Being Anti-American

Crossposted at The Liberal Journal

RJ Eskow wrote:

On the same day that a new poll showed McCain’s negative campaign is damaging his chances, he used the final debate to go even more negative. And McCain and Palin are both going deeper into black-helicopter territory, with talk of “terrorists” and a scary organization they say is going to steal the election.

[…]

The question is: Why? Why would a faltering campaign double-up on a losing strategy? Sure, there’s always the possibility that McCain can’t help himself, that he’s so full of anger and bitterness that he can’t control himself. Or there’s the possibility is that the Palinites have taken over the campaign, forcing McCain to do their bidding. (“Lassie, go tell Mom and Dad! The bad people have taken Grandpa!”)

But there’s a simpler explanation for all the wacky conspiracy theories and incitements to right-wing rage: This could be a long term “destabilization” strategy. They expect to lose. So they’d rather lose by an even larger margin, but in a way that encourages their base to question the legitimacy of Obama’s administration. McCain’s behavior actually makes sense in that light – if their goal isn’t to win, but to lay the groundwork for noncooperation (if not active resistance) to the Federal government.

That’s not an opposition-party strategy. It’s political Posse Comitatus.

Before you decide they’d never be that extreme, remember: That’s pretty much what they did during the Clinton years — with the murder theories, false conspiracy stories, and deeds like Newt Gingrich shutting down the government. It was a watered-down version of the destabilization campaigns the U.S. has used against unfriendly foreign governments for decades.

I’m not sure that that is what’s defining McCain’s strategy, however, it is valid to realize that Obama’s presidency will parallel and far exceed Clinton’s in the sense of a rabid hatred from the Right.

We are already seeing the laughable, robotic attachment of labels and buzzwords to demonize Democrats. Socialists. Marxists. Why? Because saying you want the highest marginal tax rate to be set at 39.6% rather than 35% simply isn’t that scary. (Just like cutting it in the first place didn’t revolutionize our economy.) Instead, they must demagogue the issue. They must tap into some latent Cold War, Duck and Cover, Mutually Assured Destruction, Red Commie Bastard, World Turned Upside Down fear.

On Letterman Thursday night, John McCain said the Ayers issue was just about Obama being forthcoming about the relationship. “That’s all.” No, it’s clearly about having an excuse to say the word ‘terrorist’ and ’60s radical’ and ‘leftist’ repeatedly until people start hyperventilating and choking on their Big Macs.

But what the socialist label and the terrorist label all indirectly point towards is the notion of anti-Americanism. Those other labels are almost starting to lose their meaning. First, they’re not helping McCain so far. Second, one voter in a focus group said that she knew about the terrorist group Obama “was in” (obviously the propaganda has worked so well people believe Obama was actually a member of the Weather Underground at the tender young age of 8) but she still cared more about healthcare.

However, the anti-American label gets to the crux of the matter. Rep. Michele Bachmann, the most unhinged McCain surrogate alive, who is quite possibly a robot herself, unleashed the anti-American label on Hardball. She repeats the words leftist, extreme liberal, and anti-American over and over again. Chris Matthews egged her on a bit, getting her to say that the press should look into members of Congress who might be anti-American.

(Also did you notice the hatred of college campuses? i.e. anti-intellectualism)

Such a sick display of modern day McCarthyism is what those Buckleys and Wills and Brooks’s are running away from. And Peggy Noonan who wrote today discussing Sarah Palin:

In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It’s no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism.

As mentioned in the Hardball segment, Sarah Palin today talked about the “pro-American areas” of the country. So parts of America are not pro-themselves? That is so illogical, it is vulgar.

The person who got way more attention than he deserved, Mr. Joe the Plumber, said in one of his interviews that he shouldn’t have to apologize for being American. I’m about 99.99% certain no liberal has ever come up to Joe and said, “Joe, you are American, so you must apologize.” This is a straw man argument. What it is based on is criticism of the proper way the U.S. government should act abroad. That is democracy. Yet, the ‘apologizing’ frame makes those like Joe feel like they are acting in self-defense, which therefore justifies however they choose to respond. Also, the logical conclusion of the frame is that to criticize any of our activities abroad is to help the enemy, as if we live in a giant bunker rather than a democratic republic.

Most reading this are probably thinking, ‘yeah, I know the flaws in logic, already.’ But the potential repercussions of the failure of many of our fellow citizens to make these connections are truly frightening. We’re getting closer to the bunker.

The reason I think anti-American is so dangerous is, in addition to being eerily reminiscent of McCarthyism, is that you can at least disagree and co-exist with a socialist. But someone who is un-American is an invader, an enemy, an ultimate, faceless Other. Once you are ‘other’-ized you can become the victim of violence from those in the “good American” group or the “Real American” group.

That’s the same mentality that resulted in that church shooting in Tennessee over the summer:

An out-of-work truck driver accused of opening fire at a Unitarian church, killing two people, left behind a note suggesting that he targeted the congregation out of hatred for its liberal policies, including its acceptance of gays, authorities said Monday.

A four-page letter found in Jim D. Adkisson’s small SUV indicated he intentionally targeted the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church because, the police chief said, “he hated the liberal movement” and was upset with “liberals in general as well as gays.”

Or just today when a McCain/Palin supporter kicked a reporter.

Or just today when a McCain/Palin supporter hung an effigy of Obama from a tree and said the following:

Surprise, shock and some fear in a local neighborhood, after an anti-Obama display is hung from a tree…And the person who put it there says the message isn’t political, it’s racist. Shawn Ley spoke with the man who isn’t shy about his views.

There it is, right above the “McCain-Palin” sign: a make-shift ghost, hanging from a noose. A Barack Obama sign attached upside down. Obama’s middle name: “Hussein” spray painted and misspelled above.

Mike Lunsford hung the ghost in his yard. He spoke to us off-camera, saying his views could hurt his employers business … but he says make no mistake: He doesn’t want an African American running the country.

Lunsford says he believes Barack Obama is not a “full blooded American.” And he says the United States is a white, Christian nation – and only with white Christians should be in power.

I know bad things happen on all sides. But the ratio is far more on one side, and it’s because of the hatred that is being fomented. I have only heard one side say that those not like them or those that disagree with them are anti-American.

Remember the noose image that was posted then taken down by a right wing blog? Remember what they wrote:

“…we’re dealing with Communist Liberals here and not normal people. So, to those who want to whine, I’m just fighting fire with fire here and giving these Anti-American, God Hating, Baby Killing, Fascist bastards a dose of their own medicine.”

“We’re at war folks, and I intend to fight this war until my dying breath. We’re at war against terrorists that want to destroy this country and everything it stands for and we are war against godless liberals who hate the very values and freedoms that this Nation was founded upon.”

There’s that word again: anti-American. Combined with the part about us not being “normal people,” they’re dehumanizing us.

Now, the rank and file hatefest has bubbled up to Michele Bachmann. When members of Congress start saying this they are legitimizing witchhunting. She won’t be reprimanded for what she said. Yet what she said lays the groundwork, the foundation, for things to get uglier, for the shrieks of Obama’s illegitimacy to grow louder, which can then lead to violence. I wouldn’t be seduced by a big election night for the Democrats, either. While that may demoralize the Republican party as a whole, it will make elements of it even angrier and more determined. So while we will have to defend rationality, progressive values, and Obama from unfair attack and hate from the Right, we also have to be vigilant and proactive when it comes to this growing monster.

I leave you with Edward Murrow’s words as portrayed in the movie Good Night, and Good Luck:

In the event of an October Surprise…

It looks like McCain has another gimmick up his sleeve. Here’s what The Gun Toting Liberal wrote:

According to my “GOP-Insider buddy” (yes, I do have one of those — and boy, oh boy, these guys are packing a huge “wallop” to the Obama Camp in the next few weeks thanks to — oh, HECK, that’s all I am allowed to say at this time — more on that one at a later time — you’ll just have to stay tuned)

I think the greatest threat to Obama’s candidacy this point isn’t McCain or Palin, but some type of October Surprise. (I’d put voter fraud second, behind an October Surprise and before McCain/Palin).

Here is the question, if there is a possibility of a game changing event, is there a game plan for when that comes up? It seems that if it is a “huge wallop” there should be a quick, hard, and unified response from Obama and the blogosphere. Do we hit back with the Keating Five? What do we do?

Take off the Gloves: She’s NOT Ready

I really believe we will look back at this week as the week that changed the election, if we do the right thing. The Convention was a resounding smash. And McCain’s VP selection was a resounding thud, but we have to point it out.

