The Separation of Church and License Plate

On Tuesday, a U.S. District Court Judge ruled that Christian themed license plates issued by the state of South Carolina that proclaim "I Believe" are unconstitutional. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie said that the case "presents a textbook example of the need for and continued vitality of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution," and that the law "gives the impression that Christianity, as the majority religion, is also the preferred religion and its adherents favored citizens."

I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state because I believe that church losses the power of its message when it enmeshes itself with the state. What does the license plate actually say? "I am a Christian because the state of South Carolina lets me." "The message of the Gospel is most powerful when presented on a platform made possible by the state of South Carolina." This type of thinking leads to a belief that Christ and the Church have no power and that all the power belongs to the state.

It saddens me that the legislative sponsors are all Baptists because the great Baptist gift to the U.S. is the separation of church and state. It seems that there are many Baptists are willing to sell their religious inheritance for some meager crumbs from Caesar's table.

Justice in America

Legal authorities in Switzerland caught film director Roman Polanski and are holding him for extradition back to the United States. After pleading guilty to raping a 13 year old girl, Polanski fled after a plea deal fell through. A strange combination of Hollywood types and neo-con columnists in the Washington Post are defending Polanski. In bit of glaring obliviousness Woody Allen is among those defending Polanski.

There may be legal reason that might mitigate the issues that surround Polanski's sentence. That is why we have lawyers and appellate courts; to argue and decide these cases. However, we should not lose sight of what he confessed to doing. Polanski admitted that he gave a 13 year old girl a combination of wine and quaaludes and then raped her. Not only is this illegal but it is morally reprehensible. There could very well have been misconduct on the part of the judge and prosecutor, and if there is then Polanski's lawyers have a professional and legal obligation to bring any possible misconduct before the court in an effort to defend him. What is not needed is a bunch of morally oblivious Hollywood and Washington elite defending the indefensible.

Meanwhile in Texas, Governor Rick Perry(R-TX) fired 3 members of the State Forensic Commission. The commission was scheduled to listen to evidence related to the case of Cameron T. Willingham but the meeting had to be cancelled. In an article in the New Yorker, David Gann makes a very compelling case that when the state of Texas executed Willingham they executed an innocent man.

In Washington D.C., Federal District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted a habeas petition filed by a Kuwati citizen named Fouad al-Rabiah. In her ruling, Judge Kollar-Kotelly declared that American interrogators tortured al-Rabiah even though they had no evidence that he was guilty of anything more then being in Afghanistan during the U.S. invasion. In fact her ruling seems to indicate that U.S. officials knew his torture induced confession was unreliable but they held him in custody anyway. In other words, we tortured a man we knew was innocent.

In the U.S., if you are rich, powerful, and famous then there are plenty of rich, powerful, and famous people who will defend you. However, if you poor or of the wrong skin pigmentation then there is no greater crime you can commit then to be innocent when the government thinks you are guilty.

This Week in Misogyny

Democrats for Life kicked Rep. Tim Ryan(D-OH-17) off its board because Rep. Ryan supports legislation that attempts to reduce the need for abortions by increasing access to contraception.  Ryan responded by calling Democrats for Life "a fringe group", and also said "I can't figure out for the life of me how to stop pregnancies without contraception."  I am glad that Rep. Ryan realized that much of the anti-abortion movement is in reality anti-woman and anti-sex.  

In Ohio a Republican state legislator named John Adams introduced a bill that would make it illegal for a woman to get an abortion without the written consent of the father.  If the woman cannot identify the father then there can be no abortion.  There are also criminal penalties for women seeking abortions without the father's permission.  This is some high quality misogynistic wankery that puts a man in complete control over the body of any woman he impregnates; 13th amendment be damned.  Nice job Mr. Adams, you have the set the bar on misogynistic wankery pretty high.

We Have the Capability

Glen Greenwald writes about a report that concludes that U.S. Federal Courts are completely capable venues for the trying and convicting of terrorism suspects.  Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that many of those who take oaths to defend the constitution believe that you can't follow the constitution and defend it at the same time.

Greenwald briefly touches on the argument that some terrorists are too dangerous to release but our conduct prevents them from getting a fair trail.  My own is that I don't know why we are quick to excuse sloppy work.  The are serious consequences when our government does a alck a*s job.  However we the people bare the ultimate responsibility.  If our government's refusal to follow the constitution puts us in more danger then we need to demand they follow the constitution and uses the tools that the constitution provides.  Today's report demonstrates that it is possible to follow the constitution and still go after terrorism.   

If we can't trust our government to put forth its best efforts on the most serious issues of the day(such as terrorism) then we have to live with the consequences.  The answer is not to excuse sloppy work but to demand that our government's actions match its words when it comes to torture and the constitution.

The Rot of Empire

With further confirmation that Democratic leaders had an idea of the torture techniques the Bush administration there is some debate about how to go forward with any investigation.  I am an active and pretty partisan Democrat and I say let the investigation continue to go forward.  If there are worries about political interference then there should be a special prosecutor. 

Of greater concern to me is how this represents how imperialism has rotted the institutions of our democracy.  The CIA undertakes covert operations and runs "black sites" at the behest of the executive branch.  The President also uses the CIA and the intelligence community to try to secretly maintain a global hegemony.  The legislative branch, sometimes willingly and sometimes not, becomes complicit in the empire project.   The judicial branch hides behind the state secret doctrine and refuses to intervene.

