Yesterday, the ACLU's team that was challenging a post-9/11 US program that flew terrorism suspects to secret prisons, suffered a major legal setback. Jeppesen, a Boeing subsidiary was contracted out by the CIA to conduct said flights. The ruling, which was handed down by the 9th district Court of Appeals, was divided 6-5 and narrowly upheld the state secrets doctrine used by the Bush Administration and now defended by the Obama DOJ. The case will undoubtedly be appealed to the SCOTUS, which in all likelihood will uphold the appeals' court's ruling.
In light of the recent developments Jeppesen case, I thought I'd share a couple of relevant links. In this first video from a panel hosted by the American Constitution Scoiety (ACS), Ben Wizner, the ACLU's attorney in the Jeppesen case, discusses state secrets and national security. This is back from 2008, but the points Wizner makes are the same as the ACLU made in Jeppesen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJpcq6VO7N4
Here are two other great clips of Wizner on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#29129616 - This one starts a little silly with a reenactment of a 9th circuit ruling on Jeppesen from 2009, but quickly gets serious as Wizner joins Maddow to discuss state secrets, national security and the details of the Jeppesen case. This clip is the only one I could find where Wizner specifically discusses Jeppesen.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#31378360 - This clip has Wizner discussing the Bush Administration's state secrets doctrine. Wizner additionally provides proof of the use of State Secrets for political purposes.
Ben Wizner also came and spoke at Oxy in October 2009 about Jeppesen, the history of the state secrets doctrine, and ACLU involvement with other torture cases. I took extensive notes on the lecture/Q&A and posted them on my blog here: http://powertothepundits.blogspot.com/search/label/Ben%20Wizner
Showing posts with label Rachel Maddow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rachel Maddow. Show all posts
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Friday, May 1, 2009
Matthew Shepard Act Passes in House
The Matthew Shepard Act, which would extend federal protection to LGBT victims of violence under a hate-crimes passed in the House yesterday by a 249-175 vote. This is a landmark bill that hopefully will help make sure that perpetrators of hate crimes like the men who killed Matthew Shepard in 1998. It's times like these that I'm glad that there's a 78-seat Democratic party advantage in the House. Hopefully the more problematic (and undemocratic) will pull through and rally behind the Matthew Shepard act for what it is: the next major step in civil rights.
With a bill that does nothing but protect individuals from hate-crimes based on avictim’s race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, one might wonder what those 175 representatives objected to. The answer, according to a Fox News story is that social conservatives feel that the Matthew Shepard Act chills free speech. Really? Last time I checked, tying a 21 year old boy to fence, pistol whipping him, torturing him, crushing his brain stem and leaving him to die in rural Laramie isn't free speech. Hate-crimes bills aren't designed to quash dissenting ideas, they seek to protect individuals from violent offenses based on their identity. Shame on you House Republicans. This is beyond political, its inhuman.
The far-right position that protecting people like Matthew Shepard is a bad idead isn't even as crazy as the Republican response gets. We expect more out of the party of Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck, right? An article in the Huffington Post shares the delifghtful opinion of North Carolina congresswoman Virginia Foxx that Matthew Shepard's death was all a hoax. In her alternate reality, Matthew Shepard was merely the victim of a robbery, and his death as a victim of a hate-crime was invented to further the liberal agenda and impose "oppresive" bills that protect the innocent like the Matthw Shepard Act. Though Foxx later apologized for using the word "hoax", Shepard's mother Judy wasn't exactly mollified saying: "It's apologizing for semantics, not her ignorance". Tell it like it is Judy!
In response to the passage of the Matthew Shepard Bill in the House, the always awesome Rachel Maddow had Judy Shepard on to discuss the new bill. The interview is absolutely brilliant and very moving. Check it out:
Rachel Maddow's impassioned defense of hate-crimes legislation from the segment is also perhaps the best I've ever heard:
"MADDOW: The concept behind this kind of legislation is often misconstrued but here's the deal as I understand it. The idea is that the federal Justice Department can get involved in a case to help local authorities or even to take the lead on a case if need be, in prosecuting individual serious violet crimes and murders in which the victim was selected on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, disability - the idea that crimes like that are intended not only to hurt or murder an individual, but to terrorize an entire community, and so there is a national interest in ensuring that those crimes are solved and prosecuted, particularly if local law enforcement doesn't want to because they are blinkered by the same prejudice that led to the crime in the first place."
