Author: suskind

To co-incide with the Yearly Kos Convention, Byron York of National Review Online wrote an “opposition research” piece on a prominent Daily Kos writer.  The writer, having been “outed”… i.e. publication of his name, location, profession, law firm, and that firm’s client list, announced his decision to quit blogging.

The right celebrated, while a significant number on the left claimed that the writer had “outed himeself” by not being more careful.  Added to this the writer had a long list of enemies and fair-weather friends, as they had in the past been insulted, down-rated, or banned by him.  A lawyer on the left celebrated too “He’s an asshole who deserved to get burned.”  Meanwhile, back at the convention the “outed” writer was being toasted and applauded at an occasion from which he was forced to withdraw.

Now all of this is pretty ugly, but another issue raised its weary head:  There Is No Right To Anonymity or Privacy if One is an Internet Blogger  The general consensus is that if one blogs on the internet and achieves a significant following sooner or later you will be “outed.”
Following this line, there have been several strong statements against writing anonymously on the Net or using pseudonyms at all.  This argument says that one should have the courage of one’s convictions and be brave enough to sign one’s own name to commentary just like letters to the editor, as if not to disclose one’s identity is cowardice.  But a poll here says that the reason posters do not use their real name is not fear of cyber-stalking nutjobs, or right-wing freeper blogs, but that one’s weblog writings might have negative impact on their professional life.

The controversy will die down, the writer will recover.  As a result of what happened the progressive blogging community will have to change: either we will sign the Online Integrity Statement, or caution posters that they blog at their own risk.

What I find most discouraging about the whole matter is this:  the attitude of surrender to lawlessness and acquiescense to lack of protection for privacy and fourth amendment rights.

ACCESS DOES NOT EQUAL ENTITLEMENT

•  Your doctor, lawyer, and banker do not have the right to publish information about you.
•  Why is it a federal crime for anyone to steal and read my letters through the U.S. Postal service?
•  It is said that if I pay $110.00 I can find all the phone calls you made from your cell.  Am I entitled to publish them?

People have argued that the law is outmoded because we are dealing with a relatively new communications medium.  People have argued that the Internet is a lawless zone where no one is safe from being “outed.”

People are arguing for what is essentially electronic emminent domain, except there is no suggestion that individuals be compensated for what is their identity, publicity, and intellectual property…. they are willingly giving up the laws that protect privacy and civil rights through our Fourth Amendment to be secure in their homes and their persons and their papers that originated with the Magna Carta.  These laws go back to the year 1215!!

There is a great body of law that protects individuals from having their personal information used against them.  For instance intellectual property laws as regards to publicity.  If I take what you, blogger, have written here and post it on a site where i have advertisements that generate revenue, and as a result of what you have written here i make money off you, your writing, your story, your person….. there’s a law that prohibits my doing that….

You and only you have rights to your publicity…. that’s your name, your face, your details and your work.  I cannot use your publicity for my gain.

THE CONSTITUTION, AGAIN

“the Fifth Amendment reflects the Constitution’s concern for . . . the right of each individual `to a private enclave where he may lead a private life”‘

That private enclave is here.

The rights enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights are considered so fundamental, nearly sacred, that they were spelled out as protections to citizens from encroachment by the federal government. State constitutions likewise protected the rights of citizens from encroachment by state government.

The rights enumerated in the U.S. Bill of Rights are connected by the thread of “natural rights” to Roman times. The concept of “natural rights” assumes that all humans are born with certain rights that cannot be transferred or taken away.

Some of these rights are specified in the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D., the English Bill of Rights in 1689, and the United States Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

The Fourth Amendment provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

to quote an old-timer:

. . . The public does not realize that the crisis we face is a crisis of the rule of law, borne of the fact that the President of the United States has expressly arrogated unto himself the power to break the law, and is exercising that power on numerous fronts, not only with regard to eavesdropping. The reason they do not yet realize this is because this scandal has been depicted – by the media and, infuriatingly, even by Democrats – as being an eavesdropping scandal, not a law-breaking scandal. As a result, debate has centered over whether the government should be eavesdropping, not over whether the President has the power to break the law.
Former Daily Kos Blogger Before He Was Outed, “The Rule of Law;” Feb 28, 2006

Beyond our Constitution there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

This Declaration is the basis of the Covenant to which the US is a signatory:  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

HAS ANYONE EVER HEARD OF THIS?

The Online Integrity Statement of Principles is simple:

•  Private persons are entitled to respect for their privacy regardless of their activities online. This includes respect for the non-public nature of their personal contact information, the inviolability of their homes, and the safety of their families. No information which might lead others to invade these spaces should be posted. The separateness of private persons’ professional lives should also be respected as much as is reasonable.
•  Public figures are entitled to respect for the non-public nature of their personal, non-professional contact information, and their privacy with regard to their homes and families. No information which might lead others to invade these spaces should be posted.
•  Persons seeking anonymity or pseudonymity online should have their wishes in this regard respected as much as is reasonable. Exceptions include cases of criminal, misleading, or intentionally disruptive behavior.
•  Violations of these principles should be met with a lack of positive publicity and traffic.

There’s plenty of law, just not enough lawyers.

What we need right here and now is a good lawyer who specializes in intellectual property, publicity, the internet, and the media.  Someone who will go to bat for us on the issue of rights to privacy on the Net.  Oh, yeah, we had one of them… looks like we just lost him.

This diary was deleted along with all its comments by me late last night.  No one told me to do it, and it’s unanimous that it was wrong to do it.  I was wrong to delete, and I’m sorry for it.  

I’m also sorry for what is going on here.  As a community we’re better than this, and always have been.

The community has been on a bender of bashing.  There’s a tone of nastiness, suspicion and conspiracy mindedness taking over in the on-going discussion.  Maybe it’s from living too long in Bush’s cold war on terrorism. Maybe it’s open season.  I really don’t know.  I do know that I don’t want to take part in it.

What’s the solution?

I think the answer is communities who live according to, not rules, but by principles.

Now we see this all the time: “Don’t be a prick.” (Booman Tribune)  “Do no evil”(Google)

Some individuals will always go outside the community principles, and some corporations will always go outside them.

The cost of these principles lies in suffering and sacrifice.  And it seems to me our sense of justice is as strong as is our experience of suffering and sacrifice.  The process to develop and maintain these principles is struggle.  There’s no way around this.  Life is a struggle.  

When life is good, it’s seeking balance and equilibrium…..

The three prisoners who hanged themselves in Guantanamo…. well that’s about habeas corpus…. law that does, indeed go back to the year 1215.  All law derives from the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person.

There are two kinds of law: one that exists and is imposed on those who try to violate it, and another, the law to which one voluntarily promises  to uphold.  To be a signatory to the greatest laws of civilization, (like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) or code of ethics like the Online Integrity Statement: to do it voluntarily and to abide by it is a greater thing, in my opinion, than to either feel restricted by the law that is imposed, or to find that the law is lacking.  Law is created, based on the law before it.

And out of this voluntary law, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights humanity and civilization progresses.  Now that’s progressive

So I’m going to stop now.  Anyone who wants to contact me, my email’s open.  Best regards,

M.Suskind

 

On Friday I put up a diary on Daily Kos “Impeachment by Internet” which made the recommends, then the system seemed to crash… so I set up a site Impeachment By Internet which provides a means for citizens to file charges against the Bush administration of fraud and abuse in government; reporting directly to the House Judiciary Committee

Defrauding the American people is an impeachable offense.  Should it ever come to impeachment, the House Judiciary Committee is responsible for impeachment of federal officials.  Reporting directly to the House Judiciary Committee is a means by which individuals can expedite the impeachment of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, et al.

Getting specific about charges: 18 U.S.C.
TITLE 18–CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I–CRIMES

CHAPTER 47–FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and
willfully–

        (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

        (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

        (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

18 U.S.C.

The criminal statute, 18 U.S.C., Sec. 1001, prohibits knowingly and willfully making false and fraudulent statements to Congress in documents required by law.

The criminal statute, 18 U.S.C., Sec. 371, prohibits conspiring to defraud the United States and is applicable since the Supreme Court in the case of Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924) held that to “conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.”

When Is It Impeachable Fraud?  

•  The 16 words in the 2003 State of the Union… that was defrauding the American people and lying to Congress.

•  When monies allotted to the war on Afghanistan were diverted to Bush’s war on Iraq…. that’s fraud on a grandiose scale.

•  When “intelligence was fixed to suit the policy” of pre-emptive war on Iraq… that’s fraud, and high crimes, and misdemeanors, too.

So there are lies, which we assume all politicians make, and there are mega-lies.  That’s when by statements made to Congress and the American people (i.e. State of the Union, testimony before the Senate, or documents required by law) the President and his administration lies, deceives, commits fraud, or perjury.

Here are two elegant examples fit for filing with the House Judiciary:

Bush just publicly committed an impeachable offense

by Lestatdelc  

Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 05:48:02 PM PST

Bush spoke after touring the Bureau of Public Debt in Parkersburg, W.Va., about the $1.7 trillion in Treasury bonds that make up the trust fund…

“There is no trust fund — just IOUs that I saw firsthand.  Imagine, the retirement security for future generations is sitting in a filing cabinet.”

Let’s skip right to the part that was violated by Bush’s little remark that should get him impeached:

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned

Evidence Bush Knowingly Deceived Congress in 2003 SOTU Violating USC 18 Sections 1001 And 371

by HoundDog

Tue Apr 18, 2006

Eleven days before President Bush’s January 28, 2003, State of the Union address in which he said that the US learned from British intelligence that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Africa – an explosive claim that helped pave the way to war – the State Department told the CIA that the intelligence the uranium claims were based upon were forgeries, according to a newly declassified State Department memo.

Now here (subject to edits) is the original diary that crashed:

Impeachment By Internet

Is there any way to expedite the impeachment process?  Yes!  

OK, so you’re fed up.  You’ve contacted your representatives in support of House Resolution 635 (Conyers).  You’ve attended demonstrations.  You’ve written letters to the editors.  You’ve passed around and signed petitions.  You’ve joined political action committees.  You have even attended public town hall forums on impeachment and joined local efforts to pass state resolutions for impeachment.  You’ve lent your support for Democratic candidates for Congress in November.  You’ve donated to candidates.  You bought Center for Constitutional Rights, “Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush.”  You even read it.

Every time the subject of impeachment rolls around in your brain, some voice in there is yelling, “Impeach the MF Already!!”  We want impeachment, and we want it now!!  Did you read Congressman Conyers op-ed in the Washington Post yesterday, “No Rush To Impeachment”  Well, here’s the bad news… wanting impeachment now is like wanting to lose thirty pounds by next week.  It’s just not going to happen that way…..

Is there any way to expedite the impeachment process?  Yes!  

And it’s one button away.  You can, within the next five minutes, report directly to the House Judiciary Committee to report fraud and abuse by the government.  Fraud Is An Impeachable Offense.  This button is your Unique Opportunity To Report Directly To Government  on Impeachable Offenses by the Bush Administration.

If you have information with respect to waste, fraud or abuse by the government or private business conduct that you want the House Committee of the Judiciary to be aware of, please submit the information in the space below:

REPORT FRAUD AND ABUSE IN GOVERNMENT BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

What is conspiracy to defraud the United States?

What offenses qualify as impeachable fraud?

The Supreme Court has defined the phrase “conspiracy to defraud the United States” as “to interfere with, impede or obstruct a lawful government function by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.” In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement “between two or more persons” to follow a course of conduct that, if completed, would constitute a crime. The agreement doesn’t have to be express; most conspiracies are proved through evidence of concerted action. But government officials are expected to act in concert. So proof that they were conspiring requires a comparison of their public conduct and statements with their conduct and statements behind the scenes. A pattern of double-dealing proves a criminal conspiracy.

The concept of interfering with a lawful government function is best explained by reference to two well-known cases where courts found that executive branch officials had defrauded the United States by abusing their power for personal or political reasons.

One is the Watergate case, where a federal district court held that Nixon’s Chief of Staff, H.R. Haldeman, and his crew had interfered with the lawful government functions of the CIA and the FBI by causing the CIA to intervene in the FBI’s investigation into the burglary of Democratic Party headquarters. The other is U.S. v. North, where the court found that Reagan administration National Security Adviser John Poindexter, Poindexter’s aide Oliver North, and others had interfered with Congress’s lawful power to oversee foreign affairs by lying about secret arms deals during Congressional hearings into the Iran/contra scandal.

Finally, “fraud” is broadly defined to include half-truths, omissions or misrepresentation; in other words, statements that are intentionally misleading, even if literally true. Fraud also includes making statements with “reckless indifference” to their truth.

The White House Criminal Conspiracy

By Elizabeth de la Vega

The Nation, October 31, 2005

REPORT FRAUD AND ABUSE IN GOVERNMENT BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Categories of Impeachable Offenses:

From “The Constitution In Crisis”

In brief, we have found that there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war with Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and other legal violations in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration.

There is a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice-President and other members of the Bush Administration violated a number of federal laws, including:

(1) Committing a Fraud against the United States;

(2) Making False Statements to Congress;

(3) The War Powers Resolution;

(4) Misuse of Government Funds;

(5) federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment;

(6) federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other individuals; and

(7) federal laws and regulations concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence.

…These charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable misconduct.

REPORT FRAUD AND ABUSE IN GOVERNMENT BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

IMPEACHMENT BY INTERNET

1.    Come up with an instance of fraud by the Bush administration.  Describe the facts briefly, referring to quotes and corroborations.

2.    Report instances of fraud by the Bush administration directly to the House Judiciary Committee. ONE INSTANCE AT A TIME.  DON’T REPEAT YOURSELF.  

3.    Report as often as you like.

4.    Try to keep a log of your reports, and at the end of the day/week/month, send a copy of your files to your state representatives.

REPORT FRAUD AND ABUSE IN GOVERNMENT BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

That’s all there is to it.  Keep filing.  It feels better than writing an original “Bush Is A Criminal” diary on Daily Kos.  OK, right, we all know he’s a criminal, but just what kind of criminal is he? (Don’t forget Cheney, Gonzales, Rumsfeld et al) File your little heart out.  Every day come up with a new criminal charge…. impress the House Judiciary with your constitutional prowess.   Delight in the picture of your charges piling up before the Committee members, knowing that soon, maybe even today the charges you have filed will reach critical mass…..  Become a legal nuisance… but while you’re doing it remember:

KEEP IT CLEAN.  KEEP IT BRIEF.  KEEP IT ACCURATE.  KEEP IT POLITE… AND KEEP IT LEGAL

Now go ahead and try it.  File a charge.  Keep it under 200 words.  Press the button.  Smile.  File another.  Want to have more fun?  Put IMPEACHMENT BY INTERNET in your signature and go hop around the web.  Have a great day!!

To sum up, there are two tools for citizens in the US to expedite the impeachment process:

1.  IMPEACHMENT BY STATE RESOLUTION
2.  File a report of fraud and abuse in goverment by the Bush administration directly to the House Judiciary Committee:  IMPEACHMENT BY INTERNET

If anyone is able to help me over on the new site, I will appreciate it greatly.

Is there any way to expedite the impeachment process?  Yes!  

OK, so you’re fed up.  You’ve contacted your representatives in support of House Resolution 635 (Conyers).  You’ve attended demonstrations.  You’ve written letters to the editors.  You’ve passed around and signed petitions.  You’ve joined political action committees.  You have even attended public town hall forums on impeachment and joined local efforts to pass state resolutions for impeachment.  You’ve lent your support for Democratic candidates for Congress in November.  You’ve donated to candidates.  You bought Center for Constitutional Rights, “Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush.”  You even read it.
Every time the subject of impeachment rolls around in your brain, some voice in there is yelling, “Impeach the MF Already!!”  We want impeachment, and we want it now!!  Did you read Congressman Conyers op-ed in the Washington Post yesterday, “No Rush To Impeachment”  Well, here’s the bad news… wanting impeachment now is like wanting to lose thirty pounds by next week.  It’s just not going to happen that way…..

Is there any way to expedite the impeachment process?  Yes!  

And it’s one button away.  You can, within the next five minutes, report directly to the House Judiciary Committee to report fraud and abuse by the government.  Fraud Is An Impeachable Offense.  This button is your Unique Opportunity To Report Directly To Government  on Impeachable Offenses by the Bush Administration.

If you have information with respect to waste, fraud or abuse by the government or private business conduct that you want the House Committee of the Judiciary to be aware of, please submit the information in the space below:

REPORT FRAUD AND ABUSE IN GOVERNMENT BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

What is conspiracy to defraud the United States?

What offenses qualify as impeachable fraud?

The Supreme Court has defined the phrase “conspiracy to defraud the United States” as “to interfere with, impede or obstruct a lawful government function by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.” In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement “between two or more persons” to follow a course of conduct that, if completed, would constitute a crime. The agreement doesn’t have to be express; most conspiracies are proved through evidence of concerted action. But government officials are expected to act in concert. So proof that they were conspiring requires a comparison of their public conduct and statements with their conduct and statements behind the scenes. A pattern of double-dealing proves a criminal conspiracy.

The concept of interfering with a lawful government function is best explained by reference to two well-known cases where courts found that executive branch officials had defrauded the United States by abusing their power for personal or political reasons.

One is the Watergate case, where a federal district court held that Nixon’s Chief of Staff, H.R. Haldeman, and his crew had interfered with the lawful government functions of the CIA and the FBI by causing the CIA to intervene in the FBI’s investigation into the burglary of Democratic Party headquarters. The other is U.S. v. North, where the court found that Reagan administration National Security Adviser John Poindexter, Poindexter’s aide Oliver North, and others had interfered with Congress’s lawful power to oversee foreign affairs by lying about secret arms deals during Congressional hearings into the Iran/contra scandal.

Finally, “fraud” is broadly defined to include half-truths, omissions or misrepresentation; in other words, statements that are intentionally misleading, even if literally true. Fraud also includes making statements with “reckless indifference” to their truth.

The White House Criminal Conspiracy

By Elizabeth de la Vega

The Nation, October 31, 2005

REPORT FRAUD AND ABUSE IN GOVERNMENT BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Categories of Impeachable Offenses:

From “The Constitution In Crisis”

In brief, we have found that there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war with Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and other legal violations in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration.

There is a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice-President and other members of the Bush Administration violated a number of federal laws, including:

(1) Committing a Fraud against the United States;

(2) Making False Statements to Congress;

(3) The War Powers Resolution;

(4) Misuse of Government Funds;

(5) federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment;

(6) federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other individuals; and

(7) federal laws and regulations concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence.

…These charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable misconduct.

REPORT FRAUD AND ABUSE IN GOVERNMENT BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

IMPEACHMENT BY INTERNET

1.    Come up with an instance of fraud by the Bush administration.  Describe the facts briefly, referring to quotes and corroborations.

2.    Report instances of fraud by the Bush administration directly to the House Judiciary Committee. ONE INSTANCE AT A TIME.  DON’T REPEAT YOURSELF.  

3.    Report as often as you like.

4.    Try to keep a log of your reports, and at the end of the day/week/month, send a copy of your files to your state representatives.

REPORT FRAUD AND ABUSE IN GOVERNMENT BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

That’s all there is to it.  Keep filing.  It feels better than writing an original “Bush Is A Criminal” diary on Daily Kos.  OK, right, we all know he’s a criminal, but just what kind of criminal is he? (Don’t forget Cheney, Gonzales, Rumsfeld et al) File your little heart out.  Every day come up with a new criminal charge…. impress the House Judiciary with your constitutional prowess.   Delight in the picture of your charges piling up before the Committee members, knowing that soon, maybe even today the charges you have filed will reach critical mass…..  Become a legal nuisance… but while you’re doing it remember:

KEEP IT CLEAN.  KEEP IT BRIEF.  KEEP IT ACCURATE.  KEEP IT POLITE… AND KEEP IT LEGAL

Now go ahead and try it.  File a charge.  Keep it under 200 words.  Press the button.  Smile.  File another.  Want to have more fun?  Put IMPEACHMENT BY INTERNET in your signature and go hop around the web.  Have a great day!!

Billboard Alteration Salutes U.S. Military in Iraq

Billboard alteration by the “California Department of Corrections”; April 17, 2006

Press Release from the CDC:
As a private institution dedicated to protecting California from the state’s most criminal advertising, the California Department of Corrections salutes the private security firms who have provided invaluable assistance to our colleagues in the U.S. military.
The advertisement is currently at liberty and it seems to have successfully readjusted to public life. However, the billboard will remain under surveillance by department staff to prevent recidivism and any potential lapse into its prior criminal behavior.
The California Department of Corrections is a private institution dedicated to the protection of the public through the alteration, rehabilitation and improvement of California’s most criminal advertising. Initiated in 1994, the department is operated by individuals who feel that California’s correctional facilities have been insufficiently managing the state’s most criminal elements.
For additional information on department programs and operations, please visit the CDC website at www.geocities.com/billboardcorrections or email the Office of Communications at cdc [at] revolutionist.com

(The Geocities site is down.  See more from the hard-to-find CDC below the fold)

(from adiosbarbie.com)

The anonymous folks calling themselves the California Department of Corrections are responsible for this brilliant billboard modification. This prolific and highly skilled band of anticonsumerist havoc-wreakers have an impressive and ever-growing oeuvre that includes “Freshness First. Farmworkers last. Lucky you’re middle class,” which appeared outside a store in the Lucky supermarket chain during last summer’s flap over working conditions for strawberry pickers, and a Maxwell House ad turned police brutality protest.

Some groups affilitated with Billboard Liberation Front:

Abrupt, Adbusters, The Cacophony Society, The California Department of Corrections, Pedro Carvajal, Freeway Blooger, Guerrilla Girls, The Lesbian Avengers of San Francisco, The Outdoor Advertising Association of America, Inc., Reverand Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping, ®<sup>TM</sup&gtark, Joey Skaggs, Slumber, Inc., Target Market, Tobacco Control Activism Guide #3, Urbanize

•  Is it legal?  No.  
•  Is it property damage?  Yes and no.  Sometimes Billboard Liberation Front does not alter existing billboards, but puts up billboards that are a take on familiar advertisements in empty spaces.  
•  Is it justified?  I found the top example at Discourse.net, the blog of professor of law Michael Froomkin, brother of Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post.

“If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”

With great best regards to The Freeway Blogger!

MORE STATEMENTS FROM BILLBOARD LIBERATION FRONT

California Department of Corrections

Q: Can you explain the internal operations of the department without compromising the security of the institution? For example, how do you decide which ads need to be corrected?
A: Every advertisement harbors latent criminal behavior and requires specialized care and treatment. The CDC prioritizes billboards that discriminate on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, disability and/or economic background.
Q: What is your ideal correction?
A: The ideal correction requires the minimum use of force for complete rehabilitation. Ideally the insertion or deletion of one letter will turn a criminal message upon itself. Other important factors include media reproduction, public opinion, relevance of location, potential recidivism, and ease of apprehension.
Q: How successful are your rehabilitation programs?

A: Billboards have the highest recidivism rate of any group under our supervision. Relapses into prior criminal behavior have occurred as quickly as one hour and as slowly as one month after rehabilitation. The average relapse rate is seven days depending upon the neighborhood into which a rehabilitated subject is discharged.

BILLBOARD LIBERATION FRONT

Old fashioned notions about art, science and spirituality being the peak achievements and the noblest goals of the spirit of man have been dashed on the crystalline shores of Acquisition; the holy pursuit of consumer goods. All old forms and philosophies have been cleverly co-opted and re”spun” as marketing strategies and consumer campaigns by the new shamans, the Ad men.

You can switch off/smash/shoot/hack or in other ways avoid Television, Computers and Radio. You are not compelled to buy magazines or subscribe to newspapers. You can sic your rotweiler on door to door salesman. Of all the types of media used to disseminate the Ad there is only one which is entirely inescapable to all but the bedridden shut-in or the Thoreauian misanthrope. We speak, of course of the Billboard. Along with its lesser cousins, advertising posters and “bullet” outdoor graphics, the Billboard is ubiquitous and inescapable to anyone who moves through our world. Everyone knows the Billboard; the Billboard is in everyones mind.

For these reasons the Billboard Liberation Front states emphatically and for all time herein that to Advertise is to Exist. To Exist is to Advertise. Our ultimate goal is nothing short of a personal and singular Billboard for each citizen. Until that glorious day for global communications when every man, woman and child can scream at or sing to the world in 100Pt. type from their very own rooftop; until that day we will continue to do all in our power to encourage the masses to use any means possible to commandeer the existing media and to alter it to their own design.

THE iPOD/IRAQ BOARDS

COPPERGREENE.ORGPhotos taken on Broome St. and the subway, by Copper Greene, NYC, May 19,2004. The captions reads, “10,000 Volts volts in your pocket, guilty or innocent.

“Soho pedestrians with a sharp eye may have noticed something different about some ipod advertisements: an image from Abu Ghraib, designed to the specs of iPod posters but reading “iRaq: 10,000 Volts volts in your pocket, guilty or innocent.”

By June, 2004, the posters showed up in LA: The posters are plastered on a pharmacy Ad wall, its on the corner of Sunset Blvd and off of Silverlake Blvd ( SL blvd. continues under the Sunset bridge).

MORE FROM COPPERGREEN.ORG

BILLBOARDS: THEY DID IT LEGAL; BOSTON

Somebody’s watching
By Brian McGrory, Globe Columnist | March 31, 2006

This is a very bad sign.

Actually, check that. It’s a funny sign: a mysterious billboard, sitting atop a parking garage nestled between Fenway Park and the Massachusetts Turnpike, showing nothing more than George Bush’s eyes and the phrase, ”Little Brother is Watching.”

The board advertises a website, www.littlebrotheriswatching.com, which in turn questions the legality of Bush’s domestic wiretapping program. The site also conducts a survey, provides links to various opinion pieces about the domestic espionage, and offers T-shirts for sale.

And now the state government — the Republican state government, it’s worth noting — wants the billboard down.

The sign is owned by local developer and civic good-guy John Rosenthal, who also owns and funds the iconic gun safety billboard that stretches along the turnpike in Kenmore Square. That billboard has been featured on network television and quoted by Al Gore. President Clinton once took his motorcade on a detour just to point it out. Perhaps not coincidentally, state bureaucrats have quietly begun questioning the legality of the gun billboard as well, but more on that later.

On the ”Little Brother is Watching” sign, Rosenthal has not one moment of doubt what’s causing it.

”It’s censorship on the part of the Republican administration either here or in Washington that doesn’t appreciate the humor or, frankly, having their tyrannical policies questioned,” Rosenthal said. ”If that billboard said, ‘Support Our Troops,’ no one would be questioning it.”

Rosenthal added, ”There’s no agenda here, other than a public discussion.”

State officials got involved in the discussion, all right. Their side of the conversation began like this: ”You are directed to remove this billboard forthwith.” Those words were in a recent letter from the state Outdoor Advertising Board.

Rosenthal doesn’t appear to have a lot of choice. Most billboards require a state permit. So-called on-premise signs do not need a permit, so long as they advertise something within the building. Because the ”Little Brother is Watching” billboard stands within 500 feet of a permitted billboard, it doesn’t qualify for its own permit, even though Rosenthal owns the garage beneath it.

THEY DID IT LEGAL: NEW YORK

Over in Chelsea, on 10th Avenue between 17th and 18th Streets, a particularly goofy caricature of George Bush graces a large billboard atop the snazzy Park restaurant. Underneath the image, it reads, “This is our president” with a signature from the artist, Stefano. From across the street, with the Empire State Building in the background, it’s a sight.

Puzzling billboards are nothing new to NYC’s outer Chelsea neighborhood. From strange Manhattan Mini Storage ads to artist Patrick Mimran’s cryptic one-liners, signage in the district residing north of 14th Street and shooting up Tenth Avenue often gives pause. But one recent addition to the western skyline is the most telling billboard of all, a two-tone representation of George W. Bush, his visage contorted in an apish expression. “This Is Our President,” it simply declares. Whether you are proud of that fact or not, the sign is one of the more prominent harbingers that the Republicans are coming and with their arrival a battle of ideas will take place on the city’s heated pavement.

The painting was created by muralist Stefano (aka Stefano Castronovo), a downtown artist who gained distinction in the ’80s for his controversial street paintings of a red-eyed Mona Lisa and another with a burning cross. At the behest of Eric Goode and Sean MacPherson, owners of restaurant The Park, Stefano made this “social statement,” he explains, “because [Bush] is really not the president that I would like to have [win] the next election.” Proprietors Goode and MacPherson mounted the sign above the restaurant in May and will keep it up through the Republican National Convention, August 30 to September 2, even though an ad for Catwoman has usurped it until mid-July. Luckily, RES caught sight of the sign before Hollywood dollars could render it temporarily invisible.

Accomplished street photographer Gus Powell, who made the cover photo of the president’s likeness, was chosen for his ability to capture daily life, and in this case the perceptible tension that has been in the air to some degree ever since 9/11. Powell is that rare New Yorker who was born in this city and still calls it home. His first collection of photos, The Company of Strangers (J&L Press), was published last year based on his observations of people in Midtown on their lunch hour. His work with Joel Meyerowitz took him to Ground Zero, where he assisted and made his own pictures of the destruction and recovery in late 2001.

A fine artist who at times does photojournalism, Powell adeptly approached the Bush sign and its transformation of the urban landscape. When asked about the impending RNC, though, he shyly remarks, “I can’t decide if I should run away.” Images of Chicago and the mayhem accompanying the Democratic National Convention of 1968 come to mind, although he doubts it will be quite so bad. “Either I’m going to be here making pictures or I want to be in Montana,” he determines.

“It still feels weird that this thing is happening in this town that is not really connected to the administration,” Powell adds. “But then it’s so obvious because of the 9/11 connection.” The City makes a nifty backdrop for Bush’s ad campaigns, yet its Republican leadership bears little in common with this conservative White House. Lacking support in federal funding, tax breaks or even respect, New York will be heavily burdened. Powell echoes most people’s biggest fear when he states, “The way things will be controlled will be pretty bizarre.”

The summer of 2004 will no doubt be remembered for many things, but at the moment, as the “This Is Our President” sign looms overhead, we hope it will be followed by a happier November.

THEY DID IT LEGAL.
THEY DID IT IN BED.
SHE’S STILL DOING IT.

Vancouver, Canada, 1999

WAR IS OVER! IF YOU WANT IT
Yoko Ono and John Lennon
1969
Billboard installed in Times Square, New York
Photo courtesy of Lenono Photo Archive, New York

THEY DID IT LEGAL IN NEW YORK CITY, 2004

BILLBOARD LIBERATION FRONT

The morning after the Town Hall Forum on Impeachment in New York City, I asked Bob Fertik of Democrats.com and ImpeachPAC.org what it was going to take. He said lobbying is good, letter-writing is good, grassroots activism is good, but what it’s going to take to bring about censure/impeachment is taking it to the streets.

“You mean like the Freeway Blogger?” I asked.

“Yes, like the Freeway Blogger,” he said.

Posters are nice, and the Whispering Campaign is probably very good, too. But the Freeway Blogger, Coppergreene.org, the Billboard Liberation Front, and the California Department of Corrections are doing great work.

When Henry David Thoreau was imprisoned for refusing, in protest of the Mexican-American War, to pay taxes, he was visited in jail by his friend, Ralph Waldo Emerson.

“Henry, what are you doing in there?” asked Emerson.

“Waldo, what are you doing out there?” was Thoreau’s reply.

“If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”

With great best regards to The Freeway Blogger!