Whether someone can take over in a moment’s notice is THE, UNIVERSAL, BASIC standard that everyone of every ideology agrees is the test for a VP.  Everyone in America with a brain cell is “saying hold on a minute.” Don’t let that thought slip out of their heads.

Sarah Palin is the 2008 Dan Quayle. Actually, I’m not being fair to Dan Quayle. Quayle had a law degree, served in the US House for 4 years and in the US Senate for 8. Sarah Palin was the mayor of a village and has been governor of a state of 500,000 people for about 20 months.

We’re talking about the absolute bare minimum here. 20 months is what separates her from being the average Joe on the street. And the average Joe on the street realizes this and is scratching his head.

Common arguments in the blogosphere being presented against calling this out go as follows:

“But attacking her highlights Obama’s inexperience…”

Obama has been in the US Senate for over 3 years, including the Foreign Relations committee. He has traveled around abroad meeting world leaders alongside people like Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel. Prior to that he represented roughly 225,000 people in the Illinois State Senate for 8 years. She was the mayor of a village and we have no idea if she knows the difference between Iran and Iraq.

(For those worried about a double standard on the issue of judgment, please provide me a copy of Palin’s speech detailing the disaster that would be invading Iraq.)

“She has executive experience.”

You’d think it’d be hard to screw up running a village, but she did.

“If Kaine had been chosen, you’d be praising his selection…”

Kaine, too, is more experienced than Palin, and yet even he too was not chosen because of this.

“But she’s the VP, not the President…”

Yeah but McCain is on his deathbed. There’s about a 50% chance she would have to take over in the next 8 years.

Don’t be fooled by conservative activists and GOP surrogates who have been spinning furiously. Nary a one can prove she knows anything about foreign policy. They are happy she’s pro drilling, but she’s been on record as supporting Obama’s energy plan.

All this was was a pander to women. McCain took his biggest decision so far and decided to use it for an empty pander.

The GOP now has no national security argument. They have no experience argument. And they never had an economic argument.

This is manna from heaven. GOP strategists are hoping and praying we don’t swing at the softball that’s been lobbed to us. Let’s not do them a favor. We need to define her now, while we can.

Plus this all underscores McCain’s poor judgment. Plus it underscores McCain’s desperation.

Don’t just sit there and try to win this election by saying “Well she’s anti-abortion,” because that  doesn’t work. (see, Previous Presidential Elections)

Come on, stop overthinking this. Fight, goddamit.

Romney’s Speech Doesn’t Compare

With the insurgent campaign of Mike Huckabee and lingering anti-Mormon bias from fellow Christians, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney had to reassert his God cred. That led to today’s religion speech.

Originally, the Romney camp had said they weren’t going to make a Kennedy-like speech on Romney’s religion, saying it had already been done. Indeed it had. But practicality dictates that Romney must massage the Religious Right who refuse to support him because of his personal beliefs rather than his inability to hold a position.

Regardless of what Mitt said in his speech, simply having to make a speech like this is a defeat of sorts. The point has been made: many Americans are incapable of separating religion from governance. It demonstrates how little has changed since 1960, when Kennedy made his famous speech.

As for Romney’s speech itself (text here), it was at its best when it paraphrased Kennedy’s, but at its worst when it appealed to the Republican base. There were many parallels–both cited the constitutional provision barring a religious test for public office, both cited the Founders who were of different beliefs and banded together against Britain, and both talked of not putting one religious group over another.

But there were many differences, as well.
John F. Kennedy’s speech (text here) began by saying there were more important issues in the campaign than his religion. This set the tone for his speech which was very forceful and unapologetic. Kennedy would later bring up his military service and his brother’s death in combat as examples of his undivided loyalty. Finally, Kennedy’s second to last paragraph was basically, `if I lose, you’ll all show the world what a bunch of bigots Americans are’

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

The tone of Romney’s was markedly less unapologetic–it was mostly forceful at the point Romney defended his beliefs, but not all Americans’ personal beliefs.

Romney’s speech almost immediately begins with talking about radical Islam. How ironic is it that in a speech on religious tolerance, Romney would begin by declaring America at war with an extreme religious belief? Contrast this to Kennedy who stressed the idea of the slippery slope of persecution of religious beliefs: “Today I may be the victim–but tomorrow it may be you–until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.”

