related. That dependence on foreign oil draws us into a lot of predicaments around the world. Ask the 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq today. Ask whether we would be as focused as we are on the Middle East and its stability if we were not dependent on those oil tankers every single day leaving that Arabian peninsula, the Arabian area, coming into the United States with this oil we need so desperately. I do not think it is likely we would be there with that much intensity of feeling. But we are there.
Because of our dependence on foreign oil, we have been drawn into a conflict, now more than 2 years in length, with no end in sight. I was one of 23 Senators who voted against the Use of Force Resolution that authorized President Bush to invade Iraq. That was not because I had any sympathy for Saddam Hussein–I never have had–but because I believed this administration had misled the American people about the real threat in Iraq. It turns out afterward we were misled, there were no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons, no connection with
9/11. It turns out the threats we were told existed did not exist. The American people were misled.
Sadly, this administration took the best military in the world and invaded Iraq and very quickly made short order of Saddam Hussein and his troops but didn’t know what to do next. They won the war. They couldn’t figure out how to win the peace. And we still pay the heaviest possible price every single day because of their lack of preparedness.
Think about it. Over the weekend, the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq in combat now has reached about 1,700–1,700 of our sons and daughters have given their lives in Iraq, with no end in sight. Soldiers sent into battle by an administration which has received every penny they have asked for from Congress to supply our troops. Soldiers sent into battle, killed, still today, in unarmored humvees. Soldiers without body armor. Soldiers without the proper equipment.
I have been there. I have seen it. I have heard it. I have talked to these soldiers. I know a few weeks ago in Iraq this was the case. That, to me, is a tragedy and a travesty.
What is also troubling is that this Congress is afraid to even ask the hard questions of this administration. When was the last time we had a serious hearing on Capitol Hill about the contract abuses of Halliburton in Iraq? We will have to search the Congressional Record long and hard to find there has not been such a hearing. We do not get into that issue. When was the last time we had a hearing on Capitol Hill about the serious problems we are having in recruiting new soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen? That is a big problem. The best military in the world needs the best men and women. Why is it they will not join the ranks to fight in this war in Iraq and Afghanistan? That is worth a hearing, isn’t it? We are still waiting for it.
There will be a hearing tomorrow–and I commend the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter–to discuss some of the basic issues about a very serious problem that we face.
Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion in recent days about whether to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. This debate misses the point. It is not a question of whether detainees are held at Guantanamo Bay or some other location. The question is how we should treat those who have been detained there. Whether we treat them according to the law or not does not depend on their address. It depends on our policy as a nation.
How should we treat them? This is not a new question. We are not writing on a blank slate. We have entered into treaties over the years, saying this is how we will treat wartime detainees. The United States has ratified these treaties. They are the law of the land as much as any statute we passed. They have served our country well in past wars.
We have held ourselves to be a civilized country, willing to play by the rules, even in time of war.
Unfortunately, without even consulting Congress, the Bush administration unilaterally decided to set aside these treaties and create their own rules about the treatment of prisoners.
Frankly, this Congress has failed to hold the administration accountable for its failure to follow the law of the land when it comes to the torture and mistreatment of prisoners and detainees.
I am a member of the Judiciary Committee. For two years, I have asked for hearings on this issue. I am glad Chairman Specter will hold a hearing on wartime detention policies tomorrow. I thank him for taking this step. I wish other members of his party would be willing to hold this administration accountable as well.
It is worth reflecting for a moment about how we have reached this point. Many people who read history remember, as World War II began with the attack on Pearl Harbor, a country in fear after being attacked decided one way to protect America was to gather together Japanese Americans and literally imprison them, put them in internment camps for fear they would be traitors and turn on the United States. We did that.
Thousands of lives were changed. Thousands of businesses destroyed. Thousands of people, good American citizens, who happened to be of Japanese ancestry, were treated like common criminals.
It took almost 40 years for us to acknowledge that we were wrong, to admit that these people should never have been imprisoned. It was a shameful period in American history and one that very few, if any, try to defend today.