Hate-crimes bills aren't about political corectness: this is protecting real people's lives and real endangered commmunities.
With a bill that does nothing but protect individuals from hate-crimes based on avictim’s race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, one might wonder what those 175 representatives objected to. The answer, according to a Fox News story is that social conservatives feel that the Matthew Shepard Act chills free speech. Really? Last time I checked, tying a 21 year old boy to fence, pistol whipping him, torturing him, crushing his brain stem and leaving him to die in rural Laramie isn't free speech. Hate-crimes bills aren't designed to quash dissenting ideas, they seek to protect individuals from violent offenses based on their identity. Shame on you House Republicans. This is beyond political, its inhuman.
The far-right position that protecting people like Matthew Shepard is a bad idead isn't even as crazy as the Republican response gets. We expect more out of the party of Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck, right? An article in the Huffington Post shares the delifghtful opinion of North Carolina congresswoman Virginia Foxx that Matthew Shepard's death was all a hoax. In her alternate reality, Matthew Shepard was merely the victim of a robbery, and his death as a victim of a hate-crime was invented to further the liberal agenda and impose "oppresive" bills that protect the innocent like the Matthw Shepard Act. Though Foxx later apologized for using the word "hoax", Shepard's mother Judy wasn't exactly mollified saying: "It's apologizing for semantics, not her ignorance". Tell it like it is Judy!
In response to the passage of the Matthew Shepard Bill in the House, the always awesome Rachel Maddow had Judy Shepard on to discuss the new bill. The interview is absolutely brilliant and very moving. Check it out:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Rachel Maddow's impassioned defense of hate-crimes legislation from the segment is also perhaps the best I've ever heard:
"MADDOW: The concept behind this kind of legislation is often misconstrued but here's the deal as I understand it. The idea is that the federal Justice Department can get involved in a case to help local authorities or even to take the lead on a case if need be, in prosecuting individual serious violet crimes and murders in which the victim was selected on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, disability - the idea that crimes like that are intended not only to hurt or murder an individual, but to terrorize an entire community, and so there is a national interest in ensuring that those crimes are solved and prosecuted, particularly if local law enforcement doesn't want to because they are blinkered by the same prejudice that led to the crime in the first place."
Hate-crimes bills aren't about political corectness: this is protecting real people's lives and real endangered commmunities.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The New Media and the Decline of the Newspapers
Rachel Maddow has an amazing segment on the collapse of the newspaper industry. It addresses the threat of new media and the failure of the old media's online business model. The future of investigative journalism is at stake! Check it out!
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Monday, January 26, 2009
Rick Warren and the Inauguration Controversy
On the actual day of the inauguration, most people who watched didn't come away thinking about the two preachers who opened and closed the ceremonies. Of Pastor Rick Warren, some remember how creepy it was when he mispronounced Sasha and Malia's names. Some will remember Rev. Joseph Lowery, a civil rights activist, and his humorous benediction that called for justice for all races in rhyme: "we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around...". What many missed though was the outrage that the selection of Rick Warren as invocation speaker sparked in the LGBT. President Obama, as I mentioned in my previous post, made multiple statements affirming his commitment to equal rights for LGBT individuals despite his opposition to gay marriage. Saddleback Church's notoriously anti-gay Rick Warren is an anti-choice preacher who was strong proponent of California's prop. 8 and he has repeatedly equated gay relationships with pedophilia, incest and adultery on video, as seen below.
Anderson Cooper had 3 CNN correspondents on his show Anderson Cooper 360 to debate the issue. One of the three, Hillary Rosen probably best capture the outrage felt at the Obama team's decision to have Rick Warren speak:
The decision was not just politically opportunistic: it was also homophobic. After already suffering the crushing defeat of Prop. 8's passage, the last thing the LGBT community needed was another high profile slap to the face. It was The Rachel Maddow Show's resident pop culturist Kent Jones who had the best quote of the night though:
"Apparently in his invocation Warren is going to be asking God not only to bless America, but also to make it a lot less gay.".
