Jan. 6th, 2006

ebonlock: (Monarch)
Glenn Greenwald has a brilliant piece up on Hullabaloo regarding the latest wingnut crusade against the "mainstream media":

But clearly they believe that a lot more should be done to anti-Bush journalists than simply spying on their calls. Since the New York Times disclosed the undisputed fact that George Bush ordered his Administration to eavesdrop on American citizens with no judicial oversight and outside of FISA, the attacks on the media by the Administration and Bush’s followers have seriously escalated. Since this scandal arose, they have been relentlessly calling the Times and its sources "subversives" and "traitors," and have been openly claiming that they are guilty of treason.

When Bush followers use terms like "subversives" and "traitors," and when they accuse people of engaging in "treason," many assume that they are joking, that it’s a form of political hyperbole and it’s only meant symbolically. Pajamas Media member and Instapundit favorite Dean Esmay wants it know[n] that the terms "traitors" and "treason" are used literally, and that these traitors must meet the fate which traitors deserve:


When I say "treason" I don't mean it in an insulting or hyperbolic way. I mean in a literal way: we need to find these 21st century Julius Rosenbergs, these modern day reincarnations of Alger Hiss, put them on trial before a jury of their peers, with defense counsel. When they are found guilty, we should then hang them by the neck until the are dead, dead, dead.

No sympathy. No mercy.Am I angry? You bet I am. But not in an explosive way. Just in the same seething way I was angry on 9/11.

These people have endangered American lives and American security. They need to be found, tried, and executed.


[...]

None of this is new. It’s all been tried before. The New York Times previously obtained classified documents revealing government misconduct with respect to the Vietnam War, and the Nixon Administration argued then, too, that the Times’ publication of that classified information was criminal and endangered national security. The U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. The United States (the Pentagon Papers Case) 403 U.S. 713 (1971), barred the Nixon Administration from preventing publication by the Times of this information.

In doing so, Justice Hugo Black wrote a concurring opinion which makes clear just how dangerous and perverse it is for the Administration and its followers to seek to silence the media from reporting, truthfully, on the Administration’s illegal eavesdropping. I’m quoting from it at length because it is so instructive and applicable to what is occurring today:


Our Government was launched in 1789 with the adoption of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, followed in 1791. Now, for the first time in the 182 years since the founding of the Republic, the federal courts are asked to hold that the First Amendment does not mean what it says, but rather means that the Government can halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country. . . .

Yet the Solicitor General argues and some members of the Court appear to agree that the general powers of the Government adopted in the original Constitution should be interpreted to limit and restrict the specific and emphatic guarantees of the Bill of Rights adopted later. I can imagine no greater perversion of history. . . .

In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.
ebonlock: (Tinkerbell)
In Metafilter comments on the subject of King George the Lesser:

Excerpts from the Declaration of Independence:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
...
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
...
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
...
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
...
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies.


posted by kirkaracha
ebonlock: (Jesus Pony)
Well, not that I ever had any intention of moving there, but this is one more reason I never would:
Lawmaker's goal: Overturn Roe v. Wade
Bill would make abortion illegal in Indiana


Abortion would be illegal for most women in Indiana, including victims of rape and incest, under a bill filed this week in the Indiana House.

Indiana's legislators have chipped away at abortion for decades, imposing waiting periods and other restrictions, but the measure proposed by Rep. Troy A. Woodruff, R-Vincennes, is the first direct attempt in years to outlaw most abortions.

The only exception allowed under House Bill 1096 would be for women whose health or life would be permanently impaired if a pregnancy continued. The bill would define life as beginning at conception and make it a felony to perform all other abortions. Anyone convicted would face up to eight years in prison.

Woodruff said he expected the bill to easily pass the House. But Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Garton, R-Columbus, and Gov. Mitch Daniels questioned the prospects of the proposal.

In Indiana, 11,458 abortions were performed in 2003, the most recent year for which the Indiana State Department of Health has data. That's down from 12,109 in 1999.

Nationally, the number of abortions has dropped, too. In 2002, women had 1.29 million abortions, down from 1.36 million in 1996, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group with offices in New York and Washington that researches reproductive health.

Woodruff said the time is right for Indiana to confront this issue.
"It's something I've prayed about, and it's weighed on my heart," said Woodruff, who also is an aide to U.S. Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind.

"It's an emotional issue," Woodruff acknowledged, but he added that he thought most Hoosiers support a ban.

An Indiana law banning most abortions most likely would be challenged in the courts and could end up as a test case before the U.S. Supreme Court to possibly overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion nationwide.

Woodruff said the issue should have been left up to the states, and he's hoping a newly constituted Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts and with the possible addition of Samuel Alito, will decide the abortion issue differently than the 1973 court did.

But Garton asks, "Why would someone want to deliberately run up court costs?" He's also troubled that the bill has no exception for rape and incest.

Planed Parenthood President and CEO Betty Cockrum said that if lawmakers want to reduce the need for abortions, they should be supporting family planning groups.

"That's how they need to spend their time and energy, and not on passing unconstitutional laws," Cockrum said.

Daniels said he opposed abortion rights but questioned whether Indiana should devote time and money to overturning Roe.

"My sense is it would have a very limited prospect of ultimate success," he said. "Ultimately, for this to change, first the heart of the country -- and maybe ultimately the view the courts take of states' rights to place some limits on abortion -- would have to evolve."

Profile

ebonlock: (Default)
ebonlock

August 2013

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728 293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 14th, 2025 11:59 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios