Hypocrisy of the "Heterossexuality as Institution" Gestapo

Zach Wahls, a son anyone would give their right arm, gives the best definition of family I've heard:

"...the sense of family comes from the commitment we make to each other...to work through the hard times, so that we can enjoy the good ones.  It comes from the love that binds us.  That's what makes us a family." - Zach Wahls



Jesse Ventura on gay marriage: (interrupting Pat Buchannan, Thank God!) "You can't take a civil right's issue and put it up to a vote...if you did that, we might still have slavery if it was allowed to be voted on...You can't take civil rights and let people vote on it! [If you care what Pat had to say...listen for yourself..below] Well, not by the populace itself, Pat. You can't put a civil rights issue on a general ballot a state and let people vote on it because if you did that in the Southern states, you can bet they would've voted to continue slavery."




As Jesse said, the government has no right to legislate love, and in modern times, that's what marriage is based on: love between two consenting adults, pure and simple.

If the heterosexual marriage gestapo cares so much about the "institution" of marriage, let them start with their own marriages, and then heterosexual marriage in general. You know...take a look at the planks in their own eye. The problem is that there are so many, they're blinded.

Read more...

Are Prisons Gradually Turning into Concentration Camps?

It appears penitentiaries are acting as both a prison to protect us from the violent and at the same time warehousing the poor and/or misfits among us.

Why not sweep all the marginalized "misfits" under one roof? Isn't that what Rudy Giuliani did? And now, the rest of America is blindly following suit without regard ?

According to Adam Liptak, national legal correspondent for The New York Times, the USA - only 5% of the global population - leads the world in producing prisoners. America jails 2.3 million people, accounting for one-quarter of all individuals imprisoned in the world. One in every one-hundred people in the United States is behind bars.

China, 20% of the global population, jails 1.6 million prisoners. Of course, China executes far more people than we do which may account for part of the discrepancy in number, however, China would have had to execute well over eight million people in order to justify that explanation alone. No matter what the reason, any lucid man would choose to live in America over any other country in the world, especially China. That's not the point. The United States is exceptional, remember? Therefore, we, the people can't afford the luxury of disregarding the weakest link and continue to live this out-of-sight, out-of mind existence burying our proverbial heads in the sand.

It wasn't always that way. At the end of the 18th century reform in American prisons took place. In 1786, the Quakers succeeded in abolishing punishment by death and the barbarous laws established by early colonists by the Legislature of Pennsylvania. By the middle to the late 19th century our penitentiaries were considered exemplary. Prison reformers successfully transformed prisons from purely punitive to rehabilitative, advocating segregation of criminals; rewarding good behaviour; indeterminate sentencing; vocational training; and parole. It wasn't until approximately 1980 that this trend of excessive incarceration started. The rate of arrest, the extent of incarceration given for each crime committed, and the number of things defined as criminal all factor into America's over crowded prisons.

The harsher drug laws and the "tough on crime" stance our nation took at this time have much to do with this gradual transformation. In 1980, 40,000 people were incarcerated for drug "crimes". Today, half a million people are imprisoned due to some type of affiliation with drugs.

Obviously, imprisoning people drives the crime rate lower. People behind bars have a much harder time committing future crimes and people are more likely to think twice about committing a crime if the results could in jail time. In addition, some argue the availability and size of the social safety net, demographics, economic conditions, policing strategies currently in place play a much bigger role in determining the crime rate.

"We arrest more people, keep them in prison longer and we define more things as crimes." Adam Liptak

The United States is the only country in the world that elects our Judges to office, with the exception of a few places in Japan and Switzerland. This puts an elected judge’s career at the mercy of the prevalent and accepted attitude and feeling - get tough on crime - of his constituency toward crime. Popular opinion is now factored into his decision and more than likely he will come down harder than the law requires. A judge’s light sentence could backfire on him if once that person he “let off” with minimal time is released from jail, commits another crime, maybe even more heinous than what he was on trial, therefore giving his opponent in the next election plenty of fuel to burn him.

New York stands out as a shining example of the “Broken Windows Theory of Law Enforcement”.

"if the first broken window in a building is not repaired, then people who like breaking windows will assume that no one cares about the building and more windows will be broken. Soon the building will have no windows...."

Basically, the theory suggests a zero tolerance approach to petty crime.Rudy Guiliani ordered his police to enforce the lowest level "crimes" including jaywalking, vagrancy and public intoxication and supposedly reduced the crime rate so much that New York City is a different place today.

But, what about San Francisco? They adopted less strident law enforcement policies that reduced arrests, prosecutions and incarceration rates and ended up registering reductions in crime that exceed or equal comparable cities and jurisdictions - including New York. How many people know about San Francisco? I know I didn't.