The only way to stop this rot of empire from destroying our democracy is to take some drastic actions.  I am for eliminating the CIA or at lest it's covert operations section.  Any group that helped lead to Pinochet's rise is a government agency we can do without.  I would also cut way back on other intelligence agencies like the NSA.  All FISA court decisions and warrants should be made public as soon  the particular investigation is finished.  Intelligence Committee records should be declassified on a regular basis; this would include more detailed budget information.  Lastly,  Congressional action should reverse or limit the use of the state secrets doctrine.

These are the radical actions that we should undertake to stop the rot of imperialism.

Torture Memos

I blogged about the debate within the Obama administration about releasing a series of Bush administration legal memos that provided cover for Bush's torture program.  Today, President Obama ordered the memos released with only the names of CIA agents redacted.  

This is good news and given Obama's occasional embrace of Bush's legal justification's over stae secrets and various Bush anti-terror programs a bit of a surprise.   I think Obama is haltingly, and only with a strong push from civil libertarians, slowly moving towards establishing some accountability for Bush era torture.  This is a good decision and should spur us to continue to push more transparency and accountability.  

Unacceptable

The fact that the Obama administration is using still using Bush administration state secrets arguments and is using the Patriot Act to expend government secrecy is simply unacceptable.  Torture and illegality thrive in secrecy.  Obama was elected on a promise of transparency and to end Bush's trashing of civil liberties.  If he continues down this path he will break those promises.

U.S. Threatens UK Justice?

Binyam Mohamed is a former resident of the UK and is currently a prisoner at Guantanamo.  Mr. Mohamed was arrested in Pakistan because British and U.S. intelligence thought that he was an accomplice in the Jose Padilla "dirty bomb" plot.  In an effort to extract a confession, Mr. Mohamed was sent to Morocco and Afghanistan through extraordinary rendition where he was tortured.  In early 2003, the U.S. imprisoned Mohamed in Guantanamo.  In May of 2008 Mr. Mohamed was charged in the Padilla plot but the US withdraw the charges in October.  Read a good summation here. 

In the UK, Mr. Mohamed's attorneys filed a motion to gather information from the UK government about their client's treatment.  Two UK high court judges released a summation of  Mr Mohamed's treatment that was based on information the U.S. shared with UK intelligence agencies.   The judges ruled that the evidence indicated that Mohamed was tortured or treated in a cruel and inhuman fashion.

However, the judges redacted that summary at the request of UK Foreign Minister David Miliband.  He argued that disclosing the information might harm UK security.  UK Channel 4 news acquired letters that US State Department legal advisor John Bellinger wrote to the UK Foreign Office that says that disclosure of the information about Mohamed's torture could threaten " the U.S.-UK intelligence sharing relationship, and thus the national security of the UK."

The Obama administration currently supports the actions of the previous Secretary of State and her legal advisor regarding this case.  That is simply an unacceptable position.  Hiding our conduct at Guantanamo is not protecting vital state secrets; it is covering up a crime.  President Obama has so far done a good job stepping U.S. policy back from the criminal excesses of the previous 7 years.  However, he needs to go further and do as the UK judges recommend and put the information about Binyam Mohamed in the public domain.

Andrew Sullivan  and David Rose at Vanity Fair do a good job reporting on this story.

"On Our Terms"

President Obama orders Guantanamo and other CIA "black site" prisons closed.  During the ceremony, President Obama said we are going to win the fight against terrorism "on our terms."  This is great news because we had been dealing with terrorism on the terms set out by the Gestapo, the KGB, and the Khmer Rouge. 

As far as I am concerned, Obama can take the rest of the year off and he will still be considered a success.

Off to a Good Start

President Obama announces a 120 day suspension of the proceedings at Gitmo.

We Have Lost..

The War on Terror.  After the convening authority of the military commissions Susan Crawford said that we cannot prosecute alleged 9/11 20th hijacker Mohammd al-Qahtani because we tortured him it is clear that all we can do is try not to lose.  We sold our soul and got nothing in return. 

National Security Courts

Hilzoy has a post proposals that are floating around about creating a new legal system to try terrorists.  With Obama pledging to close Guantanamo something has to be done with 15 "high value" detainees.  One of the suggestions is to create special National Security Courts.

Let me address that idea with a simple answer.  Hell No.  National Security Courts would probably lessen the rights of defendants and be more flexible about allowing the government to use evidence gained in illegal ways such as torture and spying.  Once we allow any weakening of the safeguards of our justice system then that weakness will spill over into all of the legal system.  It is easy to see an over zealous prosecutor using a national security court for going after radical enviromentalists or ant-war activists or any other group on the fringe of American society.

 The only way we can lose to terrorism is if we beat ourselves.  Creating another legal system without all the safeguards is a quick way to do that

The Hippies were Right

The police really are after them.

The Maryland State Police in the aftermath of 9/11 greatly expanded their intelligence work.  They did not find an al-Qaeda sleeper cell but they did manage to spy on anti-death penalty groups, PETA on fears they might disrupt the circus, and consumer groups opposed to a massive electricity rate hike.  They labeled the DC Anti-War Network a white supremacist group and, my favorite, they investigated Amnesty International for the possible crimes of "Civil Rights."

What is amazing about this is that this is actually news.  If you give the police the power to spy on anyone then they will abuse that power and spy on everyone.

It's high time we realize that an obsession with security that allows the police to spy on dissenters will one day kill democracy.