American Filmmaker, Held Without Charge in Iraq, Sues

CNN reports: American filmmaker sues Rumsfeld over detention in Iraq. Cyrus Kar says he was hooded, threatened by U.S. soldiers.

"LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- An aspiring Iranian-American filmmaker who spent nearly two months in a prison in Iraq without being charged has sued Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other military officials, calling the government's detention policies unconstitutional.

"Cyrus Kar, 45, of Los Angeles seeks unspecified damages and sweeping changes in the government's detention policies overseas.

"The suit was filed this week in federal court by the American Civil Liberties Union of California. It is the first civil case challenging detention policies in Iraq, said Mark Rosenbaum, the organization's legal director."

More here.

Biden Quote: Taken Out of Context

Ordinarily the self-serving attempts of politicians to "spin" their embarrassing comments in a positive direction don't impress me, but I've found that it helps to listen to an entire quote on video and not just read the one sentence quoted in the media. I think Joe Biden's right when he says his recent infamous quote about Indians was taken out of context. Right after he says you can't go to a 7-Eleven or Dunkin Donuts without an Indian accent in Delaware these days, he says 30 percent of Silicon Valley CEOs are Indians. And he says all this to an Indian person, as part of an impromptu discussion on the campaign trail of how influential Indians are becoming. Although some of his words arguably were ill-chosen, it's obvious he wasn't saying that all Indians work in fast-food joints or convenience stores. If you take all that together, and in light of his long history of clear-headedness and fair-mindedness, it's clear that he was actually trying to say what he claims to have meant. For once, a politician's "spin" seems to match the reality. Although I haven't yet decided who to vote for in '08, my faith in Joe Biden's essential goodness remains unshaken.

The video can be viewed on C-SPAN (see "Recent Programs," 6/17/06). There's another video of Joe speaking at a fundraiser in Manchester, New Hampshire on 6/17 about the terrorist dangers that have not yet been addressed, and what Democrats need to focus on in the upcoming campaigns (his speech comes later in the video, after a long segment showing him working his way through the crowd and making off-the-cuff remarks). Check out the mission statement of Joe's new project, Unite Our States. His campaign information is here.

Food for Thought on Independence Day

To be filed in the "I couldn't have said it better myself" file...

James Fenimore Cooper, 1838: "Liberty is not a matter of words, but a positive and important condition of society. Its greatest safeguard after placing its foundations in a popular base, is in the checks and balances imposed on the public servants."

Magna Carta: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

Alexander Hamilton [quoting Blackstone]: "'To bereave a man of life,' says he, 'or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government.'" [Emphasis in original.]

Justice Breyer, concurring with the Supreme Court's June 29, 2006, decision in Hamdan [citations omitted]: "The dissenters say that today's decision would 'sorely hamper the President's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.' They suggest that it undermines our Nation's ability to 'preven[t] future attacks' of the grievous sort that we have already suffered. That claim leads me to state briefly what I believe the majority sets forth both explicitly and implicitly at greater length. The Court's conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a 'blank check.' Indeed, Congress has denied the President the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary. Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation's ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation's ability to determine--through democratic means--how best to do so."

Bertrand de Jouvenel: "A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves."

John Adams: "The most sensible and jealous people are so little attentive to government that there are no instances of resistance until repeated, multiplied oppressions have placed it beyond a doubt that their rulers had formed settled plans to deprive them of their liberties; not to oppress an individual or a few, but to break down the fences of a free constitution, and deprive the people at large of all share in the government, and all the checks by which it is limited."

Samuel Adams: "The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men."

Alexis de Tocqueville: "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."

Thomas Paine: "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Thomas Jefferson, 1791: "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

Henry Steele Commager, 1966: "Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive."

Clint Eastwood, 1997: "Abuse of power isn't limited to bad guys in other nations. It happens in our own country if we're not vigilant."

Janet Frame, 1982: " 'For your own good' is a persuasive argument that will eventually make a man agree to his own destruction."

Benjamin Franklin, 1755: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969): "Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have."

D.H. Lawrence, 1915: "Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves."

Thomas Merton, 1968: "May God prevent us from becoming 'right-thinking men' -- that is to say, men who agree perfectly with their own police."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): "Justice without force is impotent, force without justice is tyranny. Unable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just."

Wendell Phillips (1811-1884): "No free people can lose their liberties while they are jealous of liberty. But the liberties of the freest people are in danger when they set up symbols of liberty as fetishes, worshipping the symbol instead of the principle it represents."

Sen. Alan Simpson, 1982: "There is no 'slippery slope' toward loss of liberty, only a long staircase where each step down must first be tolerated by the American people and their leaders."

Dostoevsky: "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."

And last but not least, Martin Niemoller, 1945:
"First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me."

Happy 4th.

"Do Something," You Say? Let's Have the Specifics

Today on Huffington Post, commentator Susan Madrak spoke eloquently of how our forefathers stood up for liberty even at great personal risk, and then she exhorted the masses thus:

"You have to give up something substantial to fix [the current mess]. You have to risk something: Your job, your neighbors' scorn, someone else's feelings. There's too much on the line for any of us to sit on our fat behinds."

I have seen quite a few people in the blogosphere admonishing others to get up and do something. As I noted in a comment to her blog [which has not yet been posted as of this writing], I have to ask: what do you propose at this point, other than electing someone more sensible next time? So much of the damage has already been done despite our best efforts. We are stuck with the long-term consequences of this out-of-control administration; the next President will have the unenviable task of beginning to extract the country from the muck, a process that is likely to last beyond our lifetimes. Accountability is lacking mainly because Americans have voted in a lot of people who have been looking the other way and rubber-stamping Bush administration policies.

The Supreme Court has weighed in finally, at least on the extralegal actions of the Executive with respect to detainee trials, and that's a good start. Short of us all flying down to Guantanamo and sorting out the detainees ourselves, however, which isn't bloody likely or realistic, I think we'll have to await further results of that decision and continue to "demand" fair treatment of our detainees however we can. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), God bless it, has filed a variety of lawsuits on this and other civil liberties and human rights transgressions, and they're working their way through the courts; sending money to the ACLU seems like a good way to fight back. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is reportedly planning to file suit to demand accountability where possible with respect to the Ohio election problems, and has written a much buzzed-about and well-researched article on the subject in the Rolling Stone.

So I'm all ears as to what John Q. Public should do now, other than blog his little heart out, if not signing petitions, marching, giving money to candidates, and calling our congresspeople (also known as the democratic process), which Ms. Madrak listed in a disdainful tone as if that's not enough. Sounds like a plan to me. This is still America, as Ms. Madrak acknowledged, and we still have a system, pock-marked though it may be, which most of us (I hope) still believe is better at solving problems of governance and accountability than a military coup or, barring that, dissing one's neighbors. She suggested risking the loss of one's job (other than a few administration whistleblowers, how will this help?) or hurting someone's feelings, as if insulting our family, friends, and neighbors will bring down the regime. Seems to me there's too much of this type of sound and fury going on already, signifying nothing. Although I share Ms. Madrak's outrage, such arguments sound more like an excuse to be shrill at others' expense than a recipe for real change. And if we go further than insulting people and take to the streets now to attempt the overthrow of this despicable regime, what would it accomplish, other than getting ourselves arrested or even shot?

I'm not saying that more overt action is *never* called for (see 1776), but those earnest "more activist than thou" bloggers advocating radical solutions at this juncture seem short on specifics, beyond admonishing people to get up off their fat behinds. I'm standing up; now what?

Barack Obama in '08, maybe?