Considering how expensive it is to live in New York City today, isn't it possible that New York City is a different place, not because it was a crime panacea, but simply a result of gentrification, Rudy style? In other words, Rudy Giuliani aggressively forced out all the poor people, thus making New York City appear clean and fresh. Wealthy people and white collar criminals are much neater and cleaner when they commit crimes and their victims much less obvious to the naked eye.

Not that the "Broken Windows" theory doesn't have its merit. Cracking down on petty crime and arresting the perpetrators will cut the crime rate, however, putting those same people away for 15 years for possessing drugs and/or jay-walking serves no purpose except possibly to transform them from harmless individuals to hardened criminals.

The crime rate has dropped 25 percent since the 1980s, yet the incarceration rate continues to climb. Are prisons becoming warehouses for the poor and undesirables in society? Or a vast reserve of exploitable labor? Incarcerating people is the most expensive form of punishment. Why not use less costly methods such as community service, fines, and/or drug treatment?

To find the answer...follow the money trail or the path that leads to the rich white man profiting from the misfortune of others. President Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex, what about the possibility of a Prison Industrial Complex? Inmates composed of the poor, illiterate (70% of all inmates), the homeless, the mentally ill; drug dealers, drug addicts, alcoholics fuel this industry and at the same time provides a way to blame the victims who fell through the cracks of the "broken windows".

Read more...

NY Times Must Do List

The Bush administration’s assault on some of the founding principles of American democracy marches onward despite the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections. The new Democratic majorities in Congress can block the sort of noxious measures that the Republican majority rubber-stamped. But preventing new assaults on civil liberties is not nearly enough.

Five years of presidential overreaching and Congressional collaboration continue to exact a high toll in human lives, America’s global reputation and the architecture of democracy. Brutality toward prisoners, and the denial of their human rights, have been institutionalized; unlawful spying on Americans continues; and the courts are being closed to legal challenges of these practices.

It will require forceful steps by this Congress to undo the damage. A few lawmakers are offering bills intended to do just that, but they are only a start. Taking on this task is a moral imperative that will show the world the United States can be tough on terrorism without sacrificing its humanity and the rule of law.

Today we’re offering a list — which, sadly, is hardly exhaustive — of things that need to be done to reverse the unwise and lawless policies of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Many will require a rewrite of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, an atrocious measure pushed through Congress with the help of three Republican senators, Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham and John McCain; Senator McCain lent his moral authority to improving one part of the bill and thus obscured its many other problems.

Our list starts with three fundamental tasks:

Restore Habeas Corpus

One of the new act’s most indecent provisions denies anyone Mr. Bush labels an “illegal enemy combatant” the ancient right to challenge his imprisonment in court. The arguments for doing this were specious. Habeas corpus is nothing remotely like a get-out-of-jail-free card for terrorists, as supporters would have you believe. It is a way to sort out those justly detained from those unjustly detained. It will not “clog the courts,” as Senator Graham claims. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has a worthy bill that would restore habeas corpus. It is essential to bringing integrity to the detention system and reviving the United States’ credibility.

Stop Illegal Spying

Mr. Bush’s program of intercepting Americans’ international calls and e-mail messages without a warrant has not ceased. The agreement announced recently — under which a secret court supposedly gave its blessing to the program — did nothing to restore judicial process or ensure that Americans’ rights are preserved. Congress needs to pass a measure, like one proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein, to force Mr. Bush to obey the law that requires warrants for electronic surveillance.

Ban Torture, Really

The provisions in the Military Commissions Act that Senator McCain trumpeted as a ban on torture are hardly that. It is still largely up to the president to decide what constitutes torture and abuse for the purpose of prosecuting anyone who breaks the rules. This amounts to rewriting the Geneva Conventions and puts every American soldier at far greater risk if captured. It allows the president to decide in secret what kinds of treatment he will permit at the Central Intelligence Agency’s prisons. The law absolves American intelligence agents and their bosses of any acts of torture and abuse they have already committed.

Many of the tasks facing Congress involve the way the United States takes prisoners, and how it treats them. There are two sets of prisons in the war on terror. The military runs one set in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay. The other is even more shadowy, run by the C.I.A. at secret places.

Close the C.I.A. Prisons

When the Military Commissions Act passed, Mr. Bush triumphantly announced that he now had the power to keep the secret prisons open. He cast this as a great victory for national security. It was a defeat for America’s image around the world. The prisons should be closed.

Account for ‘Ghost Prisoners’

The United States has to come clean on all of the “ghost prisoners” it has in the secret camps. Holding prisoners without any accounting violates human rights norms. Human Rights Watch says it has identified nearly 40 men and women who have disappeared into secret American-run prisons.

Ban Extraordinary Rendition

This is the odious practice of abducting foreign citizens and secretly flying them to countries where everyone knows they will be tortured. It is already illegal to send a prisoner to a country if there is reason to believe he will be tortured. The administration’s claim that it got “diplomatic assurances” that prisoners would not be abused is laughable.

A bill by Representative Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, would require the executive branch to list countries known to abuse and torture prisoners. No prisoner could be sent to any of them unless the secretary of state certified that the country’s government no longer abused its prisoners or offered a way to verify that a prisoner will not be mistreated. It says “diplomatic assurances” are not sufficient.

Congress needs to completely overhaul the military prisons for terrorist suspects, starting with the way prisoners are classified. Shortly after 9/11, Mr. Bush declared all members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban to be “illegal enemy combatants” not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions or American justice. Over time, the designation was applied to anyone the administration chose, including some United States citizens and the entire detainee population of Gitmo.

To address this mess, the government must:

Tighten the Definition of Combatant

“Illegal enemy combatant” is assigned a dangerously broad definition in the Military Commissions Act. It allows Mr. Bush — or for that matter anyone he chooses to designate to do the job — to apply this label to virtually any foreigner anywhere, including those living legally in the United States.

Screen Prisoners Fairly and Effectively

When the administration began taking prisoners in Afghanistan, it did not much bother to screen them. Hundreds of innocent men were sent to Gitmo, where far too many remain to this day. The vast majority will never even be brought before tribunals and still face indefinite detention without charges.

Under legal pressure, Mr. Bush created “combatant status review tribunals,” but they are a mockery of any civilized legal proceeding. They take place thousands of miles from the point of capture, and often years later. Evidence obtained by coercion and torture is permitted. The inmates do not get to challenge this evidence. They usually do not see it.

The Bush administration uses the hoary “fog of war” dodge to justify the failure to screen prisoners, saying it is not practical to do that on the battlefield. That’s nonsense. It did not happen in Afghanistan, and often in Iraq, because Mr. Bush decided just to ship the prisoners off to Gitmo.

Prisoners designated as illegal combatants are subject to trial rules out of the Red Queen’s playbook. The administration refuses to allow lawyers access to 14 terrorism suspects transferred in September from C.I.A. prisons to Guantánamo. It says that if they had a lawyer, they might say that they were tortured or abused at the C.I.A. prisons, and anything that happened at those prisons is secret.

At first, Mr. Bush provided no system of trial at the Guantánamo camp. Then he invented his own military tribunals, which were rightly overturned by the Supreme Court. Congress then passed the Military Commissions Act, which did not fix the problem. Some tasks now for Congress:

Ban Tainted Evidence

The Military Commissions Act and the regulations drawn up by the Pentagon to put it into action, are far too permissive on evidence obtained through physical abuse or coercion. This evidence is unreliable. The method of obtaining it is an affront.

Ban Secret Evidence

Under the Pentagon’s new rules for military tribunals, judges are allowed to keep evidence secret from a prisoner’s lawyer if the government persuades the judge it is classified. The information that may be withheld can include interrogation methods, which would make it hard, if not impossible, to prove torture or abuse.

Better Define ‘Classified’ Evidence

The military commission rules define this sort of secret evidence as “any information or material that has been determined by the United States government pursuant to statute, executive order or regulation to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.” This is too broad, even if a president can be trusted to exercise the power fairly and carefully. Mr. Bush has shown he cannot be trusted to do that.

Respect the Right to Counsel

Soon after 9/11, the Bush administration allowed the government to listen to conversations and intercept mail between some prisoners and their lawyers. This had the effect of suspending their right to effective legal representation. Since then, the administration has been unceasingly hostile to any lawyers who defend detainees. The right to legal counsel does not exist to coddle serial terrorists or snarl legal proceedings. It exists to protect innocent people from illegal imprisonment.

Beyond all these huge tasks, Congress should halt the federal government’s race to classify documents to avoid public scrutiny — 15.6 million in 2005, nearly double the 2001 number. It should also reverse the grievous harm this administration has done to the Freedom of Information Act by encouraging agencies to reject requests for documents whenever possible. Congress should curtail F.B.I. spying on nonviolent antiwar groups and revisit parts of the Patriot Act that allow this practice.

The United States should apologize to a Canadian citizen and a German citizen, both innocent, who were kidnapped and tortured by American agents.

Oh yes, and it is time to close the Guantánamo camp. It is a despicable symbol of the abuses committed by this administration (with Congress’s complicity) in the name of fighting terrorism.

Read more...