A critical difference between Romney and Kennedy was the separation of church and state. Kennedy said this should be “absolute.” Romney addresses the issue by saying what the Righties want to hear:

No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the
free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of
church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They
seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is
seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they
are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of
secularism. They are wrong.

Why? What’s wrong? Is the public square the place to make religious statements? If so, I want a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster next to every nativity scene in America.

Romney then said, “Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.”

You know, I wonder if God has a gift receipt, because a lot of men had to kill other men in order to redeem that ‘gift.’ Also, the Founders who believed in religious freedom were the “government.” So I would say that it is an “indulgence of government” rather than a “gift of God.” But then I guess I wouldn’t qualify as an American, in Romney’s eyes.

Another interesting difference I noted was that Kennedy talked at length about the Catholic Church, whereas Romney mentioned the word `Mormon’ only once, focusing more on his own personal morality.

What does this all translate to? Kennedy drew a line in the sand and stood by his principles–that religion and government shouldn’t mix, ever. Romney’s speech took parts of Kennedy’s speech and tried to make it comport with the elements of the Religious Right who want religious beliefs expressed in the public square. Needless to say, it didn’t work.

Crossposted at the Liberal Journal and Worldwide Sawdust

The Venezuela Referendum in Perspective

[Background: There will be a voter referendum on a number of Constitutional amendments in Venezuela, the most notable is an abolition of term limits which would allow President Hugo Chavez to run for re-election without limit.]

Many on the Right are seizing on today’s NY Times Op-Ed written by Raul Isaias Baduel, a former Hugo Chavez confidante and head of the army in Venezuela, as an example of Chavez being a heinous dictator. Let’s take a closer look:

Hugo Chávez and I worked together for many years. I supported him through thick and thin, serving as his defense minister. But now, having recently retired, I find myself with the moral and ethical obligation as a citizen to express my opposition to the changes to the Constitution that President Chávez and the National Assembly have presented for approval by the voters tomorrow.

The proposal, which would abolish presidential term limits and expand presidential powers, is nothing less than an attempt to establish a socialist state in Venezuela. As our Catholic bishops have already made clear, a socialist state is contrary to the beliefs of Simón Bolívar, the South American liberation hero, and it is also contrary to human nature and the Christian view of society, because it grants the state absolute control over the people it governs.

Um, Chavez kind of ran on a socialist platform, and hasn’t really wavered in that. Baduel supported Chavez’s goals for several years. Chavez hasn’t changed, Baduel has.

While still on Chavez’s side, Baduel sounded more worried about U.S. involvement in Venezuela as subverting democracy:

Q: The assassination of the president [by the U.S.]: an option?

A: The news is the possibility of an assassination in Venezuela.
We have analyzed the present scenario, in which our process is being developed and we are convinced assassination is an option the United States might use. Maybe, it is the only option they have not applied in a context in which all possible resources have been used to damage the Security and the Defense of the country.

Q: What are the other options [the U.S] have applied or that they are still applying?

A: First, “the fourth generation war.” In the future, when we analyze what happened in our country since 1999 we’ll see more clearly that we suffered from this kind of war encouraged and financed by the United States…

Back to today’s op-ed, the ‘new’ Baduel continues:

Venezuela will thrive only when all its citizens truly have a stake in society. Consolidating more power in the presidency through insidious constitutional reforms will not bring that about.

Assuming he hasn’t been paid for his words, because the Bush Administration has been known to throw some money around for “pro-democracy” propaganda in Venezuela, a fact rarely mentioned in the MSM, I agree with Baduel.

I’ll even go further: Chavez said that you would have to be a traitor to vote against the proposed changes. I condemn that. That type of rhetoric sounds a lot like another chief executive talking about a certain war on terrorism.

But let’s take a deep breath and put this coverage in perspective: What’s undermines democracy more? A foreign country financing dissidents or the citizens of the country voting on a Constitutional amendment?

And there’s more hypocrisy involved.