Billboard Alteration Salutes U.S. Military in Iraq

Billboard alteration by the “California Department of Corrections”; April 17, 2006

Press Release from the CDC:
As a private institution dedicated to protecting California from the state’s most criminal advertising, the California Department of Corrections salutes the private security firms who have provided invaluable assistance to our colleagues in the U.S. military.
The advertisement is currently at liberty and it seems to have successfully readjusted to public life. However, the billboard will remain under surveillance by department staff to prevent recidivism and any potential lapse into its prior criminal behavior.
The California Department of Corrections is a private institution dedicated to the protection of the public through the alteration, rehabilitation and improvement of California’s most criminal advertising. Initiated in 1994, the department is operated by individuals who feel that California’s correctional facilities have been insufficiently managing the state’s most criminal elements.
For additional information on department programs and operations, please visit the CDC website at www.geocities.com/billboardcorrections or email the Office of Communications at cdc [at] revolutionist.com

(The Geocities site is down.  See more from the hard-to-find CDC below the fold)

(from adiosbarbie.com)

The anonymous folks calling themselves the California Department of Corrections are responsible for this brilliant billboard modification. This prolific and highly skilled band of anticonsumerist havoc-wreakers have an impressive and ever-growing oeuvre that includes “Freshness First. Farmworkers last. Lucky you’re middle class,” which appeared outside a store in the Lucky supermarket chain during last summer’s flap over working conditions for strawberry pickers, and a Maxwell House ad turned police brutality protest.

Some groups affilitated with Billboard Liberation Front:

Abrupt, Adbusters, The Cacophony Society, The California Department of Corrections, Pedro Carvajal, Freeway Blooger, Guerrilla Girls, The Lesbian Avengers of San Francisco, The Outdoor Advertising Association of America, Inc., Reverand Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping, ®<sup>TM</sup&gtark, Joey Skaggs, Slumber, Inc., Target Market, Tobacco Control Activism Guide #3, Urbanize

•  Is it legal?  No.  
•  Is it property damage?  Yes and no.  Sometimes Billboard Liberation Front does not alter existing billboards, but puts up billboards that are a take on familiar advertisements in empty spaces.  
•  Is it justified?  I found the top example at Discourse.net, the blog of professor of law Michael Froomkin, brother of Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post.

“If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”

With great best regards to The Highway Blogger!

“To be or not to be, that is the question.”  Hamlet, Shakespeare.

For several months now I have experienced with growing alarm, the deterioration of my health in ways that I do not recognize as my own….. Dependent edema, bone pain, muscle pain, now yielding to severe circulatory problems…. Hands always cold, now knuckles gone purple….. Now shortness of breath, a heart that’s fluttering with tachycardia and arythmia…. And the doctors are trying to test it out, sleuth it out to find out just where the problem lies.

I am trying to be patient and take care of myself, following directions, undergoing tests, taking medication and keeping in touch with my sister.  Were it not for her I would not be in the US and covered by the best medical insurance money can buy…. But the real deal is, as I live through my days…. What kind of heart attack am I going to have?  Will it be mild, severe, or am I going to have a stroke?

Am I getting used up here before my time?
The just cause needs live ones….. and life is more than the cause.  Or is it?  

While trying to eat right, sleep right, reduce smoking, (down to 10 mild cigarettes per day) limit caffeine (down to just 2 cups), exercise (walk about 3 miles a day) and meditate to lower stress.  (My FBC Café friends will be amazed to discover that in real life I have not had a drink in years…. Which is why I get so misty over Irish Mist!)  I am also trying to keep up with my newspaper reading, writing, letters to my representatives, working on projects, and make an effort to keep bills paid.  

But my sister, and my loved ones, my doctors are looking at another reality…. What if there were no me here to worry about?  What does it matter how many articles I wrote, how many letters I sent out, how much research I did, or how many demonstrations I attend?.  The cause needs live ones….. and life is more than the cause.  Or is it?  What am I living for?  What do I believe in?  Where have I invested my time, energy, talents and resources?

It’s not a case of burn-out as spiritually and mentally I’m fighting fit.

My primary care physician and my specialist and I are all looking at the organic and psychological causes of my condition (undiagnosed illness) that is serious enough… the warning signs are for some kind of heart attack.  

On the psychological side the causes are anxiety…. What am I so anxious about?  US foreign policy, the war on Iraq, and our “Constitutional Crisis.”  Beyond that, or included in that has to be the Civil Rights Movement of our time – immigration, amnesty for illegal immigrants and a decent wage for all.  Is there anything else keeping me up nights?  Well, yeah, Katrina, and the plight of the homeless and nearly homeless….. and then there are the elders…. The retirees, the aged, and the children.  Anything else?  Well I’m not too looking well.  Not as well as I used to.  I’m just not well.

So I’m not performing as well as I used to.  Not bouncing back as I did in my days of robust health and aerobic fitness.  Not able to get as much done in a day as I used to.  When was the last time I was well?  When was the first sign of illness?  When did the balance tip out of my favor?  When, if ever, will I be well again, and how am I going to get there?  Is this the decline into sickness, old age and death?  And if it is, why do I feel so bloody calm about it?

While not sleeping last night and worrying about my next series of health-related appointments, (not feeling well enough to go to the doctor is pretty stupid, eh what?,) I came across this story in a book I’m reading called “A Life In Balance”

I’ll paraphrase the full passage, and hope that you can see where I’m at here:

During the onset of the Korean War, a young student of Buddhism wanted to gain entry from Japan into Korea to study with his Buddhist master.  His travel visa was denied by the agent, on the basis that the war had just broken out.  The young man walked away frustrated and despondent and sat on a bench in the passport office.

“He realized at that moment, there was not only a war stirring in Korea, but also another raging inside himself.  Recognizing that his internal conflict had the potential to erupt and create conflict in the world around him, he wondered what to do.”

Becoming still and focussed, breathing mindfully, the young man took out a thermos of tea.  He slowly opened the flask, poured the tea, paying reverent attention to the look, smell taste and experience of drinking tea.  He took out brush and paper and wrote a haiku.

He walked to the customs agent and gave him the haiku.  The customs agent read the short poem which brought tears to his eyes, then smiled, then bowed deeply and respectfully.  He picked up the young man’s passport and stamped it for passage to Korea.

The haiku read:

Drinking a cup of tea, I stopped the war.

I am sitting peacefully at my computer.  The rain is coming down hitting the broad leaves outside my window, and hitting the metal of the air-conditioner my sister left for me to use in the summer.  A bowl of black beans with a little salsa is my lunch.  If I am mindful of anything today it is that I will and pray for all of us to have peace in our goings and comings, and to savor our moments spent in this beautiful world, to glory in the beauty of our loved ones, and work patiently in the vineyard of our common community, in our common cause:

¡Sí, Se Puede!  
Peace in our time.

see:  zen telegrams

If you’ve been following the Phillipe Sands story from the UK press to the US, you’ll remember that the Commander In Chief was determined that the date for invasion was MARCH 10, 2003.  What was the holdup?

Lord Peter Goldsmith, Attorney General UK, was called into Washington that day to recant his opinion that the war would be in violation of UN 1442.  They worked him over…. and it was the professional torture team that did it…. Cheney, Addington, Bybee, Hynes, Yoo and Gonzales as well as TENET…. gave him what the Brits call “a proper woodshedding”  For three years Goldsmith, when he talks at all, says “They didn’t lean on me.”

By the 17th Goldsmith had reversed his opinion….. following Gonzales’ lead in making the illegal legal.  He learned his lessons well.

How to legitimise a war in 10 days
May 2, 2005
Pretoria News

D-Day for Tony Blair
9 May 2005
By Linda Heard
Counterpunch Magazine

The new picture we’re looking at is that the go-signal for the illegal invasion rested with the opinion of just one man….. Peter Goldsmith.  Had Lord Goldsmith stuck to his original March 7th opinion and allied himself with the late Robin Cook, Clare Short, and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, all of whom resigned on the eve of the illegal invasion, March 17th, 2003…. the US would not have secured its ally the UK, and the unfolding of evidence for the illegal war plans would have surfaced that much earlier.

These are the infamous emails between Falconer, Morgan and Goldsmith….. when he recovered from his Washington experience, Falconer and Morgan rewrote his legal opinions for him….. providing George and Tony the paper they needed to launch their illegal invasion….. but seven days too late for George’s edict…. WE INVADE ON THE TENTH OF MARCH.

More blasts from the past:

Key No 10 aides were split over war

Times On Line UK; July 31, 2005

Robert Winnett, Whitehall Correspondent

The disclosures have been made by Blair’s biographer Anthony Seldon, who has benefited from insider accounts that the government is now seeking to suppress

Seldon is understood to have had access to the private unpublished papers of key officials. Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador in Washington; Lance Price, former deputy to Campbell at Downing Street; and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations and then special envoy to Iraq, are all understood to have kept detailed records and were all interviewed by Seldon

Blair/Whitehall Attempt To Supress The Facts About Going To War on Iraq

The most sensitive sections of Seldon’s biography detail the run-up to the war in Iraq during 2002 and 2003, Blair’s relationship with the White House, and attempts to persuade the United Nations to back action.

Decisions were made largely by a tight group of Downing Street advisers, diplomats and intelligence chiefs working with the prime minister. However, Seldon discovered that even within this group there was unease about Blair’s actions. “Even No 10 was divided, with Jonathan Powell (Blair’s chief of staff) strongly advocating closeness to the (American) administration, and Sally (Baroness) Morgan in particular pressing for the need to go down the UN route, ” writes Seldon.

“Many senior diplomats in the Foreign Office were deeply concerned but failed to speak out . . . Within his closest team in No 10, Campbell and Morgan had private reservations while (David) Manning (Blair’s foreign policy adviser) was often uneasy . . . The intelligence chiefs (Sir John Scarlett, Sir Stephen Lander and Sir Richard Dearlove) were not counselling caution.”

The noose tightens:

LEAKED DATA REVEAL REASONS FOR INCREASED BOMBING RAIDS WERE A SHAM

Figures released by the Ministry of Defence have shown the reasons given by Britain and America for stepping up bombing raids in Iraq in the run-up to war were a sham, writes Michael Smith.

Geoff Hoon, who was then defence secretary, and Donald Rumsfeld, his American counterpart, both claimed that the rise in air attacks was in response to Iraqi attempts to shoot down allied aircraft

Blair Was Told He Could Have Stopped The War

Seldon writes that during the autumn of 2002 British diplomats and politicians were involved in tense negotiations at the UN, but it seemed that Blair was being bounced into war. Dick Cheney, the vice-president, was hostile to Blair and the British and sat in meetings “like a lump”, according to one official present.

However, Blair was told by diplomats, thought to be Meyer and Greenstock, that he could have stopped America invading Iraq had he been prepared to use his influence.

“Advice Blair received from diplomats that autumn (in 2002) was that Britain could be the swing vote on whether or not the US would go to war.”

The Intelligence Has Come Unfixed: The Numbers Don’t Add Up

Ministers have since insisted that the stepped-up attacks, which began in May 2002, were as a result of increased Iraqi activity and were not an attempt to provoke a response that would give the allies an excuse for war.

The figures do not support those claims. In the first seven months of 2001 the allies recorded a total of 370 “provocations” by the Iraqis against allied aircraft. But in the seven months between October 2001 and May 2002 there were just 32.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, who obtained the MoD data in a Commons written answer, said it reinforced the need for an inquiry into ministers’ conduct in the run-up to war.

For the memo hounds, here’s a good one for you…. From the Brits to the US via Washington…. a familiar circuitous route:

Bush preps historic Third Term – memo
It’s war. It’s a ‘Continuity Presidency’
By Thomas C Greene in Washington
Published Saturday 1st April 2006 10:33 GMT
Cheers!

Spent a good part of the day covering the Senate Judiciary Committee’s NSA FISA & The Executive hearing, especially as it pertains to Censure… and there was some controversy about Feingold walking off the Senate floor after, as Specter put it, “berating the president for 25 minutes”….. Specter wants to discuss the issue with Feingold… Feingold made himself unavailable to Specter…. Specter said Feingold tried to postpone the Censure hearing… Feingold issued a statement that it is flat out not true… Specter insists that the Censure Hearing go on as scheduled this week…. things are not looking too good at the moment…. Until Feingold makes it up to Specter he has not secured an important ally on the Senate Judiciary Committee…. And there are storm clouds brewing….

But it was Senator Joseph Biden, Democrat of Delaware who brought the house down… that is to a standstill when he established that:
The President broke the law.
On the upside, Feinstein asked flat out, more than once.. “Is the President bound by law?”  Morton
Halperin gave excellent testimony and his statements can be found…MortonHalperin AmericanProgress

Several judges and at least one expert witnesse said there needs to be an investigation into what exactly the President’s program is… and there was a shocking silence when Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware summarized the situation this way:

“There are three possibilities….
1)    The President operated within existing law
2)    The President did not operate within existing law
3)    The President drafted new legislation.

Well we know number one is not true, and we know number three is not true.”

The President broke the law.  And that is the fact that stopped the proceedings.

No one at the hearing could say what the President’s program of domestic warrantless surveillance is…. And although SOME Senators have been briefed, and SOME FISA judges have been briefed, all at the hearing were in agreement that the Attorney General is not aware of the full extent of the surveillance program… and that in itself is a cause for some alarm bells being set off.

Biden said that there is a problem in the Censure Resolution in that “we don’t know what the President did.”  Biden said that the Intelligence Committee should be censured.  He quoted journalist Stewart Taylor… “The administration’s argument about not tipping our hand to terrorists by sharing our surveillance program with the Intelligence Committee is alarming.”

“WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE?  WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE?”

“There’s a third branch of government and it’s called the Congress… does it make sense…. Not is it legal… does it make sense?”

“WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE NOTION THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE AN IMPUT ON?”

“It’s bizarre,” said Biden.  “Somebody tell me the risk of leakage… when we had during the Cold War, information about mobile missiles, and all the intelligence we gained on the Soviet Union at the time…. Somebody tell me that the those times were less dangerous than now?  Nothing got leaked.”

“Without anyone knowing what the President’s program is, not even the Attorney General… It’s absolutely amazing.. Does anybody here think that the Attorney General knows the extent of this program?  I asked him under oath, `Can you assure us that this program is the only one?’ And he said no.  I don’t even believe that the Attorney General of the United States of America knows the extent of this domestic surveillance program and I find it breathtaking the arrogance of this administration.  Concluding that a group of people we do not even know so called “experts on terror” making judgments on the spot upon whom to eavesdrop … with no assurance or any way of with no oversight.  This is like Alice in Wonderland.”

“And then this malarkey that (immitates Bush’s Texas drawl)”Well, ya know, if you raise questions about this you’re only supporting the terrorists…”

…..

Morton Halprin: You have to find a way to compel the President to obey the law.

Biden’s concluding remarks:

“I truly appreciate your willingness, Senator Specter, not to let this issue go away, nobody else in Congress is doing anything about it.  My frustration is not with you.  I understand the truth of the assertion that the only thing that is going change this administration’s mind is a political judgement reached by the US Congress and confronting the president with a political situation where he politically concludes that it is not advantageous to pursue the avenue he is currently taking.

Without consultation with anybody….  

What frustrates me….  I never thought I’d sit here after thirty three years from Richard Nixon to this guy… to President Bush, and find ourselves in the posture where we are literally paralyzed from having any notion about having any idea… And I’m supposed to accept, and others are supposed to accept the word of Dick Cheney?  Accept the word of the President? “Trust me?”… “Trust me?”

Silence in the room.

“Thank you for your time.”

(the above is my transcription of some part of the proceedings.

What I understand about what happened today is that no one knows what the President’s surveillance program is, not even the Attorney General.  Presidential signing statements (use and abuse of) will be taken up at another hearing. Specter will revise his FISA 2006 asap. Feingold’s Censure Resolution will be taken up on Friday…. in all due dispatch as the Immigration Legislation is the most important pressing matter right now.  And Biden has established… The President broke the law.