That's the change America voted for, huh? Needless to say, this incident has caused a fair amount of suspicion and bad blood between the LGBT community and the Obama administration right off the bat. The move was designed to bring Obama political capital; perhaps to give him a "Sister Souljah moment" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment) of sorts. The only way to keep Obama from throwing the LGBT community under the bus for cheap political capital in the future is to generate such a public outcry that it no longer benefits him to do so. Despite our collective hope, the LGBT community will have to be ever-vigilant under the new Obama administration. Once we've forced the Obama administration to respect us as they would any other group, maybe then the LGBT community can achieve its long yearned for progress.
Anderson Cooper had 3 CNN correspondents on his show Anderson Cooper 360 to debate the issue. One of the three, Hillary Rosen probably best capture the outrage felt at the Obama team's decision to have Rick Warren speak:
The decision was not just politically opportunistic: it was also homophobic. After already suffering the crushing defeat of Prop. 8's passage, the last thing the LGBT community needed was another high profile slap to the face. It was The Rachel Maddow Show's resident pop culturist Kent Jones who had the best quote of the night though:
"Apparently in his invocation Warren is going to be asking God not only to bless America, but also to make it a lot less gay.".
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
That's the change America voted for, huh? Needless to say, this incident has caused a fair amount of suspicion and bad blood between the LGBT community and the Obama administration right off the bat. The move was designed to bring Obama political capital; perhaps to give him a "Sister Souljah moment" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment) of sorts. The only way to keep Obama from throwing the LGBT community under the bus for cheap political capital in the future is to generate such a public outcry that it no longer benefits him to do so. Despite our collective hope, the LGBT community will have to be ever-vigilant under the new Obama administration. Once we've forced the Obama administration to respect us as they would any other group, maybe then the LGBT community can achieve its long yearned for progress.
Friday, January 23, 2009
DeMint and the Freedom Fighters
I don't know if these extremists could sound more like Big Brother if they tried. I mean what's next, loyalty oaths?
Video Courtesy of the "Rachel Maddow Show", 1-22-09.
You'd think that the far right reactionaries in the Republican party would attempt to remain relevant by toning down their rhetoric. Former President (!) GW Bush was only to happy to use the divisive us vs. them rhetoric that Sen. DeMint so classily wields in this video. Maybe he didn't get the memo, but that's not such a good way to become relevant in the Obama administration. As Obama himself reminded Senate Republicans: he won. There's a reason for that.
America is not crying out for more Reactionary faux-patriotic rhetoric: we voted that out of office. The man who championed and put in the spotlight the "freedom fighter" McCarthyist rhetoric left office three days ago with a 22% approval rating, the lowest ever excepting Nixon. Let the long slide into irrelevavence continue for Demint and his ilk. The reasonable Republicans will moderate themselves for the new administration and shifting public opinion. Demint and his fellow "freedom fighters" are in for a rude awakening.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Video Courtesy of the "Rachel Maddow Show", 1-22-09.
You'd think that the far right reactionaries in the Republican party would attempt to remain relevant by toning down their rhetoric. Former President (!) GW Bush was only to happy to use the divisive us vs. them rhetoric that Sen. DeMint so classily wields in this video. Maybe he didn't get the memo, but that's not such a good way to become relevant in the Obama administration. As Obama himself reminded Senate Republicans: he won. There's a reason for that.
America is not crying out for more Reactionary faux-patriotic rhetoric: we voted that out of office. The man who championed and put in the spotlight the "freedom fighter" McCarthyist rhetoric left office three days ago with a 22% approval rating, the lowest ever excepting Nixon. Let the long slide into irrelevavence continue for Demint and his ilk. The reasonable Republicans will moderate themselves for the new administration and shifting public opinion. Demint and his fellow "freedom fighters" are in for a rude awakening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