I believe the torture techniques that have been used at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and other places fall into that same category. I am confident, sadly confident, as I stand here, that decades from now people will look back and say: What were they thinking? America, this great, kind leader of a nation, treated people who were detained and imprisoned, interrogated people in the crudest way? I am afraid this is going to be one of the bitter legacies of the invasion of Iraq.
We were attacked on September 11, 2001. We were clearly at war.
We have held prisoners in every armed conflict in which we have engaged. The law was clear, but some of the President’s top advisers questioned whether we should follow it or whether we should write new standards.
Alberto Gonzales, then-White House chief counsel, recommended to the President the Geneva Convention should not apply to the war on terrorism.
Colin Powell, who was then Secretary of State, objected strenuously to Alberto Gonzales’ conclusions. I give him credit. Colin Powell argued that we could effectively fight the war on terrorism and still follow the law, still comply with the Geneva Conventions. In a memo to Alberto Gonzales, Secretary Powell pointed out the Geneva Conventions
would not limit our ability to question the detainees or hold them even indefinitely. He pointed out that under Geneva Conventions, members of al-Qaida and other terrorists would not be considered prisoners of war.
There is a lot of confusion about that so let me repeat it. The
Geneva Conventions do not give POW status to terrorists.
In his memo to Gonzales, Secretary Powell went on to say setting aside the Geneva Conventions “will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice . . . and undermine the protections of the law of war for our own troops . . . It will undermine public support among critical allies, making military cooperation more difficult to sustain.”
When you look at the negative publicity about Guantanamo, Secretary
Colin Powell was prophetic.
Unfortunately, the President rejected Secretary Powell’s wise counsel, and instead accepted Alberto Gonzales’ recommendation, issuing a memo setting aside the Geneva Conventions and concluding that we needed “new thinking in the law of war.”
After the President decided to ignore Geneva Conventions, the administration unilaterally created a new detention policy. They claim the right to seize anyone, including even American citizens, anywhere in the world, including in the United States, and hold them until the end of the war on terrorism, whenever that may be.
For example, they have even argued in court they have the right to indefinitely detain an elderly lady from Switzerland who writes checks to what she thinks is a charity that helps orphans but actually is a front that finances terrorism.
They claim a person detained in the war on terrorism has no legal rights–no right to a lawyer, no right to see the evidence against them, no right to challenge their detention. In fact, the Government has claimed detainees have no right to challenge their detention, even if they claim they were being tortured or executed.
This violates the Geneva Conventions, which protect everyone captured during wartime.
The official commentary on the convention states:
Nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.
That is clear as it can be. But it was clearly rejected by the Bush administration when Alberto Gonzales as White House counsel recommended otherwise.
U.S. military lawyers called this detention system “a legal black hole.” The Red Cross concluded, “U.S. authorities have placed the internees in Guantanamo beyond the law.”
Using their new detention policy, the administration has detained thousands of individuals in secret detention centers all around the world, some of them unknown to Members of Congress. While it is the most well-known, Guantanamo Bay is only one of them. Most have been captured in Afghanistan and Iraq, but some people who never raised arms against us have been taken prisoner far from the battlefield.
Who are the Guantanamo detainees? Back in 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld described them as “the hardest of the hard core.” However, the administration has since released many of them, and it has now become clear that Secretary Rumsfeld’s assertion was not completely true.
Military sources, according to the media, indicate that many detainees have no connection to al-Qaida or the Taliban and were sent to Guantanamo over the objections of intelligence personnel who recommended their release. One military officer said:
We’re basically condemning these guys to a long-term
imprisonment. If they weren’t terrorists before, they
certainly could be now.
Last year, in two landmark decisions, the Supreme Court rejected the administration’s detention policy. The Court held that the detainees’ claims that they were detained for over two years without charge and without access to counsel “unquestionably describe custody in violation of the Constitution, or laws or treaties of the United States.”
The Court also held that an American citizen held as an enemy combatant must be told the basis for his detention and have a fair opportunity to challenge the Government’s claims. Justice Sandra Day
O’Connor wrote for the majority:
A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens.
You would think that would be obvious, wouldn’t you? But yet, this administration, in this war, has viewed it much differently.
I had hoped the Supreme Court decision would change the administration policy. Unfortunately, the administration has resisted complying with the Supreme Court’s decision.
The administration acknowledges detainees can challenge their detention in court, but it still claims that once they get to court, they have no legal rights. In other words, the administration believes a detainee can get to the courthouse door but cannot come inside.
A Federal court has already held the administration has failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s rulings. The court concluded that the detainees do have legal rights, and the administration’s policies
“deprive the detainees of sufficient notice of the factual bases for their detention and deny them a fair opportunity to challenge their incarceration.”
The administration also established a new interrogation policy that allows cruel and inhuman interrogation techniques.
Remember what Secretary of State Colin Powell said? It is not a matter of following the law because we said we would, it is a matter of how our troops will be treated in the future. That is something often overlooked here. If we want standards of civilized conduct to be applied to Americans captured in a warlike situation, we have to extend the same manner and type of treatment to those whom we detain, our prisoners.
Secretary Rumsfeld approved numerous abusive interrogation tactics against prisoners in Guantanamo. The Red Cross concluded that the use of those methods was “a form of torture.”
The United States, which each year issues a human rights report, holding the world accountable for outrageous conduct, is engaged in the same outrageous conduct when it comes to these prisoners.
Numerous FBI agents who observed interrogations at Guantanamo Bay complained to their supervisors. In one e-mail that has been made public, an FBI agent complained that interrogators were using “torture techniques.”
That phrase did not come from a reporter or politician. It came from an FBI agent describing what Americans were doing to these prisoners.
With no input from Congress, the administration set aside our treaty obligations and secretly created new rules for detention and interrogation. They claim the courts have no right to review these rules. But under our Constitution, it is Congress’s job to make the laws, and the court’s job to judge whether they are constitutional.
This administration wants all the power: legislator, executive, and judge. Our founding father were warned us about the dangers of the Executive Branch violating the separation of powers during wartime.
James Madison wrote:
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
Other Presidents have overreached during times of war, claiming legislative powers, but the courts have reined them back in. During the Korean war, President Truman, faced with a steel strike, issued an Executive order to seize and operate the Nation’s steel mills. The Supreme Court found that the seizure was an unconstitutional infringement on the Congress’s lawmaking power. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, said:
The Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make the laws which the President is to execute . . .
The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good times and bad.
To win the war on terrorism, we must remain true to the principles upon which our country was founded. This Administration’s detention and interrogation policies are placing our troops at risk and making it harder to combat terrorism.
Former Congressman Pete Peterson of Florida, a man I call a good friend and a man I served with in the House of Representatives, is a unique individual. He is one of the most cheerful people you would ever want to meet. You would never know, when you meet him, he was an Air Force pilot taken prisoner of war in Vietnam and spent 6\1/2\ years in a Vietnamese prison. Here is what he said about this issue in a letter that he sent to me. Pete Peterson wrote:
From my 6 and 1/2 years of captivity in Vietnam, I know what life in a foreign prison is like. To a large degree, I credit the Geneva Conventions for my survival. . . . This is one reason the United States has led the world in upholding treaties governing the status and care of enemy prisoners: because these standards also protect us. . . . We need absolute clarity that America will continue to set the gold standard in the treatment of prisoners in wartime.
Abusive detention and interrogation policies make it much more difficult to win the support of people around the world, particularly those in the Muslim world. The war on terrorism is not a popularity contest, but anti-American sentiment breeds sympathy for anti-American terrorist organizations and makes it far easier for them to recruit young terrorists.
Polls show that Muslims have positive attitudes toward the American people and our values. However, overall, favorable ratings toward the United States and its Government are very low. This is driven largely by the negative attitudes toward the policies of this administration.
Muslims respect our values, but we must convince them that our actions reflect these values. That’s why the 9/11 Commission recommended:
We should offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors.
What should we do? Imagine if the President had followed Colin Powell’s advice and respected our treaty obligations. How would things have been different?
