(Corrected) June 26: Anti-Torture Vigil & Street Drama at ABQ Federal Building

6.27.07 CORRECTION: Please note that according to an email I received today from Robert Stoppel, a member of the Board of Directors for a Guerilla Street Theatre collaborative called, La Cucaracha Stew Co. in Albuquerque, the "STREET DRAMA" portion of this demonstration was planned, constructed, and performed by La Cucaracha Stew Co. La Cucaracha is the only politically active street theatre company in Albuquerque. Robert Stoppel can be reached at lacucarachastewco@gmail.com.
***********

From Amnesty International Albuquerque Chapter 101:
A street theater enactment of “Guantanamo: A Life Sentence With No Trial” will be held at the Federal Building, 333 Lomas Blvd. NW in Albuquerque, from Noon to 1 PM on June 26th. Organized by Amnesty International Albuquerque Chapter 101, and cosponsored by the and the ACLU of New Mexico, the event commemorates the UN's International Day in Support of Torture Victims and Survivors.

Vigils and congressional visits across the nation will be held during the week of June 26th calling for a stop to torture in U.S. operated detention facilities. Also being demanded is the repeal of the Military Commissions Act, which authorizes the suspension of habeas corpus for those accused of being enemy combatants. (This means that the accused may be held indefinitely and their right to know what they are being charged with and their right to a trial that meets international fair trial standards have been suspended.)

In addition, please write Senator Domenici and Representative Wilson and ask them to withdraw their support for the Military Commissions Act.

For further information about the vigil, please contact Ann Peterpaul at 453-2465. For more information about Albuquerque Amnesty International, and other actions in the planning stages, please contact Nell Burrus, Chapter101 coordinator, at 833-3140.

Edwards Rejects "War on Terror" Frame

John Edwards gave a major policy speech on foreign relations today in New York. Although, like every Democratic presidential candidate except Kucinich, he advocates increased military spending -- he does come out strongly against Bush's politically useful and calculated framing of a "global war on terror." Like the damaging and deceptive "war on drugs," this construct does nothing to solve the real problems afoot in our world, but works quite well as a fear-making slogan. Click to read an outline of Edwards' remarks or a complete text of his speech. Excerpt:

Moving Beyond the "War on Terror"
“The core of this presidency has been a political doctrine that George Bush calls the ‘Global War on Terror.’ He has used this doctrine like a sledgehammer to justify the worst abuses and biggest mistakes of his administration, from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, to the war in Iraq. The worst thing about the Global War on Terror approach is that it has backfired—our military has been strained to the breaking point and the threat from terrorism has grown.”

“We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq American military that is mission-focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological pursuits. We need to recognize that we have far more powerful weapons available to us than just bombs, and we need to bring them to bear. We need to reengage the world with the full weight of our moral leadership.”

“What we need is not more slogans but a comprehensive strategy to deal with the complex challenge of both delivering justice and being just. Not hard power. Not soft power. Smart power.”

Wouldn't it be refreshing -- and effective -- if we started approaching problems as complex situations that require wise and nuanced long-term strategies instead of labeling each as another "war" on something? To me, what these "war on whatever" assaults do is create more chaos, fear and hysteria so that huge sums of money can be pumped into the hands of special interests. Oh, the DEA and Halliburton and arms merchants love all the "wars on whatever." Then again, they don't have to keep paying for them for generations as the real causes of the problems are left to fester. What a merry-go-round for well connected war profiteers and corporatists.

Gov. Richardson to Call for Halting New U.S. Nuke Weapons Programs

On Thursday, Governor Bill Richardson will make what his presidential campaign is calling a "major address" on foreign policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC. According to the Campaign News Advisory (see below), Richardson will include among his proposals "halting new American nuclear weapons programs." Quite a compelling announcement considering the roles New Mexico's Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories play in the nuke weapon industry. In fact, Los Alamos is one of two labs to have submitted a design to build what's being called the next generation of nuke bombs, the very controversial "reliable replacement warhead."

According to a January article in the Santa Fe New Mexican:

... last month, the director of Los Alamos National Laboratory listed the new warhead design among the lab's accomplishments. "I think our team did a great job," director Michael Anastasio told employees in a December speech.

At least two watchdog groups in New Mexico -- Nuclear Watch New Mexico and the Los Alamos Study Group -- are opposed to the project, saying it will further nuclear proliferation.

Greg Mello of the study group said the program is primarily about keeping the nuclear weapons complex alive.

Reportedly the Bush administration is considering combining the designs submitted by Los Alamos Lab with that proposed by Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California.

CAMPAIGN NEWS ADVISORY
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to Outline Bold, Strong Foreign Policy Vision for America

US must address threat of nuclear terrorism, should stop new nuke programs

Governor Bill Richardson on Thursday will deliver a major address at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC.  In the speech, entitled “The New Realism and the Rebirth of American Leadership”, the Governor will outline his vision for a renewed and strong American foreign policy and his detailed philosophy to confront world challenges.

Governor Richardson believes that under the Bush administration the country’s foreign policy has been guided more by “wishful thinking than by reality”.  He believes the United States must take a different path in foreign affairs, “a path not of hard words, but of hard work.” The Governor will offer his assessment of the true challenges facing America and the world, and his plan on how to deal with them.

Governor Richardson will also discuss ways to make America and the world more secure, specifically by addressing the threat of nuclear terrorism and the need to secure the world’s existing nuclear materials.  He will also propose halting new American nuclear weapons programs.

Bill Richardson is uniquely qualified to discuss foreign policy, having served as a US Congressman for 14 years, Ambassador to the UN, Energy Secretary, and as the two-term Governor of a border state.   

What: Governor Bill Richardson major foreign policy address to CSIS

Where: 10 am Thurs. February 8, CSIS offices, 1800 K Street NW, Washington, DC

Site Contact: Andrew Schwartz, CSIS (202) 775-3242 aschwartz@csis.org

News Advisory: February 7, 2007
Contact: Pahl Shipley, Santa Fe (505) 982-2291

ACTION ALERT: Help Stop Damaging NM "Terrorism" Measure

Guest Blog from Anne Kass:
Everyone who is protective of civil liberties should be very concerned about the implications of HB 653, Prohibit Terrorism. Please contact NM Rep. Jeff Steinborn (D-Las Cruces), who is sponsoring this "bill opposing terrorism" (Office 986-4248, Home 532-1145, email jeff.steinborn@nmlegis.gov), as well as Attorney General Gary King and , both of whom are also supporting it according to an Albuquerque Journal article, and express your opposition to the bill's misguided focus.

According to the Journal, the bill makes it a felony to commit an act of terrorism. No problem there. However, the bill goes on to define terrorism to include any act or threat of violence intended to, "intimidate or coerce a civilian population" or government and causing more than $20,000 in property damage. We must convince Rep. Steinborn to remove all references to property damage, in general, and any specific dollar figure, in particular. Including property damage in the definition of terrorism is an arrow at the heart of civil protest. It is a corporate sponsored undertaking which corporations already got through the Federal Congress.

The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico has announced plans to oppose the bill:

"This is an unfortunate attempt to re-create the Patriot Act in New Mexico," said Peter Simonson, referring to federal law passed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. "What this law would do is create an overly broad definition of terrorism that could easily be used to criminalize acts of civil disobedience and even non-violent protests."

He specifically pointed to language that would allow prosecution for a "threat of violence" that reasonably could be considered dangerous. That threshold could prevent protests similar to anti-World Trade Organization protests that occurred in Seattle in 1999, when protesters tore down barricades.

Let me tell you how the federal law works.

A few months ago I watched a news report about a group of animal rights activists who had seen actual video footage of horrible animal abuse being inflicted upon laboratory dogs by the employees of an animal research laboratory. The lab technicians shook beagles until their necks snapped and threw them to the floor for resisting whatever experimental protocol was being inflicted on them. It motivated people to organize to picket the accounting firm that did the laboratory's books. Apparently research had shown that the accounting firm might be sympathetic to abused animals.

It was a peaceful protest, and it worked. The accounting firm quit doing the laboratory's books. The laboratory then persuaded a Republican U.S. Attorney to charge the protestors with terrorism because they had intimidated or coerced (picketed) a civilian population (the accounting firm) and caused more than $10,000 worth of INTELLECTUAL property damage. (The laboratory claimed it cost them more than $10,000 to find and educate a replacement accounting firm, and $10,000 is the specific figure in the federal law.)

The protestors were convicted. I watched one young man interviewed just as he was about to begin his three year federal prison sentence.

I'm not making this up.

What Needs to be Done
Not only must Representative Steinborn remove the property damage language from his bill, but he should insert language that expressly excludes at least "intellectual property damage," expressly states that the bill isn't aimed at the economic damage that may result from peaceful protest (for example boycotting a product) and that further expressly protects peaceful protest in all its forms.

This is important. Please contact your own Representative and Senator as well, and stay on top of them until you get a commitment that in New Mexico corporations do not control ALL of our legislature. The bill will be heard first by the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee, followed by the House Judiciary Committee.

Clearly, under current state law, acts of violence are already criminal offenses, as is vandalism. This bill may in fact need to be defeated, not just modified. Its intent is to impose far greater penalties on political activists than it would impose on others guilty of similar offenses.

Editor's Note: This is a Guest Blog by Anne Kass. If you'd like to submit a post for consideration as a Guest Blog, contact me by clicking on the Email Me link on the upper left-hand corner of this page.

Escalating Against Iran and Syria?

Besides Bush's mention of the "bipartisan" mewlings of scabby Joe Lieberman (who will head up a working group that will meet regularly with the prez about "winning the war on terror"), I think the lines shown in this video were the most alarming in Bush's speech last night.  Seek out and destroy networks? Patriot air defense systems? Condi Rice has also upped her verbal attacks on Iran of late. Apparently nothing is beyond the pale for the Bushies now. Nothing. Cornered varmints are always the most dangerous of creatures.

Full audio and text of Bush speech, Sen. Durbin's response and other coverage is available at NPR.

Most outrageous press release on the escalation push? Try "Lieberman Applauds President for Pursuing New Course in Iraq."

Scariest article? Read Senators warn Bush against wider war at the Financial Times. Excerpt:

“When you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it’s very, very dangerous,” declared Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, drawing applause during the foreign relations committee hearing as a stoney faced Ms Rice looked on.

“As a matter of fact, I have to say, Madam Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam – if it’s carried out.”

He cast doubt on assurances she had given moments earlier to Joseph Biden, the Democratic committee president, that the US did not intend to mount cross-border raids into Iran. Mr Hagel recalled that the government had “lied to the American people” in 1970 when it denied taking the Vietnam war into Cambodia.

The president did not have the necessary congressional authority to invade Iran or Syria in pursuit of anti-US “networks”, Mr Biden said. “I just want to set that marker.”

Uh oh. Maybe they're reacting to this, reported by The Washington Note. Excerpt:

Did the President Declare "Secret War" Against Syria and Iran?

Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country.

...Adding fuel to the speculation is that U.S. forces today raided an Iranian Consulate in Arbil, Iraq and detained five Iranian staff members. Given that Iran showed little deference to the political sanctity of the US Embassy in Tehran 29 years ago, it would be ironic for Iran to hyperventilate much about the raid.

But what is disconcerting is that some are speculating that Bush has decided to heat up military engagement with Iran and Syria -- taking possible action within their borders, not just within Iraq.

Some are suggesting that the Consulate raid may have been designed to try and prompt a military response from Iran -- to generate a casus belli for further American action.

Quote of the Day: Shapes of Things to Come

Relaxing on a holiday weekend, it's satisfying to imagine what will happen when the new Democratic-led Congress convenes in January. One much anticipated development is reported in the New York Times:

Seeking information about detention of terrorism suspects, abuse of detainees and government secrecy, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are reviving dozens of demands for classified documents that until now have been rebuffed or ignored by the Justice Department and other agencies.

“I expect real answers, or we’ll have testimony under oath until we get them,” Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, who will head the committee beginning in January, said in an interview this week. “We’re entitled to know these answers, and in many instances we don’t get them because people are hiding their mistakes. And that’s no excuse.”

Another Dem Cave-In Sullies Our Liberty, Our Nation and Our Party

What a debacle. What a shameful display. Once again, I rely on Greenwald:

Final passage of the torture/detention bill was 65-34. Without necessarily planning to, I live-blogged the Senate proceedings here.

Twelve Democrats voted in favor, 1 Republican and 1 independent voted against (there may be one or two errors because I compiled the list while listening to the vote):

Democrats in favor (12) - Carper (Del.), Johnson (S.D.), Landrieu (La.), Lautenberg (N.J.), Lieberman (Conn.), Menendez (N.J), Pryor (Ark.), Rockefeller (W. Va.), Salazar (Co.), Stabenow (Mich.), Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.)

Republicans against (1) - Chafee (R.I.).

Jeffords voted against.

I don't understand why Harry Reid made a backroom deal with the Repubs where he promised not to lead a filibuster if they "let" there be a few hours of "debate" and "permitted" 3 amendments, which Reid had to know would fail. A filibuster would have shown Americans that this bill is THAT BAD. What this does is show that Reid has no idea how to keep control of the Dem caucus. We need another Lyndon Johnson in that regard, don't we? To me, Reid is as bad a leader as Daschle was, and the stakes are much higher now.

Contact Sen. Bingaman on Torture Bill

Please call Sen. Bingaman NOW to express your views on the Republican torture and detainment bill:

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D) 202-224-5521, 202-224-2852, 505-988-6647 Senator_Bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov

When I spoke with one of his staffers this morning I was told the Senator is co-sponsoring an amendment to strike the suspension of habeas corpus section of the bill. They are tallying the views of constituents who call about the bill, so it's very important that you do so immediately. I urged the Senator to filibuster the bill and stated my strong opposition to it. If you care about American democracy and the rule of law, I hope you'll do the same. Please be polite.