The best possible outcome is that Biden will support Censure, there will be an investigation into the President’s warrantless domestic spying, and it will be determined that the President broke the law. But since the President will not divulge the extent of the program, not even to his Attorney General… it’s going to take more than oversight… it’s going to take subpoena power.

Until June, 2001, it was possible to go to the US Army Military History page and read about the Court Martial of General George Armstrong Custer.  Now it only possible due to the Wayback Machine.  If you attempt to go to US Army Military History to read about this and other “sensitive records” of court-martials of Army Generals in history, you will be told:

“Forbidden
You were denied access because:
Access denied by access control list.”

The Court Martial of General Custer occurred nine years before his last stand in Little Big Horn.

What I remember from what I read about Little Big Horn is that:

1)    Strategically the plan was nuts.  The army was divided into three regiments.  As Custer led his regiment into Little Big Horn, the troops marched along a pass that was 150 feet wide, and it had been made by horses, marching people, and dragged equipment sleds.  During this march many many members of Custer’s regiment turned back, knowing they were walking into a confrontation with approx 6 to 10,000 members of the Indian Nation.

2)    Custer’s men were outmanned and outarmed.. Custer’s troops were armed with old Civil War issue single shot rifles.  The bullets needed to be loaded one at a time, and the soldiers had to use jack-knives to prise the bullets from their belts where they had rusted.  The Indians were armed with Remington 16 shot repeating rifles.

3)    Custer was ambitious to become President of the United States, and this campaign of war on the Indian Nation was his effort to win the popular vote by achieving a swift victory and to wipe out the Indian Nation.  He was a megalomaniac.  He was driven by blind insane ambition….  The only survivor of Custer’s regiment was a horse named Comanche.

Read more at:  The History Guy; General George Armstrong Custer; (1839-1876)

While discussing the censure and impeachment of George Walker Bush, I think more attention needs to be paid to COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY and the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE.  Reading about case of the court martial of General George Armstrong Custer is a good place to start.  Then, it might be appropriate to ask why the US Army decided to remove this case from the history files on its website. www.army/mil/history/custer

THE COURT MARTIAL OF GENERAL GEORGE ARMSTRONG CUSTER

On 11 October 1867, at Fort Leavenworth, a court martial found Brevet Major General George Armstrong Custer, Lieutenant Colonel, 7 th U.S. Cavalry guilty and sentenced him to suspension from rank and command for one year, and forfeiture of his pay for the same time.
_____________
*    Charges
*    Findings
*    Members of the Court
*    Further Readings
______________
Charges and Specifications preferred against Brevet Major General G. A. Custer, Lieutenant Colonel 7th U.S. Cavalry
Charge first.

Absence without leave from his command.

Specification first.
In this, that he Brevet Major General G.A . Custer, Lieutenant Colonel 7th U.S. Cavalry, did at or near Fort Wallace, Kansas, on or about the 15th day of July 1867, absent himself from his command without proper authority, and proceed to Fort Harker, Kansas, a distance of about 275 miles, this at a time when his command was expected to be actively engaged against hostile Indians.

Charge second.
Conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.

Specification first.
In this, that he, Brevet Major General G.A. Custer, Lieutenant Colonel 7th U.S. Cavalry, immediately after the troops of his command had completed a long and exhausting march, and when the horses belonging thereto had not been rested, and were in an unfit condition for said service, did select a portion of such command consisting of three Commissioned officers, and about seventy-five men with their horses, and did set out upon and execute a rapid march from Fort Wallace, Kansas, to Fort Hays in the same state; the said march being on private business, and without proper authority or any urgency or demand of public business; and in so doing did seriously prejudice the public interest by overmarching and damaging the horses belonging to the said detachment of his command.

Specification second.
In this, that he, Brevet Major General G.A . Custer, Lieutenant Colonel 7th U.S. Cavalry, while executing an unauthorized journey on private business from Fort Wallace, Kansas to Fort Harker in the same state, did procure at Fort Hays in the same state, on or about the 17th July 1867, (two ambulances and) four mules belonging to the United States, and did use such (ambulances and) mules, for the conveyance of himself and part of his escort from said Fort Hays to Fort Harker in the aforesaid state.

Specification third.
In this, that he Brevet Major General G.A. Custer, Lieutenant Colonel 7th U.S. Cavalry, when near Downer’s Station in the state of Kansas, on or about the 16th day of July 1867, after having received information that a party of Indians had attacked a small party detached from his escort near said Station, did fail to take proper measures for the repulse of said Indians, or the defense or relief of said detachment; and further, after the return of such detached party of his command with report that two of their number had been killed, did neglect to take any measures to pursue such party of Indians, or recover or bury the bodies of his command that had been killed as aforesaid.

Additional Charges and Specifications preferred against Lieutenant Colonel George A. Custer, Brevet Major General U.S.A.

Charge
Conduct prejudicial to good order and Military discipline.

Specification first.
In this that Brevet Major General G.A. Custer, Lieutenant Colonel 7th U.S. Cavalry, while en route commanding and marching a column of his regiment, six companies or thereabouts, strong, from the valley of the Platte River, to the valley of the Smoky Hill River, did, when ordering a party of three commissioned Officers and others of his Command in pursuit of supposed deserters who were then in view leaving camp, also order the said party to shoot the supposed deserters down dead, and bring none in alive.
This on “Custer’ Cavalry Column Trail,” while traveling southward, about fifty miles southwest from Fort Sedgewick, Colorado, on or about the seventh day of July, 1867.

Specification second.
In this that Brevet Major General G.A. Custer, Lieutenant Colonel 7th U.S. Cavalry, did order (the following named and designated Soldiers of his regiment, viz. Bugler Barney Tolliver, Company K., Private Charles Johnson, Company K., Private Alburger, Company D., and other) enlisted men of his command, to be shot down as supposed deserters, but without trial; and did thus cause three men to be severely wounded.

This on “Custer’s Cavalry Column Trail,” while traveling southward, between fifteen and forty miles South of Platt River, between fifty and seventy miles Southwest from Fort Sedgewick, Colorado, on or about the seventh day of July, 1867.

Specification third.
In this that Brevet Major General G.A . Custer, Lieutenant Colonel 7th U.S. Cavalry, after the following named and designated soldiers of his regiment, viz. Bugler Barney Tolliver, Company K., Private Charles Johnson, Company K., and Private Alburger, Company D., had been summarily shot down and severely wounded by order of him the said Custer, did, order and cause the said soldiers to be placed in a government wagon, and to be hauled eighteen miles, (and did then and there neglect and positively and persistently refuse to allow the said soldiers, to receive treatment and attention from the Acting Assistant Surgeon with his command or any other Medical or Surgical attendance whatsoever).

This on “Custer’s Cavalry Column Trail,” while traveling southward, between fifteen and forty miles south of Platt River, between fifty and seventy miles Southwest from Fort Sedgewick, Colorado, on or about the seventh day of July, 1867.

Specification fourth.
In this that Brevet Major General G.A. Custer, Lieutenant Colonel 7th U.S. Cavalry, while commanding and marching a column of his regiment, six companies or thereabouts strong, did, on or about the seventh day of July 1867, at a point about fifteen miles South of Platt River, and about fifty miles southwest from Fort Sedgewick, Colorado, order and cause the summary shooting, as a supposed deserter, but without trial, of one Private Charles Johnson, Company K., 7th U.S. Infantry [sic], a soldier of his command; whereby he, the said Johnson, was so severely wounded that he soon after – to wit, on or about the 17th day of July 1867, at or near Fort Wallace, Kansas – did decease; he the said Custer thus causing the death of the said Johnson.
______________
Findings
Of the 1st Specification 1st Charge – Guilty of the Specification, substituting the words “Fort Harker,” for the words “Fort Riley,” and the figures “200” for the figures “275.”