We still would have the ability to hold detainees and to interrogate them aggressively. Members of al-Qaida would not be prisoners of war. We would be able to do everything we need to do to keep our country safe. The difference is, we would not have damaged our reputation in the international community in the process.
When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here–I almost hesitate to put them in the Record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:
On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. . . . On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.
If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime–Pol Pot or others–that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. It is not too late. I hope we will learn from history. I hope we will change course. The President could declare the United States will apply the Geneva Conventions to the war on terrorism. He could declare, as he should, that the United States will not, under any circumstances, subject any detainee to torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The administration could give all detainees a meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention before a neutral decisionmaker.
Such a change of course would dramatically improve our image and it would make us safer. I hope this administration will choose that course. If they do not, Congress must step in.
The issue debated in the press today misses the point. The issue is not about closing Guantanamo Bay. It is not a question of the address of these prisoners. It is a question of how we treat these prisoners. To close down Guantanamo and ship these prisoners off to undisclosed locations in other countries, beyond the reach of publicity, beyond the reach of any surveillance, is to give up on the most basic and fundamental commitment to justice and fairness, a commitment we made when we signed the Geneva Convention and said the United States accepts it as the law of the land, a commitment which we have made over and over again when it comes to the issue of torture. To criticize the rest of the world for using torture and to turn a blind eye to what we are doing in this war is wrong, and it is not American.
During the Civil War, President Lincoln, one of our greatest Presidents, suspended habeas corpus, which gives prisoners the right to challenge their detention. The Supreme Court stood up to the President and said prisoners have the right to judicial review even during war.
Let me read what that Court said:
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions could be suspended during any f the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.
Mr. President, those words still ring true today. The Constitution is a law for this administration, equally in war and in peace. If the Constitution could withstand the Civil War, when our Nation was literally divided against itself, surely it will withstand the war on terrorism.
I yield the floor.
Convinced now? He raises the Civil War, Vietnam, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the WMD "lie", Haliburton, and compares the US to Pol Pot, Nazis and Soviet gulags.
He rants for 4,478 words, 978 on renewable energy.
Dick Durbin has issues.
On June 16th, members of the Senate, primarily Richard Warner and Mitch McConnell, took issue with Durbin’s comments. And quite frankly, cleaned Durbin’s clock on the issue. Durbin’s defense is that he was aware that Pol Pot, the Nazis, and Soviets committed much greater atrocities, but still stuck to his comparison:
Mr. DURBIN. The comparison related to interrogation techniques. It is clear, and I will state it for the record, that the horrors visited on humanity by those regimes were far greater than these interrogation techniques. But the point I was trying to make was, what do we visualize when we hear of this kind of interrogation technique? I say to the Senator from Kentucky, I visualize regimes like those described. Did they do more? Did they do worse? Of course they did. The point I was trying to make is, this is not what America should expect. This is not what we should believe reflects our values.
Finally, on June 17th, Durbin had this to say:
"I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: Our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support," he said. "My statement in the Senate was critical of the policies of this administration, which add to the risk our soldiers face."
Not even a nice try. He described actions of soldiers, not the President, in his Pol Pot-Nazi-Gulag comparison. Now, he’s saying he was misunderstood. If Dick Durbin can rant for 4,748 words on renewable energy and have his opinion mistaken on comparing soldiers that he respects as interpreted to comparing their actions to the worst humanitarian injustices in modern history, he just needs to give up. That has to be the most ineffective and inappropriate speech on renewable energy ever made.
16
Jun
I am quoted in Slate! What a hoot!
16
Jun
The total overhaul of the US energy policy finally passed the House. I’m quite confident it will pass the Senate, and be signed into law. This bill is profound in that addresses pretty much every major concern in regards to energy I have had for a long time. It encourages more nuclear development, more development of hydrogen fuels, more development of domestic fossil fuels, clean coal, ethanol, hydro, air, and cells. I really didn’t see much of anything I didn’t like other than potentially too much regulatory burden.
