Please watch this video for an explanation of what McCarthyism is and how FOX News personality Glenn Beck is leading the charge of it’s revival in the US.
Tag Archives: US
Exception to Torture
18 US Code 2340 — Exception to Torture
“Torture means an act of a person acting under color of law to inflict severe physical and mental pain other than pain and suffering to lawful sanctions upon another person under lawful physical custody or control.”
This statute combined with the Justice Department memos seeking to define ‘enhanced interrogation’ as legal sanction are the method by which the Bush administration violated the US Constitution through the approval of cruel and unusual punishment on military detainees as part of lawful sanctions.
Many who use the word ‘torture’ on both sides of the argument fail to recognize this statute in it’s existence. I do not. Those who committed acts of torture as defined by US Legal Code should face prosecution for their acts no matter if they belong to an agency of US origin or not. The Nuremberg Defense is invalid. If your commanding officer orders you to commit torture you are bound by law to resign rather than accept the orders.
The US Supreme Court has rejected the argument that holding military detainees indefinitely is constitutional, stating that habeas corpus (the right to speedy trial) must be granted to terrorism suspects.
The United States Constitution applies as to persons and not exclusively to citizens nor exclusively within our borders. Wherever America goes, the Constitution follows.
Ours was the nation that defined specifically waterboarding as torture to be banned by the Geneva Convention, we proposed that their were to be no exceptions under the law for this method of interrogation to be lawful sanction. This nation once stood against the tactics of the communists who oppress freedom of opinion with fear and propaganda. When politically expedient such a review of history is rejected for the failed logic of ’enhanced interrogation’ being successful and vital to national security. All available credible information on the matter says otherwise and the FBI has warned of a ’blow-back factor’ from using such tactics from the beginning.
Not only do tactics like waterboarding endanger national security but they degrade our ability to conduct ourselves as a credible nation to other nations whom engage in human rights violations and nuclear proliferation. We have no weight in our stance while we allow illegalities to go unpunished within our own government and our own military.
Now somehow in these dark days we have a portion of the country who believe in using the very tactics of the communists that we rallied against so many years ago in a new battle where following this ideology will undoubtedly lead to yet another terrorist attack on the homeland and further the goals of global terrorism abroad. I contend if we listen to the perspective of former Vice-President Richard Cheney on the matter that we will provoke the national security situation to an irreparable state.
Read Some News & Instantly Talk About It!
In my opinion, all these news-blogging websites are the same thing wrapped up in a different package. This age of faster and faster news-cycles combining with worldwide communications expanding to new heights has spawned a new phenomena of people like myself feeling the need to respond to every single news story in all the world.Then expound upon some line of thought in some blog and someone comments-back: “Keep it short and sweet.” Sometimes there is none of that. Sometimes I run out anything and we end up with the new and famous and amazing micro-blogging (Tweet)!
—
The ‘protectors’ of the freedom of speech and ’balanced’ media have opened up a talking-back-at-you website. They let my liberal stuff through just like anyone else.
This site has morphed from comment moderation taken to new tyrannical heights and has landed right back where all the internet is, sanity. Though I’ll the first to admit that almost every post on the website is written by a liberal.
I don’t live in the UK but this news-site has always caught my eye. I just think they have better articles than a lot of American media to discuss or reference.
I might have promoted you and you never knew it. I try and point out anything I think is great in both credible source and just pure internet source. If you have a blog I am the one who just randomly spread it around on Facebook or maybe Stumble.
I have no idea why people do this but YouTube comment threads often become beyond the limits of sanity in terms of length, and the dialogue goes beyond any measure of civility in about 90% of the cases. I can barely ever help myself, I’ve allowed myself to childish and tawdry while speaking to vile and hostile people. If you like car-crashes and Jerry Springer … you might want to just read the comments under a video without even bothering with whatever the original post was.
—
It’s just my point of view.
That it all fits in the same pale. One big not-so happy family of internet traffic.
The only credibility on most internet posting is attached to the credibility of the domain combined with the author. I’ll listen to anybody, but I’m not about to try and attach any level of credibility to myself. This all just my opinion. But I think some certain few out there somehow manage to get opinion and real news confused in all the commotion of the New Media.
World Focus: “Obama Defends Decision to Close Guantanamo”
On Thursday, U.S. President Barack Obama delivered a strong defense of his decision to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, an issue that has become increasingly political in recent weeks. On Wednesday, Congress had denied Obamas request for $80 million to close the detention facility.
In the speech, Obama largely repudiated the Bush administration policy on dealing with terror suspects — and declared again, in no uncertain terms, we do not torture.
Shayana Kadidal, a senior managing attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights who has represented a number of Guantanamo detainees, joins Martin Savidge to discuss how the president made his case, the next step and potential pitfalls of the Obama plan.
Waterboarding is Torture
It disturbs and disgusts me that so many American conservatives refuse to address all empirical evidence regarding practices like waterboarding while supporting these failed and immoral policies enacted under the Bush Presidency in the aftermath of the attacks of 2001.
Political partisanship aside, our nation has long stood as a global role model of a free republic and a just democracy by which the policies of fledgling democracies might observe and hopefully mimic.
A country claiming moral superiority must have reflective policies as pertaining to these morals. Any country that approves of a policy such as legal waterboarding of detainees cannot hope to claim any degree of civic morality inherent to it’s soil.
Redefinitions of torture as acceptable in any form is counter-intuitive to sound American policy making, in my view. Within political debate the same attempts are contrary to the Spirit of The Constitution itself. Not to mention the practice is specifically banned by the Military Code of Conduct and the Geneva Convention.
Constitutional Activist
What does that even mean?
I am not totally sure myself.
But that’s what I am.
I have some loose idea about a New Amendment as to the nature of privacy rights and internet communications. I haven’t got any of my ducks-lined-up on that one. Just a ‘FISA / Patriot Act Afterthought’.
Where do you stand?
Is the Constitution some immutable document that defies all societal and technological development? Or is it a living document that we have ignored for decades?
Obviously, I’m biased.
Eric Lightborn
http://ericlightborn.wordpress.com
March 17th 2009
Liberal Populist
A liberal, sure. First and foremost.
But I’m not running from being labeled a “populist.” Red-baiting doesn’t phase me anymore. Let those who attempt and fail at political understanding call me what they will. I am unashamed.
With the change of a single word in a historical quote from the first American Populist to run for president in 1896 you can sum up everything I have to say about the current condition of the American economy.
“You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold [credit].” – William J. Bryan
***
The cross of the middle class and the working poor should be bore no longer. The whips of old exchanged for bare hands.
This yoke of credit and credit approval has far too long strangled the workforce of America from advancing in social class. The burden by no means stops there. (Jim Cramer the economist & Jon Stewart the comedian)
The very integrity of the American worker has been bought and sold on the open market for far too long. The largest of institutions have had ultimate sway on matters pertaining to them for an age and a day too long.
The era of protectionism has taught us well. No market is isolated. No economy is independent of the strongest economy known to exist. Recent events have shown us this beyond any reasonable doubt.
But the era of ‘deceptionism’ has yet to be fully addressed, or even understood. No industry is without accountability. No private incorporation is fit to process a majority share of any highly successful venture.
I do not support a return to the Gold Standard as those like Congressman Ron Paul who I have much respect for propose. The credit system and the existence of credit lines themselves are not the source of the crown of thorns. I support instead fully nationalizing and reforming the Federal Reserve and the Federal Exchange Commission.
In the absence of abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service I propose reform into an agency that regulates the bank rating system and monitors the highest echelons of finance with previously unseen vigor and transparency in their actions.
Those who sought to lead us blindly into these days cannot be trusted. Those who hide the truth become party to a much greater misdeed. We cannot afford to stand silent any longer in the need for a truthful news media.
To those who came before us in days of Vietnam. We say to them we have seen your sorrows and known your pain. But we are not shedding blood nor issuing violence as our battering ram against authority.
We demand recognition that our tools are by the words, protests and non-violent actions. Choked of our very means of ways by the ever-expanding, all powerful monopolies across our markets. Let all who allowed this to transpire as such come only but to apologize before the public.
Let the regulators who took part in this only shamefully resign. Let the business leaders who did nothing to tell of the coming recession when many Americans, including myself and my father, were fully aware of its coming onslaught only plead for willingness to allow them near our political structure.
I say these words as member of the Progressive Movement and a registered Democratic voter in California. Let us never forget the modern progressive, or alternatively the modern liberal, was forged in the first Progressive Reform Movement of one hundred years past. And the Populist Movement stands the father of the Progressive.
While we do not resemble our forerunners we are much the same as they. There is no tolerance for absolutism in control over the means to obtain success and prosperity.
The Economy: What We Can Do
I cannot stress enough that each American can take easy steps to help our nation in tough times.
Just as many of us received a stimulus package under President Bush we will likely receive a package from coming-President Obama, as proposed.
The important part to know about the stimulus package-style of addressing economic malaise is that each person who receives these tax payer funds must spend, in majority, the funds in the markets for the stimulus to take any significant effect.
Many believe that spending the stimulus package funds exclusively on American products and services will serve to boost our markets more directly.
This may be true, but the bottom line is that using the funds along with savings to make wise investments or spending the money in American retailers and outlets is the only method by which any future packages would show any results.
Informing yourself on not only the best prices on the products you enjoy but which major retailers, energy companies and industries are of the best interest to our nation can lead not only to more stable markets but a greater degree of national security.
Economic strength and stability provides the higher quality intelligence services and personnel staying within the American interests.
For an informed American to claim they have their end of the economy handled in share, they would do well to understand a concept rarely addressed in any media format. The overall strength and robustness of any economy comes not from what is tracked as the DOW JONES or other market averages but rather within the actual number of jobs produced and inherent to that economy.
Also understanding that you are indeed putting real assets into the market by paying bills or with a highly modest fiscal investment, and need not make rash expensive purchases or risky investments to help build the economy up. In fact such actions may further degrade the once monolithic American markets.
Building a smart economy from the ground up is not outside the ability of any single American in help contribute towards.
Starting a small business, taking on a second or third job and hiring on more staffers to an existing business are not easy options for most Americans in 2008.
Nonetheless, these three options pose the greatest chance of enhancing the American economy in a very real way in days to come.
The last aspect of the market discussions in American mass media that is unaddressed is that each President cannot be held as strongly in referendum over the number of jobs created or lost under their Presidency as to the issue of the national budget.
Job loss or creation is a vital element of reviewing how well any President has governed over America but an epidemic of job loss or explosion of jobs could occur well outside the powers of office and at any time.
It is not to say that actions in office cannot hamper or stimulate job creation but rather that each job market is unique.
Eric Lightborn
https://americapress.wordpress.com
December 20th 2008
Government Corruption: What to Know to Protect Ourselves
Government corruption is the use of the power of office to obtain personal endowment for self-gain. An easy every-day example would be, a mayor of a city using money issued to be spent on roads on a new car in the mayor’s name.
Illinois Governor Blagojevich is alleged to have attempted to sell, or barter with, the appointment of the Illinois-state Senator seat and other privileges he holds in office.
The mass media often fails to illustrate that there in fact many brands of corruption and that it is significant to understand what the major categories are. Political corruption and government corruption are the most relevant in a discussion of recent and semi-recent corruption in America.
We must indeed guard against any corruption in office but the blanket definition of simply the word ‘corruption’ by itself in a serious national discussion is bereft of value to the public.
[Read ‘Truth About Lobbyists and Public-Interest Groups’ on this site for an explanation of lobby corruption.]
Political corruption stems primarily from non-ethical actions in office and the condoning of the non-ethical actions of others. The events leading to the impeachment of President Richard Nixon was an example of political corruption on a national scale.
Government corruption is far less apparent for the public sources of information to be aware of. The ability to predict and prevent against this brand of corruption is not a task that a citizen can do more than advocate against complacency on.
The responsibility to uncover the government corruption falls on the government themselves and to the credible press.
Any official who abuses their office may not in turn break a serious enough ethical code or law to be removed from office. The charges against a corrupt official might not be sufficient to prove a case for some time, and in the meanwhile the office is in jeopardy.
A corrupt official most likely would not disclose their agenda to other significant officials unless they had some prior knowledge that this person would be of negotiable ethics. This isolates the principled officials from coming into to personal conservations with corrupt officials in which they might be able to rout out corruption first-hand.