I acknowledge I have never stepped in the country myself. It seems to me however, as an outsider, that term limits are always a preferred option. Unlike many who call the democratically elected Chavez a dictator, though, I am consistent in this view. It is ludicrous that we have Senators and Representatives who can run for re-election well into their 90s. Does that make the U.S. less than fully democratic? I think ultimately it does, but are Chavez’s American critics pointing this out? We also had no term limits for the Presidency for about, what 160 years or so? Has Venezuela’s democracy been around for 160 years? So, yeah, I apologize for not hyperventilating.

This all really comes down to oil. I just wish they would come out and say it already.

Crossposted at Worldwide Sawdust and the Liberal Journal

Why Supporting Hillary is Stupid

Hillary supporters, show yourselves. I want to know who to blame in 2008 if Hillary wins the nomination. I know of only one blogger who is actively supporting Hillary, who will remain nameless. Where are the rest of you? Not reading my blog, I’m sure.

In just one day, I have read four very disconcerting pieces about Hillary.
First, I will say that a Hillary nomination would risk the Democrats losing in 2008. Missouri state Minority Whip Connie Johnson said of Hillary’s prospects in the general election in Missouri: “If Hillary comes to a state like Missouri, we can write it off.”

Then there are Hillary’s fundraising activities which could become a serious issue. We had Norman Hsu, and now we have a whole lot of‘bundled’ donations in the thousands from working class citizens in Chinatown.

The other stories point to the risk of her winning in 2008. Her ‘bundled’ employee donations from defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon should give us pause. This article from the UK’s Independent notes, “Mrs Clinton has received $52,600 in contributions from individual arms industry employees. That is more than half the sum given to all Democrats and 60 per cent of the total going to Republican candidates.”

Then there’s more dirty money. There is her relationship with Alan Quasha. Quasha bailed out Bush’s business ventures back in the 1980s. More recently, he gave Clinton confidante Terry McAuliffe a job, and his business partner, Hassan Nemazee, is one of Hillary’s biggest fundraisers. There’s more. Lots. Read the whole thing.

Taking a trip down memory lane of my blog, we see the conservatives’ adoration of Hillary HERE and HERE. We see her risk of losing in 2008 HERE and HERE. And then there’s Rupert Murdoch’s support.

So why would we risk losing in 2008? Or alternatively, having a President who will have won thanks to the very people who put Bush in office? Why would we be so stupid?

Crossposted at Worldwide Sawdust and The Liberal Journal

The Difference Between the Pin Flap and the Cackle Gaggle

I haven’t hid my displeasure at the prospect of a Hillary nomination. However, I do give credit where credit’s due. For instance, Hillary’s response in the last Democratic debate to a Tim Russert question. Russert caught everyone off guard, including her, when he told her that her husband supported torture in a hypothetical scenario. The audience watched intently as Hillary smiled, and a moment later stated, “I’ll have to talk to him about that later.” It was a soft touch, a deft touch, nay, a masterful response.

So despite my aversion to her candidacy, I think I can be fair when assessing their particular performances.

Last week, the big story was Hillary’s loud, prolonged, and pronounced laughs in an interview with Chris Wallace. The “cackle” became news, and some rushed to her defense. Some said, see she look’s robotic. I am more in the latter group.
More specifically, not that she’s merely robotic (a la Gore), but that she’s not credible. It seems she pre-plans these laughing sequences to look more human, or to buy time to search for the proper talking point in her mind. Either way, it’s phony. Credibility is an issue which voters decide in every race. Court cases often turn on the credibility of witnesses, adjudged by either the judge or a jury. This can be the witness’ evasiveness or even, yes, laughs. So it is a fair topic of discussion.

Obama’s pin situation is not the same. A reporter asked him why he didn’t wear an American flag pin, and he responded:

”Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.

”I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism.”

Obama’s credibility is not at issue here. Just his “patriotism.” But he explains he is distinguishing himself from empty displays of patriotism. So far the only candidates who have criticized Obama’s position are Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, marginal far-right candidates.

The Chicago Sun-Times said, “his polarizing comments make him sound like a hardened leftist.” However they also stated, “We’ll concede that pinning a flag to your chest is a phony litmus test of patriotism.” They continue, “Why not wear one, and wear it proudly, and explain what it means to you? Isn’t that better than having your red, white and blue credentials questioned?”

Ron Chusid at Liberal Values compared this behavior to the episode of Seinfeld where Kramer refuses to wear an AIDS ribbon at an AIDS Walk. The other participants berate and intimidate Kramer to get him to wear the ribbon.