•  Of the 1st Charge – Guilty.
•  Of the 1st Specification of the 2nd Charge – Guilty.
•  Of the 2nd Specification of the 2nd Charge – Guilty of the Specification, substituting the words “Ft. Harker” for the words “Ft. Riley;” omitting the words “two ambulances and,” and substituting the word “four” for the word “eight,” and omitting the words “ambulances and,” and attach no criminality thereto.
•  Of the 3rd Specification of the 2nd Charge – Guilty.
•  Of the 2nd Charge – Guilty.
•  Of the 1st Specification of the Additional Charge – Guilty.
•  Of the 2nd Specification of the Additional Charge – Guilty of the Specification omitting the words “the following named and designated soldiers of his Regiment, viz Bugler Barney Tolliver, Co.K, Private Charles Johnson, Co K, Private Alburger, Co. D. and other,” and substituting the words “three” in place of the words “the said.”
•  Of the third Specification of the Additional Charge the Court finds the facts as stated in the specification except the words “and did then and there neglect and positively and persistantly refuse to allow the said soldiers to receive any treatment or attention from the acting assistant Surgeon with his command, or any other medical or surgical attendance whatever,” and attach no criminality thereto.
•  Of the forth Specification of the Additional Charge – Guilty.
•  Of the Additional Charge – Guilty.

In consequence the Court sentenced Brevet Major General G.A. Custer, Lieutenant Colonel, 7th U.S. Cavalry, to be suspended from rank and command for one year, and forfeit his pay for the same time.
______________
Members of the Court
*    Brevet Major General William Hoffman, Colonel Third U.S. Infantry
*    Brevet Major General John W. Davidson, Lieutenant Colonel Tenth U.S. Calvary (excused)
*    Brevet Major General Benjamin H. Grierson, Colonel Tenth U.S. Calvary
*    Brevet Brigadier General Pitcairn Morrison, Colonel U.S. Army Retired
*    Brevet Brigadier General Michael R. Morgan, Major Commissary of Subsistence
*    Brevet Brigadier General Franklin D. Callender, Lieutenant Colonel Ordnance Department
*    Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Thomas C. English, Major Fifth U.S. Infantry
*    Brevet Major Henry Asbury, Captain, Ordnance Department
*    Brevet Major Stephen C. Lyford, Captain Ordnance Department
*    Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Robert Chandler, Captain Thirteenth U.S. Infantry, Judge Advocate
______________
Further Reading
Lawrence A. Frost, The Court Martial of General George Armstrong Custer, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1968
______________
Back to the CAC & Fort Leavenworth History page.
_______________
Submitted by J. Patrick Hughes Ph.D., Historian, Command Historian, 99th Reserve Support Command, Oakdale, PA.

While discussing the censure and impeachment of George Walker Bush, I think more attention needs to be paid to COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY and the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE.  Reading about case of the court martial of General George Armstrong Custer is a good place to start.  Then, it might be appropriate to ask why the US Army decided to remove this case from the history files on its website. www.army/mil/history/custer.

See also: Gen. George Armstrong Custer, US Army, Court Martial, Command Responsibility, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Impeachment, Censure, Iraq

See also: Senator Patrick Leahy vs. Torture 2003-2006
New Yorker Fact Leahy vs. Torture 2003-2006

VIETNAM REDUX

On Saturday, March 18, on the corner of 16th and Broadway in Sacramento at 4pm there was a third Saturday Protest of the war on Iraq, to coincide with the third anniversary of the illegal invasion. Once again, my family was there… this time there were about seven of us.  Although the television news said that there were only 100 protesters there, in actual fact at 4:30PM there were 300 people there.  

Around noontime I started making a sign…. My sister was going to collect me at quarter to 4 so I had to be quick about it.  I took an old Ginsu knife and cut apart a computer box, leaving all the spare flaps.  I took it outside and used some antique white latex, rolling it on and leaving it in the sun.  Went inside and made a sign:  VIETNAM REDUX, with a small box that said TROOPS OUT NOW.  I made this sign because the Air War on Iraq that has been escalating over the last 5 months has been under-reported.   I made this sign because if the American people knew, they would remember we were here before in 1972… and they would make a move to stop the expansion of this illegal war.

See:
CENSORED NEWS BREAKS THROUGH – AIR WAR ON IRAQ

I made it the with Microsoft Word, in the landscape setting (to print horizontal), then when printing I hit the poster button, to tile the pages at a 16 to one ratio.  I printed and did paste up with a glue stick, and trimmed the top and bottom.  This took no more than 10 minutes.  The sign was ready to tape to the board before the paint was dried…  I reinforced the painted board with a wooden 1x1x1 inch dowel and kept the whole thing solid with three yellow bungee cords.  I taped the paper sign to the board with packing tape, and it was ready to go.

The sign fit neatly standing on end in the car, and was really easy to carry.  I had angled two side flaps so that it was weighted and would stand on it’s own so I wouldn’t have to stand there holding it all day.  As it was, I found a green newspaper stand that it could lean on in front of a bank.  I leaned the sign there and went back a block to see if it had good visiblility.  

I stopped in front of a HUGE sign that said NO WAR.  This sign was about 5 by 20 feet, and standing behind it was a couple in their sixties.  “I’m just checking out to see if my sign looks all right.”  “I don’t know if most people will understand what `redux’ means,” said the man.  “Well,” I said, “you do, and your wife does and I do, so that’s good enough for me.”

By the time I got back to the green newsstand, there was a Veteran standing there in Army fatigues, leaning on a cane.   And there he stood, friends, for the next 3 hours.  He never moved.  He never took a break, even declining my offer of a cup of coffee.  He is with the Sacramento Veterans for a war memorial.  I walked right up to him and shook his hand and said, “I’m very pleased to meet you.”  But what I was was knocked out… taken aback by the rightness of the thing.

Mitch (not his name) is a Vietnam vet; he saw the sign, and went right over to it, knowing full well what the sign meant, and what an impact there was in his standing behind it.  My job was done, so I hauled off about 6 feet behind him.  Later we talked about troop levels, the air war, and the lack of real support… armor….. and so it goes.

WHAT’S A COUPLE OF ZEROS?

The demonstration in Sacramento was 300, not 100 as reported.
The demonstration in San Francisco was 10,000 not 1,000 as reported.
The demonstration in London was 45,000 not the 14,000 as reported.
The demonstration in Dublin was 1,300 not the 800 as reported.
And, contrary to a lot of leaflets printed in advance of the demonstrations here and around the country, the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the war since March 2003 is 128,000 to 150,000, not the 28,000 as reported.

See:
Why is the Left Understating the Carnage?
Counting the Dead in Iraq
by Todd Chretien
March 14, 2006
MINIMIZING BODY COUNT IN IRAQ

I’m not in the mood right now to discuss numbers.  I’m not in the mood right now to discuss the media coverage of this war and the anti-war movement.  And I’m definitely not in the mood to talk about how numbers have been manipulated in the attempt to manipulate the public.  The thing about the true report is that you have to search for it… if it’s not there, you have to write it yourself, and make sure that it gets sent out to where it might do some good.

I know how to count people.  I know how to accurately estimate crowds.  I know how to get accurate numbers based on crowd density, and how make estimates of crowds if they are stationary or if they’re on the march.  I know how to do this, and I’ve been doing this for more than 30 years.  The Associated Press does not know how to do this.

Attending these events, one sometimes gets an overwhelming feeling for history and memory.  Standing there with my arm around my sister she and I had a moment where we remembered together that we have been marching together for forty years.  We saw two lovely old ladies, one in a wheelchair, and another in a pink sweatshirt and a pink cowboy hat… She was in her seventies anyways… and then some.

“Are you Code Pink?” I asked.  “No,” she said, “I’m just me.”  “Well you look lovely, that color suits you.”  “These are just my protesting clothes,” she said.  I looked at my sister and she was looking at me thinking the same thing.  

We have been fighting for this cause for 40 years, as our mother had before us.  One day, another thirty years from now, we will find ourselves here again… and it’s likely that I’ll look over at my elderly sister and she’ll be wearing a pink cowboy hat… and it’s likely she’ll be looking back at me and I’ll be using a cane.

The cause is never won, and, like Mitch, one cannot take a break…. There is no resting on laurels, for as soon as you get rid of one bunch of scoundrels there will be a worse bunch behind them to fall into rank.  The struggle for justice, for a decent wage, for peace, for civil rights will go on as long as we live.