It is within some reasonable possibility that Illinois Governor Blagojevich and any possible illegal actions he has committed in while office was not unnoticed by President-elect Obama or that there was some innuendo in Illinois circles that the Governor had questionable ethics.
Barring proof of foreknowledge we cannot accuse a person, just as we must refrain in the mass media and in our minds from a summary judgment of Blagojevich.
At this time any comments on the level of awareness of any Illinois politicians in alleged government corruption is pure speculation and no significant source has come forward to offer evidence of any connection between the allegations against Blagojevich and Obama.
Were any politician to make charges of corruption against another official and failed to prove their case before the courts and the people they would certainly lose their position and credibility.
The motivation of a national figure in modern politics includes consideration of such possibilities before pursuing a crusade against corruption. It is very important to understand this before we condemn our representatives for not throwing the disreputable and dishonest representative out of office when they sat next to them for years.
The seriousness of the crime and the loss of integrity to our government is not lessened in by political corruption over government corruption. Both offenses are the nature of what cause the loss of faith in representatives among the people of our nation.
It is highly likely that Gov. Blagojevich is about to undergo similar proceedings to what happened in the Nixon-age.
We the people must guard ourselves both in holding our representatives to high standards but also in providing a court within ourselves to the hear the case of this person said to be guilty of corruption. The ideal of innocent until proven guilty is as important within our observance of politics as it is to the legal system.
This citizen source would love to interview the Illinois Governor, who has refused to address any press until trial. I would not pronounce him corrupt by default of allegation and I am generally interested in hearing his case for the people of Illinois.
Eric Lightborn
https://americapress.wordpress.com
December 20th 2008
Mexico in Crisis Today, America in Crisis Tomorrow
According to the Public Broadcasting Station (affiliate: KQED) and the Mexican authorities an estimated 5,000 people have been killed in Mexico in the past year.
Kidnappings, public displays of carnage and executions are common place in areas where brave men and women speak out against the violent reign of the Cartels.
480 missing persons and kidnapping cases leave loving parents asking continually unanswered questions of the Mexican authorities.
Cartel televised informant described a complete lack of any code of conduct in any of his experiences. He stated that Tijuana was the central focus of the Cartels for the drug trade and launching point into the US.
The Mexican President was reported to say he saw no escape from a tail-spin into a corrupt culture of violence and drug lords in years to come.
The notion that the state of Mexican-national affairs will not ultimately effect American-national affairs is not supported by facts.
The likelihood of these events in Mexico between 2007 and 2008 effecting America in a highly negative fashion in years to come becomes more likely under any system that precludes the importance of action.
The danger posed by the Cartels and other violent organizations established in Mexico should be at the highest of priorities of border-state governors and all applicable agencies charged to such matters in our government.
Eric Lightborn
December 19th 2008
Are We Safe Since 9/11?
President Bush wishes to express to the people of America that he has kept our nation safe since September 11th 2001 by means of his administration’s Middle-Eastern foreign policy. It is true that this nation has not suffered any such tragedies in the past seven years and unfair to not recognize that President Bush has held our national security in high regard after the 2001 attack. The question of his of readiness to assume the responsibility from the out-going Clinton administration in terms of national security and properly assimilating the depth of the known threats to American soil in 2000, is another issue. It is entirely possible and within reason that the Clinton administration failed in their presentation of relevant security matters and did not properly convey the gravity of said intelligence.
The responsibility to prevent an attack on America, if at all possible, still falls under the purview of the Executive Branch even in cases of possible faulty intelligence or possible inadequate representation of facts by previous administrations.
Prior to the 2001 tragedy in New York City often termed ‘9/11’ in mass media we had not suffered an attack to our mainland from a foreign source in more than one-hundred years.
Ultimately, the President is the President in-full from day one and is responsible for that day and every to come until out of office to the safety and prosperity of the American people.
Yet another issue to weigh is the effect of the Bush foreign policy agenda as a whole against the issues of the security of our national allies such as Israel, India and the European nations. The common interest of the American people always extends to their national allies in so far as the interests of commerce and mutual security.
While it is possible the Bush Doctrine may indeed provide the critical and necessary elements of effective national security that our nation must maintain, it is a possible outcome that continued use of this style of foreign policy in future administrations could cause permanent damage to our allies and thus effect the strength of the nation as a whole.