So there is no substance in Obama’s case. His critics are just telling him to pander to the jingoists. Meanwhile, Hillary’s calculated histrionics validly call her credibility into question.

Crossposted at Worldwide Sawdust

Don’t forget the other Jena’s

While some in the media will portray the Jena 6 as all about Mychal Bell and how much he deserves to be punished, we shouldn’t forget the other injustices which have been occurring in the past couple of weeks:

Gary King Jr, of Oakland CA shot in the back by a police officer while fleeing and was left to die on the sidewalk for 15 minutes. http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/23/18449224.php

Pleajhai Mervin, a 16 year old girl who had her wrist broken by a security guard for not picking up all of the crumbs of a cake on the ground. He told her “hold still nappy head”.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21034611/

And of course, Megan Williams, tortured in West Virginia. Prosecutors in her case are not pursuing hate crimes charges. http://aapoliticalpundit.blogspot.com/2007/09/megan-williams-was-sexually-assaulted.html

The Unconstitutional Patriot Act

Provisions of the Patriot Act were held unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Here’s my summary of the case (all other claims regarding the plaintiff’s detention were settled to):

Findings of Fact:

Fingerprints taken in connection from the 2004 Madrid bombings were sent to the U.S., who compared them against their existing FBI database. No match was found. Higher resolution pictures of the fingerprints were then sent. A new search was conducted and turned up 20 potential matches to one of the fingerprints. A score was assigned based on how closely it matched the original.

Brandon Mayfield’s print was ranked fourth closest out of the 20. The court describes Mayfield as follows:

Mayfield is an American citizen born in Oregon and reared in Kansas. He lives with his wife and three children in Aloha, Oregon, a suburb of Portland. Mayfield is 38 years old, a former Army officer with an honorable discharge, and a practicing Oregon lawyer. Prior to his arrest, he had not traveled outside the United States since 1994, and he had never been arrested for a crime. Plaintiffs allege that FBI examiners were aware of Mayfield’s Muslim faith and that this knowledge influenced their examination of Mayfield’s fingerprints.

Knowing of Mayfield’s religion, an agent declared his fingerprint a match to the Madrid fingerprint. This agent then gave the fingerprint to a retired FBI officer who confirmed his finding. This retired officer however, was reprimanded 3 times for erroneous identifications, and may also have known of Mayfield’s faith. A third senior officer agreed with the agent and the retired FBI officer that the fingerprint was a match.

Then the surveillance began:

On March 21, 2004, FBI surveillance agents began to watch Mayfield and to
follow Mayfield and members of his family when they traveled to and from the
Bilal Mosque, the family’s place of worship; to and from Mayfield’s law office, his place of employment; to and from the children’s school; and to and from family activities.

The plaintiffs alleged that the FBI sought a FISA court order and performed “sneak and peek” searches at Mayfield’s home and tapped phones.

On April 2, the U.S. sent Mayfield’s prints to Spain. Spain concluded Mayfield’s prints did not match. The FBI sent agents to try to convince the Spaniards of Mayfield’s guilt, but they insisted that they saw no connection.

The FBI was pleased, so they came back to the states and sought a court order for further searches, affirming to the court that their three officers found a “100% match” (while not mentioning Spain’s disagreement). In addition, the FBI included the fact that Mayfield attended mosques and was listed in the “Muslim Yellow Pages.” An expert was appointed, who was selected by Mayfield, and concluded that there was a match. The following occurred:

Mayfield’s family home and law office were searched. Computer and paper files from his family home, including his children’s homework, were seized. Mayfield was ultimately arrested and initially held in the lock down unit at the Multnomah County Detention Center. His family was not told where he was being held.

Mayfield’s was released from prison after on May 19, 2004, Spain informed that they had identified the print as belonging to an Algerian.

The Court’s Discussion of Law:

The court stated how the government represented to the FISA court that Mayfield was “an agent of a foreign power” despite no evidence that Mayfield left the United States (he didn’t even have a passport) and that Spain had come to a different conclusion. The court explained that under the lax FISA standards, the government could get away with this.

In other words, the government avoided a traditional 4th Amendment warrant, went to the FISA court and despite significant evidence to the contrary, was allowed to receive a FISA order.

