Congress Attempting to Hand U.S. Military the Power to Disappear Americans

The U.S. Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act which codifies into law the power of the U.S. military to arrest and detain Americans indefinitely, without any legal charges and without any oversight whatsoever. In other words, the United States government is handing its military the power to disappear anyone it wants to. The bill apparently designates the entire planet as a battlefield and makes it legal for the military to imprison U.S. citizens for any reason. No evidence of any wrongdoing is required. The military could simply suspect or dislike you and make you vanish. Forever. No one will even know what happened to you. A soldier can drive up, grab you, put you in an unmarked van, take you to a military prison, and keep you there until you die. That is exactly the same authority wielded by every South and Central American dictator over the past sixty years. It’s a power used by dictators and authoritarian police states across the globe.

Only seven Senators voted against this terrifying bill. They are:

R-Rand Paul (KY)
R-Thomas Coburn (OK)
R-Mike Lee (UT)
D-Thomas Harken (IA)
D-Ron Wyden (OR)
D-Jeff Merkley (OR),
I-Bernard Sanders (VT) (one of 2 Independen­ts in the Senate)

Well, now you know. It would seem clear that the other senators are becoming a threat to civil rights and the protections of the U.S. Constitution. I don’t really see any way to logically argue in favor of these people or support their continued presence in the Senate.

The Obama administration has said that the President will most likely veto this bill if it reaches him. But it is Obama who has opened the door for this bill by resolutely defending his right to kill any American citizen that he defines as an enemy… without charges and without trial. Our President now executes Americans without trials. And now our Senate wants the military to snatch people without trials.

Here’s the Facebook page for ‘One Billion Against Indefinite Detention Without Trial Law.

Is Occupy Wall Street Encouraging Bigotry?

Who are the one percent?

Does anyone pay attention to what is being said when this ‘1%’ thing is thrown around?

Here’s a direct quote from the OccupyWallSt.org About page and must therefore be the definitive statement of the movement’s intentions:

‘The movement is inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, and aims to expose how the richest 1% of people are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future.’

If you replace ‘richest 1% of people’ with different words like ‘Muslims’ or ‘Jews’ or ‘Whites’ or ‘Blacks’ or ‘Poor People,’ wouldn’t you have a serious problem?

Why is it that Occupy Wall Street can define a 1% minority out of a population and engage in open hostility and bigotry toward them? Bigotry against a part of a population is bigotry no matter what the rationale for it happens to be. Occupy Wall Street is not talking about corrupt rich people. It is not talking about criminals. It is talking about ALL rich people. It is equating wealth with villainy.

It should be obvious that not all of the richest people are in fact helping to write unfair rules. Michael Moore is rich. Is he writing some of the unfair rules?

Why is Occupy Wall Street unable to confine its hostility to actual policy?

In Germany, during the buildup of Nazism, people grew increasingly angry toward the wealthy and then turned that anger toward Jewish people.  Angry crowds, encouraged to chant mantras and direct hostility toward groups that they define as evil become extremely dangerous when exposed to a charismatic leader who is willing to exploit them.

I do not oppose constructive change of policy to make the economic situation more fair and to prevent the corporate control of government.  But I do oppose the fundamental and defining aspect of Occupy Wall Street which is to associate a particular group of people with a generic and unspecified evil.

PEOPLE ARE THE PRESS: Federal Court Rules it is Not Illegal to Film Police or Government Officials

In what I consider the most important recent news event, the Federal First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled that citizens have the legal right to film police while they are performing their public duties.

The case involved attorney Simon Glik in Boston who observed an arrest in the Boston Common that he thought was abusive.  So he flipped out his cellphone camera and filmed the cops.  They arrested him.

The Court has responded to this – one of the increasing number of cases nationwide in which cops try to take cameras from or arrest citizens who try to record them during arrests – by affirming a lower court ruling in Glik’s favor.  In this case, as in most similar cases, the police attempted to charge someone with ‘wiretapping’ because the video cameras are ‘secretly’ recording audio.  Of course any court recognizes that only a simpleton would associate using a video camera with wiretapping.

The Court stated:

The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity]. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs.

Episodes of police misconduct, brutality and murder are increasing nationwide. Police powers are growing, government agencies are eavesdropping on Americans without warrants, personal data is being pulled into government databases, and security paranoia is reaching nearly hysterical levels. The fact is that the police are committing crimes – including murder – at an alarming rate. Cops are using violence against innocent demonstrators. They are killing helpless people in the subways of Oakland. They are beating homeless people to death in Fullerton, California. They are raiding political activist groups before and during public events on the chance that these groups might be planning something illegal. Filming these cops is absolutely the least that citizens should be doing.

The Court has made it abundantly clear that citizens have always had the legal right to use video cameras on the police and that arrests of citizens in these circumstances is illegal.  That is why all cases nationwide that police forces have brought against people with video cameras have been thrown out of court.

It should now be clear that police departments arresting people for filming are liable in civil courts.

The Court went further than its decision on filming police activities. It also stated that citizens recording police or government officials have the same legal protections afforded to the press. In other words: citizens are journalists.

The Court said:

Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.

There is no legal definition of or requirement for being a journalist.  In fact, much of CNN’s video coverage comes from ‘iReporters’ who are citizen journalists filming events around the world and sending in their footage via the CNN web site.  Those people are fully protected by all the same laws that protect journalists and their sources.

I think this is a long-overdue and definitive ruling that clarifies legally what has been obvious all along.  People always have the right to film their police officers doing the public duties that public monies pay for.

Finally, and most important: People Are the Press.

 

A.45 at 50th – A Film About Actor James Cromwell and the Black Panthers in 1968

MATURE CONTENT AND LANGUAGE:

I got a nice surprise submission to my Vimeo Candlelight Stories Short Film group this week.  It’s a fascinating documentary about one famous actor’s experiences during the turmoil of the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

John Cromwell, the son of actor James Cromwell, directed this short film with Joshua Bell. It’s about his father’s experience with members of the Black Panther Party civil rights organization in 1968. It’s a fascinating short documentary look at someone who finds himself in an unfamiliar world just trying to lend a decent helping hand. James Cromwell has been involved with the defense of the Black Panthers and other human rights causes for decades.  I like the film’s professional quality and easy capturing of the sixties look.  It presents its important and dramatic subject matter with a good dose of rather charming humor.

Here’s an article and interview with the director and his father.

California Supreme Court Legalizes Bigotry

The California Supreme Court has upheld a recent statewide vote that amended the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.  This is the same court that only months ago ruled that any ban on gay marriage was a violation of rights.  Their recent ruling, however, focuses on the legality of the vote to amend the constitution to rule out the possibility of same sex marriage.  If it is legal for voters to take away the right for gay people to marry by passing a constitutional amendment, then it would be just as legal for those voters to amend the constitution to say that marriage is only between a white man and a white woman.  That’s what California’s Supreme Court has ruled in all its wisdom.  They have legalized rampant bigotry.

Continue reading