However, these people saw fit to oppose it:
I would sure appreciate it if some interested people would follow those individual links and ask their Representative what plans they have for the future of our country. The plan we have now isn’t working too well. Apparently they feel a total reliance on the Middle East is OK. If they have some other ideas, I’d be more than happy to host them here. Otherwise, I just get the feeling most of them voted NAY just to oppose a Republican initiative.
What’s even more fun to me is to examine how that beacon of thought process, the Progressive Caucus voted. Here’s their breakdown:
| Dennis Kucinich, Co-Chair | NAY |
| Barbara Lee, Co-Chair | NAY |
| Lynn Woolsey, Vice-Chair | NAY |
| Peter DeFazio, Officer | NAY |
| Jesse Jackson, Jr, Officer | NAY |
| Major Owens, Officer | NAY |
| Bernie Sanders, Officer | NAY |
| Hilda Solis, Officer | NAY |
| Neil Abercrombie, Member | AYE |
| Tammy Baldwin, Member | NAY |
| Xavier Becerra, Member | NAY |
| Corrine Brown, Member | NAY |
| Sherrod Brown, Member | NAY |
| Michael Capuano, Member | NAY |
| Julia Carson, Member | NAY |
| William "Lacy" Clay, Member | NAY |
| John Conyers, Member | NAY |
| Danny Davis, Member | NAY |
| Rosa DeLauro, Member | NAY |
| Lane Evans, Member | NAY |
| Eni Faleomavaega, Member | |
| Sam Farr, Member | NAY |
| Chaka Fattah, Member | NAY |
| Bob Filner, Member | NAY |
| Barney Frank, Member | NAY |
| Raul Grijalva, Member | NAY |
| Luis Gutierrez, Member | NAY |
| Maurice Hinchey, Member | NAY |
| Sheila Jackson-Lee, Member | AYE |
| Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Member | NAY |
| Marcy Kaptur, Member | NAY |
| Tom Lantos, Member | NAY |
| John Lewis, Member | NAY |
| Jim McDermott, Member | NAY |
| James P. McGovern, Member | NAY |
| George Miller, Member | |
| Jerry Nadler, Member | NAY |
| Eleanor Holmes Norton, Member | |
| John Olver, Member | NAY |
| Ed Pastor, Member | NAY |
| Donald Payne, Member | NAY |
| Nancy Pelosi, Member | NAY |
| Bobby Rush, Member | AYE |
| Jan Schakowsky, Member | NAY |
| Jose Serrano, Member | NAY |
| Pete Stark, Member | NAY |
| Bennie Thompson, Member | NAY |
| John Tierney, Member | NAY |
| Tom Udall, Member | NAY |
| Nydia Velazquez, Member | |
| Maxine Waters, Member | NAY |
| Diane Watson, Member | NAY |
| Mel Watt, Member | NAY |
| Henry Waxman, Member | NAY |
Somehow, 94% of them feeling that continuing to rely on burning fossil fuels and subsidizing every Middle East terrorist is much more preferable to developing nuclear, domestic hydrogen, domestic clean coal, and encouraging more efficient hybrid transportation to save the economy doesn’t surprise me in the least. They are progressive thinkers after all.
I HAVE A PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA
RICHARD D. LAMM
I HAVE A SECRET PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA. IF YOU BELIEVE, AS MANY DO, THAT
AMERICA IS TOO SMUG, TOO WHITE BREAD, TOO SELF-SATISFIED, TOO RICH, LETS DESTROY
AMERICA. IT IS NOT THAT HARD TO DO. HISTORY SHOWS THAT NATIONS ARE MORE
FRAGILE THAN THEIR CITIZENS THINK. NO NATION IN HISTORY HAS SURVIVED THE RAVAGES
OF TIME. ARNOLD TOYNBEE OBSERVED THAT ALL GREAT CIVILIZATIONS RISE AND THEY ALL
FALL, AND THAT "AN AUTOPSY OF HISTORY WOULD SHOW THAT ALL GREAT NATIONS COMMIT
SUICIDE." HERE IS MY PLAN:
I. WE MUST FIRST MAKE AMERICA A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL COUNTRY. HISTORY SHOWS,
IN MY OPINION, THAT NO NATION CAN SURVIVE THE TENSION, CONFLICT, AND ANTAGONISM
OF TWO COMPETING LANGUAGES AND CULTURES. IT IS A BLESSING FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO
BE BILINGUAL; IT IS A CURSE FOR A SOCIETY TO BE BILINGUAL. ONE SCHOLAR,
SEYMOUR
MARTIN LIPSET, PUT IT THIS WAY:
THE HISTORIES OF BILINGUAL AND BICULTURAL SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT ASSIMILATE
ARE HISTORIES OF TURMOIL, TENSION, AND TRAGEDY. CANADA, BELGIUM, MALAYSIA,
LEBANON-ALL FACE CRISES OF NATIONAL EXISTENCE IN WHICH MINORITIES PRESS FOR
AUTONOMY, IF NOT INDEPENDENCE. PAKISTAN AND CYPRUS HAVE DIVIDED. NIGERIA
SUPPRESSED AN ETHNIC REBELLION. FRANCE FACES DIFFICULTIES WITH ITS BASQUES,
BRETONS, AND CORSICANS.
II. I WOULD THEN INVENT "MULTICULTURALISM" AND ENCOURAGE IMMIGRANTS TO
MAINTAIN THEIR OWN CULTURE. I WOULD MAKE IT AN ARTICLE OF BELIEF THAT ALL
CULTURES ARE EQUAL: THAT THERE ARE NO CULTURAL DIFFERENCES THAT ARE IMPORTANT. I
WOULD DECLARE IT AN ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT THE BLACK AND HISPANIC DROPOUT RATE IS
ONLY DUE TO PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION BY THE MAJORITY. EVERY OTHER
EXPLANATION IS OUT-OF-BOUNDS.
III. WE CAN MAKE THE UNITED STATES A "HISPANIC QUEBEC" WITHOUT MUCH EFFORT.
THE KEY IS TO CELEBRATE DIVERSITY RATHER THAN UNITY. AS
BENJAMIN SCHWARZ SAID IN
THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY RECENTLY:
…THE APPARENT SUCCESS OF OUR OWN MULTIETHNIC AND MULTICULTURAL EXPERIMENT
MIGHT HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED NOT BY TOLERANCE BUT BY HEGEMONY. WITHOUT THE
DOMINANCE THAT ONCE DICTATED ETHNOCENTRICALLY, AND WHAT IT MEANT TO BE AN
AMERICAN, WE ARE LEFT WITH ONLY TOLERANCE AND PLURALISM TO HOLD US TOGETHER.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL IMMIGRANTS TO KEEP THEIR OWN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE. I
WOULD REPLACE THE MELTING POT METAPHOR WITH A SALAD BOWL METAPHOR. IT IS
IMPORTANT TO INSURE THAT WE HAVE VARIOUS CULTURAL SUB-GROUPS LIVING IN AMERICA
REINFORCING THEIR DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN AMERICANS, EMPHASIZING THEIR
SIMILARITIES.
IV. HAVING DONE ALL THIS, I WOULD MAKE OUR FASTEST GROWING DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP
THE LEAST EDUCATED – I WOULD ADD A SECOND UNDERCLASS, UNASSIMILATED,
UNDEREDUCATED, AND ANTAGONISTIC TO OUR POPULATION. I WOULD HAVE THIS SECOND
UNDERCLASS HAVE A 50% DROP OUT RATE FROM SCHOOL.
V. I WOULD THEN GET THE BIG FOUNDATIONS AND BIG BUSINESS TO GIVE THESE
EFFORTS LOTS OF MONEY. I WOULD INVEST IN ETHNIC IDENTITY, AND I WOULD ESTABLISH
THE CULT OF VICTIMOLOGY. I WOULD GET ALL MINORITIES TO THINK THEIR LACK OF
SUCCESS WAS ALL THE FAULT OF THE MAJORITY – I WOULD START A GRIEVANCE INDUSTRY
BLAMING ALL MINORITY FAILURE ON THE MAJORITY POPULATION.
VI. I WOULD ESTABLISH DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND PROMOTE DIVIDED LOYALTIES. I
WOULD "CELEBRATE DIVERSITY." "DIVERSITY" IS A WONDERFULLY SEDUCTIVE WORD. IT
STRESSES DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN COMMONALITIES. DIVERSE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE ARE
MOSTLY ENGAGED IN HATING EACH OTHER-THAT IS, WHEN THEY ARE NOT KILLING EACH
OTHER. A DIVERSE," PEACEFUL, OR STABLE SOCIETY IS AGAINST MOST HISTORICAL
PRECEDENT. PEOPLE UNDERVALUE THE UNITY IT TAKES TO KEEP A NATION TOGETHER, AND
WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS MYOPIA. LOOK AT THE ANCIENT GREEKS.
DORF’S
WORLD HISTORY TELLS US:
THE GREEKS BELIEVED THAT THEY BELONGED TO THE SAME RACE; THEY POSSESSED A
COMMON LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE; AND THEY WORSHIPED THE SAME GODS. ALL GREECE
TOOK PART IN THE OLYMPIC GAMES IN HONOR OF ZEUS AND ALL GREEKS VENERATED THE
SHRINE OF APOLLO AT DELPHI. A COMMON ENEMY PERSIA THREATENED THEIR LIBERTY.
YET, ALL OF THESE BONDS TOGETHER WERE NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO OVERCOME TWO
FACTORS . . . (LOCAL PATRIOTISM AND GEOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS THAT NURTURED
POLITICAL DIVISIONS . . .)
IF WE CAN PUT THE EMPHASIS ON THE "PLURIBUS," INSTEAD OF THE "UNUM," WE CAN
BALKANIZE AMERICA AS SURELY AS KOSOVO.
VII. THEN I WOULD PLACE ALL THESE SUBJECTS OFF LIMITS – MAKE IT TABOO TO
TALK ABOUT. I WOULD FIND A WORD SIMILAR TO "HERETIC" IN THE
- THAT STOPPED DISCUSSION AND PARALYZED THINKING. WORDS LIKE "RACIST",
"XENOPHOBE" THAT HALTS ARGUMENT AND CONVERSATION.
HAVING MADE AMERICA A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL COUNTRY, HAVING ESTABLISHED
MULTICULTURALISM, HAVING THE LARGE FOUNDATIONS FUND THE DOCTRINE OF "VICTIMOLOGY",
I WOULD NEXT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS. I WOULD DEVELOP
A MANTRA – "THAT BECAUSE IMMIGRATION HAS BEEN GOOD FOR AMERICA, IT MUST
ALWAYS BE GOOD." I WOULD MAKE EVERY INDIVIDUAL IMMIGRANT
SYMPATRIC AND
IGNORE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT.
VIII. LASTLY, I WOULD CENSOR VICTOR HANSON DAVIS’S BOOK
MEXIFORNIA
THIS BOOK IS DANGEROUS IT EXPOSES MY PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA. SO
PLEASE, PLEASE IF YOU FEEL THAT AMERICA DESERVES TO BE DESTROYED PLEASE,
PLEASE DON’T BUY THIS BOOK! THIS GUY IS ON TO MY PLAN.
"THE SMART WAY TO KEEP PEOPLE PASSIVE AND OBEDIENT IS TO STRICTLY LIMIT THE
SPECTRUM OF ACCEPTABLE OPINION, BUT ALLOW VERY LIVELY DEBATE WITHIN THAT
SPECTRUM." NOAM CHOMSKY,
AMERICAN LINGUIST AND US MEDIA AND FOREIGN POLICY CRITIC.
I can’t really decide if this guy is brilliant or nuts. Probably
both. I read this from
a Snopes.com article,
and, was kind of surprised to find out it was not only true, but Lamm still
believes in it.
15
Jun
Well, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 got delayed again so that discussion, debate, and resolution of yet another incredibly important issue could be resolved. Namely, Charles Schumer of New York felt it was that important that the entire thing be stopped just long enough that this be addressed:
To strike the reliable fuels subtitle of the amendment
That’s right, they’re now discussing the proper naming of the amendment. It was tabled as well.