The issue of the responsibility of any current President in national security affairs extends beyond simply guarding against possible foreign attacks but also to guarding against national market failures and against stagnation in our legislature.
Economic strength provides higher quality intelligence services and personnel staying within American interests. Inaction in the branches of our government during crisis or outcry sends a message of instability to foreign adversaries who seek to claim us a nation without legitimacy and without honor.
The Bush White House has not upheld the role of economic steward nor has President Bush personally been a vigorous advocate of significant legislation, with the exception of the credit market bail out totaling $700 billion and the No Child Left Behind Act.
President Bush has taken more total vacation time and made less total vetoes than any President of recent decades. In a televised interview aired tonight he explained that he was concerned about the auto industry crisis but took no significant stance on the proposed bail out negotiations.
Even a lame-duck President holds the power of office and working American families that were promised pensions and benefits under the major American automakers could face an employer contract-breach should the chief legislator continue to straddle the issue. The House of Representatives and The Senate, to date, have also not upheld their role as intelligent regulators and legislators of our vital markets and industries. Congress is also not without blame in allowing a single branch to become unjustly-powerful in our system of checks and balances between the Three Branches of American government.
Eric Lightborn
https://americapress.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008
Truth About Lobbyists and Interest Groups
“One study of eighty-three (primarily liberal) public-interest groups found that one-third of them received half or more of all their funds from foundation grants; one-tenth received over 90 percent from such sources. In one ten year period the Ford Foundation alone contributed about $21 million to liberal public-interest groups. Many of these organizations were law firms that, other than staff members, had no members at all. The Environmental Defense Fund is supported almost entirely by grants from foundations such as the Rockefeller Family Fund. The more conservative Scaife foundations gave $1.8 million to a conservative public-interest group, the National Legal Center for the Public Interest.” [Wilson, DiIulio 2008]
The concept of using interest groups to promote the agendas and ideals of a movement is, by this source, not exclusive to the liberal movement but heavily favored by it thus far.
President-elect Barack Obama may isolate himself from major liberal movement members if the proposed audit of Washington politics takes a lasting toll on the liberal lobbies. The next four years will certainly answer just how far this coming-administration is willing to go to remove corruption in public-interest group finance and practice but four years from now there will also once again be a national referendum on the highest office. Should the effort ultimately take power from once strong lobbies for popular liberal agendas, the informed American Democratic Voter could potentially face a struggle at the polls when considering a vote for the incumbent President.
The power of an interest-group, in a classic design, should expand as the number of members and contributors expands. The ‘funded & unoccupied lobby’ described in quote above as a law firm is a critical element of what causes the real disruptions in Washington politics.
The figures and organizations that form the American lobbies and public-interest groups of today are not necessarily the root of the problem so much as the agendas of the highest funded public-interest groups overriding the highest agendas in the court of public opinion and the highest wills of the people.
If the National Legal Center for the Public Interest (a weak lobby) were to receive a large increase in both number of members and in contributions. they should rightly increase in the voice and recognition in Washington and receive foundation grants in turn.
If the Environmental Defense Fund (a strong lobby) were to lose both member and public support their voice as a lobby should rightly decrease and even though they do not receive a majority in foundation grants they should be kept from taking them if they lacked any significant support in the public domain.
This is all within a classic definition of how the public-interest groups should work. Any number of factors can increase or decrease the power of a single lobby and for this reason most of us limit our discussion on public-interest groups, or lobbies, to the number of members that are well-known or outspoken and the money behind the group.
Lobbyists are not are always motivated by ill or by good, despite the fact the lobby they work for is focused on a critical social issue or an important national matter that concerns you or perhaps for a group with which you disagree strongly.
To speak broadly, they are like salesmen of political stances a person in Washington should take. They are not invested into the case they are making in every single case but rather deliver the best argument in favor of the lobby that they can devise.
Politicians and lobbyists are very much the same, in many ways. Without means to search the hearts of others to know for sure if they really believe what they contend or if they are simply going with the popular ideology to gain your favor, we will never know for certain if they stand for the people or if they stand for their own private interests.
We can only judge their actions in office as solid statements of policy.
Eric Lightborn
https://americapress.wordpress.com
December 2008
America Observed 
You must be logged in to post a comment.