UPDATE: The Spector-Leahy amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus from the bill, which Sen. Bingaman co-sponsored, failed by 3 votes. All Dems voted for the amendment except Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). It needed yea votes from half the Senators to pass. Here's the roll call. Almost every Republican voted effectively to throw out perhaps our most important legal protection against tyranny and injustice. Unbelievable. A filibuster may well be the only way to stop this dangerous bill.

Must Read on Terror & Detainment Bill

As usual, Glenn Greenwald is providing outstanding, if depressive, coverage of what Bush's torture and detainment bill really contains, as well as updating his commentary as events procede today. He lays out the issues so that even I can understand them. Imagine if our mainstream media were actually doing its work responsibly and the American people could be exposed to these facts in this manner. Excerpts:

About Sen. Pete Domenici's floor statement:

"Sen. Pete Dominici spat out one banal, moronic slogan after the next, and said that we can't possibly allow detainees to access our courts because it would "clog the courts" -- a completely idiotic assertion given the number of petitions there would be as compared to the overall caseload. It is better to allow the President to imprison people for life with no hope of ever proving one's innocence because to allow them to go to court would create lots of administrative burdens. The blind loyalty to the President of Republicans in Congress is limitless -- there is no presidential power they would meaningfully oppose. People who genuinely favor of this bill are craven, hollow and un-American followers."

Other excerpts:

" ... as Law Professors Marty Lederman and Bruce Ackerman each point out, many of the extraordinary powers vested in the President by this bill also apply to U.S. citizens, on U.S. soil.

As Ackerman put it: "The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights." Similarly, Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."

"This last point means that even if there were a habeas corpus right inserted back into the legislation (which is unlikely at this point anyway), it wouldn't matter much, if at all, because the law would authorize your detention simply based on the DoD's decree that you are an enemy combatant, regardless of whether it was accurate. This is basically the legalization of the Jose Padilla treatment -- empowering the President to throw people into black holes with little or no recourse, based solely on his say-so.

"There really is no other way to put it. Issues of torture to the side (a grotesque qualification, I know), we are legalizing tyranny in the United States. Period. [emphasis mine] Primary responsibility for this fact lies with the authoritarian Bush administration and its sickeningly submissive loyalists in Congress. That is true enough. But there is no point in trying to obscure that fact that it's happening with the cowardly collusion of the Senate Democratic leadership, which quite likely could have stopped this travesty via filibuster if it chose to (it certainly could have tried).

" ... There is a profound and fundamental difference between an Executive engaging in shadowy acts of lawlessness and abuses of power on the one hand, and, on the other, having the American people, through their Congress, endorse, embrace and legalize that behavior out in the open, with barely a peep of real protest. Our laws reflect our values and beliefs. And our laws are about to explicitly codify one of the most dangerous and defining powers of tyranny -- one of the very powers this country was founded in order to prevent."

Senate Dem Statements On Torture & Detainment Bill

Several Senate Dems have given their floor statements on Bush's horrendous torture and detainment bill. Here are excerpts from a few of them:

" ... the trials conducted under this legislation will send a very different signal to the world, one that I fear will put our own troops and personnel in jeopardy both now and in future conflicts. To take just a few examples, this legislation would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and hearsay, would not allow full judicial review of the conviction, and yet would allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death. That is simply unacceptable. We would not stand for another country to try our citizens under those rules, and we should not stand for our own government to do so, either." --Sen. Russ Feingold (full statement here)

"Mr. President, the Administration and Republican leadership would have the American people believe that the War on Terror requires a choice between protecting America from terrorism and upholding the basic tenets upon which our country was founded -- but not both. This canard has been showcased in every recent election cycle.

"I fully reject that reasoning. We can, and we must, balance our responsibilities to bring terrorists to justice, while at the same time protecting what it means to be America. To choose the rule of law over the passion of the moment takes courage. But it is the right thing to do if we are to uphold the values of equal justice and due process that are codified in our Constitution." --Sen. Chris Dodd (full statement here)

"We must start treating our moral authority as a precious national asset that does not limit our power but magnifies our influence. That seems obvious, but this Administration still doesn't get it. Right now - today -- they are trying to rush a bill through Congress that will fundamentally undermine our moral authority, put our troops at greater risk, and make our country less safe.

"Let me be clear about something--something that it seems few people are willing to say. This bill permits torture. It gives the President the discretion to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions. No matter how much well-intended United States Senators would like to believe otherwise, it gives an Administration that lobbied for torture just what it wanted." --Sen. John Kerry (full statement )