The court discussed how the lower FISA standards run counter to the Bill of Rights. They go through major 4th Amendment cases, and illustrate that there was no probable cause that a crime had been or was being committed, and that the government specifically used a FISA law which allowed Mayfield to be subjected to searches even though there was less than a probable cause standard: “When the FISC reviews a FISA search application, the government satisfies most FISA requirements simply by certifying that the requirements are met.” In other words, by the virtue of the government declaring Mayfield or any U.S. citizen an agent of a foreign power” the FISA court can only overrule this decision if it is clearly erroneous–that is, that ALL of the evidence shows that the person ABSOLUTELY is not an agent of a foreign power.

A FISA appeal (In re Sealed Case) in 2002 upheld these procedures, but as the District Court pointed out, oral arguments were only heard by the government’s side and even then the court stated that it wasn’t clear whether the new FISA law was “consistent with the Fourth Amendment.”

The court rejected therefore rejected the conclusion in In re Sealed Case and held the FISA amendments unconstitutional.

Where we go from here

How likely is it that this decision will stand? The case looks headed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which cover Most of the West Coast). It is a fairly “liberal” court and from cases cited by the opinion, it seems likely it will, in fact, uphold the decision. The case would then proceed to the Supreme Court, where it could end up in Justice Kennedy’s lap.

Some of the government’s arguments will be:

–The courts have recognized a need for a different standard with respect to foreign intelligence activities, and have suggested Congress resolve these issues, which it has with the Patriot Act.

–The FISA amendments were agreed upon by the Congress, so that the President’s powers are at a maximum (for more on this concept, google Justice Jackson’s concurrence in the Steel Seizure case).

–More specifically, Mayfield’s fingerprint evidence was agreed upon by four experts, so there was some basis for the U.S. government to believe he was involved.

–The settlement took care of damages to him, so the system essentially worked, and the law which has been agreed to by both political branches in this “dangerous time” need not be changed.

–They’ll probably throw in that the Court was making a decision best left to the political branches, as national security issues merit the most flexibility.

–They will also heavily rely again on the In re Sealed Case decision, which the Supremes could point to as adequate rationale, if they so choose.

–Finally, for good measure, they’ll argue that this was a rare case of mistaken identity.

My thoughts on the decision:

I agree one hundred percent with the court’s holding. Judicial opinions try to stick to the most concrete concepts of law, so a lot of the facts of this case are forgotten by the time you finish reaching the decision. But if you look back at the findings of fact, you see a truly horrible picture here.

Mayfield’s fingerprints were picked out from 20 people. One of the reasons why he was picked was because he was Muslim. Others who confirmed his fingerprint as a match also allegedly knew of his religion. When Spain turned the FBI and its accusations of Mayfield way, they became seemingly incensed, and stepped up the pressure on this innocent American citizen. A veteran. A lawyer. A family man. They left out important contradictory facts to get more court orders so they could conduct more searches and `nail’ him. They tapped his phones, broke into his home and followed his family around to mosques. Then they imprisoned him and didn’t tell his family members where he was located.

What more can you say? This is our taxpayer money at work on the War on Terror. Or as I like to call it, the War on Civil Liberties.

You can read the opinion here: http://www.ord.uscourts.gov/rulings/04-cv-1427Opinion.pdf

***Crossposted at Worldwide Sawdust

Not Just the South

While the South gets a lot of attention when it comes to racism, and not completely undeservedly so, it is also fallacious to pretend that this is about one backward-ass town.

If the Jena 6 case wasn’t black and white enough for you (pardon the pun), there’s this horror story out of Oakland:

Gary King and a group of friends were walking out of East Bay Liquors. A patrol officer, Sgt. Pat Gonzales, was headed southbound on the other side of MLK, near the 55th Street light. The officer claims to have identified King as a potential suspect in a murder that had occurred nearby a month prior (note here the words “potential” and “suspect”). For anyone that knows the geography of the incident, this “identification” was quite a feat: a full block away, looking diagonally across six lanes and between the thick pillars supporting the BART tracks, Gonzales was allegedly capable of identifying King.

The officer crossed under the tracks, tires squealing, to confront the group of teens in front of the liquor store. According to witnesses, Gonzales grabbed King by his dreads, while it remains unclear if the officer was attempting to carry out an arrest. After King pulled away from Gonzales, the officer used his Taser to try to incapacitate this “potential suspect.” When this didn’t work, King took off fleeing across the MLK crosswalk. Before even reaching the divider, Gonzales had shot him twice in the back. No fewer than a dozen witnesses corroborated this to me, which isn’t surprising since the shooting took place in broad daylight on a busy street.

According to a witness, who identifies himself as King’s cousin, after shooting King, Gonzales grabbed him. “He held his gun in my face and told me I better watch it.” The officer then approached the dying King to handcuff him, before leaving him lying in the street to call backup. According to witnesses, it was only after the backup arrived that an ambulance was called. After being left bleeding, handcuffed on the pavement for nearly 15 minutes, Gary King was dead by the time he reached Highland Hospital. He was the third fatal victim of an “officer-involved shooting” this year, a polite term the OPD likes to use when it kills people.

Dozens of police cars then maintained a blockade, shutting down the six-lane street for more than four hours. According to one witness to the shooting, this was “to prevent a riot,” and also to give the officers a chance to cover-up the details of the killing and, according to some, plant a gun on the victim. King’s cousin is clearly suffering when I speak with him: “They shot my cousin right in my face We traumatized, we fucked up.” The victim’s brothers, too, are paying their respects. One is a teary-eyed 17-year old wearing a sweatshirt with pictures of King and the message “R.I.P. G-Money.”

According to Gonzales, via a statement from the OPD, the officer felt a gun in King’s pants, and after the young man attempted to flee, Gonzales claims that he was seen reaching into his waistband. The press has largely reiterated the official story: King was an “armed suspect” who threatened an officer. Case closed. One local news outlet even went out of its way to outdo the Police statement, writing that King had “pulled a gun” on the officer. Perhaps most shocking is the fact that King is consistently reported as a “murder suspect,” without qualification. Even the police department had argued that he was merely a “potential suspect,” that is, Gary King was suspected of being a suspect. Most shocking is the fact that, days after the fact, the OPD downgraded this initial statement: King is now posthumously considered to have been a “person of interest” in the murder, not even a suspect.

But the police story, repeated by the mainstream press, doesn’t square with the numerous witnesses who described the shooting to me. Firstly, everyone on the scene denies that King was carrying a gun, or that a gun was found on the scene as the OPD is claiming. “He ain’t no gangbanger,” an aunt tells me. Moreover, even “neutral” witnesses like the cashier at East Bay Liquors (who nevertheless claims that King was friendly and well-liked) never saw King reach for a weapon: as he fled, they say, he was holding up his pants by his belt, and the officer shot him in the back without provocation.

As the train passes overhead, a woman who identifies herself as a senior financial officer at UC Berkeley asks, “we hear so much about Black-on-Black crime, why don’t we hear about white-on-Black crime?” It has emerged since the shooting that Gonzales has been involved in two other shootings in recent years, one of which resulted in a fatality. On that occasion, the officer was cleared of any wrongdoing. He has now been placed on “paid administrative leave,” standard OPD procedure, while he waits to be cleared once more.

If, for some miraculous reason, this story were to gain national coverage (which I doubt since this happens all the time, in every part of the country), I can’t wait to read Jason Whitlock’s column on how this was the result of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and black fathers. Maybe he’ll tell us that he shouldn’t have been standing out on the corner, he should have been with his father fishing or something. Or maybe if he didn’t have dreads, he wouldn’t like a ‘black thug suspect’ or something like that.

Even if we take the radical position of dismissing all of the circumstances surrounding the shooting, the very fact that the ‘officer of the law’ left King dying on the sidewalk for 15 minutes in the middle of a busy intersection should tell us what we need to know about his mindset. And if you think this is the only case of its kind, you haven’t been paying attention.

This case reveals the awful truth: A black life is worth less in America than a white life. Similarly, giving a black person 20 years for an assault charged as an attempted murder is the rough equivalent of 1, 5, or even 10 years for a white person’s assault charged as an assault. There have been numerous studies demonstrating sentencing differences if you won’t take my word for it. This also explains why certain missing persons get more attention than others. Exposed to this dis-proportionality by the media all of the time, what else are we to believe?

You don’t need to have KKK lynchings to have racism, just like you don’t have to be drunk to get into an accident. It is systemic and as subconscious as it is conscious.