Don't Keep Preston Geren As Army Sec'y, Barack!

Preston "Pete" Geren may possibly be kept on by Pres-Elect Obama as Secretary of the Army. This would be a complete disaster, as Geren was a promoter of using the Army as DOD-funded "missionary soldiers" - yes, that's right! Goodbye, Separation of Church/State as we had to say goodbye to separation of powers, separation of govt branches, and other constitutional amenities. As this article shows,

In 2004, Geren participated in the infamous Pentagon Christian Embassy video, a promotional video filmed inside the Pentagon that, at the request of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), led to an investigation by the Department of Defense Inspector General. In July 2007, the IG issued a 45-page report finding seven officers, including four generals, guilty of violating a number of DoD ethics regulations. But, because of the IG's narrow choice of which regulations to focus on, the civilian DoD officials who appeared in the video, including then Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense Geren, got off scot free.

It's his ties to the CCC (see below) that are particularly alarming:

The Christian Embassy endorsed by Secretary Geren in the video is an arm of Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC), a fundamentalist Christian organization whose far reaching Military Ministry has become entrenched in every part of the military. Geren, who was a Congressman from Texas from 1989 to 1997, first became involved with Christian Embassy through their Capitol Hill branch. He continued this relationship when he came to the Pentagon in 2001, joining the organization's Senior Executive Fellowship. To understand why having a Secretary of the Army with long time ties to any part of this organization is of such great concern, here are a few examples showing what the goals of CCC are for our military.

And what are the CCC's goals?

"Responsibilities include working with Chaplains and Military personnel to bring lost soldiers closer to Christ, build them in their faith and send them out into the world as government paid missionaries."

and

A former CCC program director at the Air Force Academy, Scott Blum, said in a promotional video filmed at the Academy, CCC's purpose is to "make Jesus Christ the issue at the Academy" and for the cadets to be "government paid missionaries" by the time they leave.

According to MRFF (Military Religious Freedom Foundation) founder and president Mikey Weinstein,

In July of 2005, the Air Force's Deputy Chief of the Chaplains Corps, Brig. Gen. Cecil R. Richardson, boldly asserted in a front page story in the New York Times that the Air Force's official policy would continue to be to reserve its right 'to evangelize the unchurched.' I immediately registered my shock, telephonically, directly with Acting USAF Secretary Geren. Further, I demanded that the Air Force immediately retract this completely unconstitutional religious policy statement of evangelical Christian supremacy, which must have been vetted beforehand, as it had appeared in the New York Times -- the one newspaper most despised by the Pentagon.

Geren and I spoke several times on the phone over the next several weeks.
What disturbed me the most was that he was absolutely clueless as to the constitutional illegality of his service's ignominious declaration/intention of evangelizing the unchurched.

This is an ominous precedent that does not bode well for people of other non-Christian religious persuasions, such as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or atheists. But it also does not bode well with the tone and character of how wars themselves are conducted, notably the Global War on Terror. It really DOES fulfill the extremists' charge that this war is a war on Islam itself, not a war against terrorism per se as a method of battling perceived injustice, etc.

Another area of concern are the indications that Geren, like many who subscribe to the views of organizations such as CCC, may see the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a religious struggle, and that our own religious freedom here in America is somehow dependent on victory in these Muslim countries.

Is this what America is all about? Promoting religious war? Are we federally-funding a crusade? Are non-Christian military men and women being pressured to "convert" in order to form "God's army"? If that's not Obama's vision of America, then it's time

to weed out those DoD officials who have been complicit in promoting or endorsing what has in recent years evolved into a full-fledged constitutionally prohibited religious test for countless members of our armed forces.

Starting with Preston Geren.

Amy Goodman, 2 DN Producers Arrested at RNC! Plus More Police State Tactics

It may have been empty and quiet inside the Republican National Convention, toned down for Hurricane Gustav's Gulf Coast debut, but outside was another story. There, Amy Goodman and two Democracy Now! producers were arrested. According to this report,

Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman was unlawfully arrested in downtown St. Paul, Minnesota at approximately 5 p.m. local time.

Goodman was arrested while attempting to free two Democracy Now! producers who were being unlawfuly detained. They are Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar. Kouddous and Salazar were arrested while they carried out their journalistic duties in covering street demonstrations at the Republican National Convention. Goodman's crime appears to have been defending her colleagues and the freedom of the press.

Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher told Democracy Now! that Kouddous and Salazar were being arrested on suspicion of rioting. They are currently being held at the Ramsey County jail in St. Paul.

Democracy Now! is calling on all journalists and concerned citizens to call the office of Mayor Chris Coleman and the Ramsey County Jail and demand the immediate release of Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar. These calls can be directed to: Chris Rider from Mayor Coleman's office at 651-266-8535 and the Ramsey County Jail at 651-266-9350 (press extension 0).

Whatever happened to freedom of speech, to freedom of the press??? What does this say about the political process, or about the RNC??? Is it inciting a riot to simply cover the story of lawful protests?? These same protests were safely aired by C-Span, but I guess the RNC has use for C-Span and they don't want to get rid of them just yet. What do they have against Democracy Now!? Well, probably quite a lot.

For starters, they couldn't have been too happy with this little bombshell, exposing the RNC's preparatory raids against protest groups and people "suspected" of possibly planning protests. What democracy is that, pray tell?? According to Amy Goodman's report Sunday, Aug. 31, before she herself was arrested:

As we interviewed Jon Stewart at the Minneapolis airport next to baggage claim, we got a text message that Democracy Now! videographer, filmmaker Elizabeth Press, who had arrived before us, had been arrested, or she had been detained, or she was in a house with I-Witness Video, and somehow the group was surrounded by police. That was the last details we had. We had the address of the place; they were texted to us. And we raced off.

Armed groups of police in the Twin Cities have raided more than a half-a-dozen locations since Friday night in a series of preemptive raids before the Republican convention. The coordinated searches were led by Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher but conducted in coordination with federal agencies.

Five Minnesotan activists are still detained on probable cause holds, which means they can be held for thirty-six hours without charge, excluding weekends and public holidays. According to this timeline, they won’t be released before Wednesday. The sheriff called them "criminal anarchists who are intent on committing criminal acts before and during the Republican National Convention.”

The raids and detentions have targeted activists planning to protest the Republican National Convention, as well as journalists and videographers documenting police actions at protests. Groups directly affected by the raids include Food Not Bombs, the RNC Welcoming Committee, I-Witness Video and Communities United Against Police Brutality.

Consider what happened to Michelle Gross of Communities United Against Police Brutality, who was at the "activist convergence space" when it was raided on Sunday. As she put it:

MICHELLE GROSS: I was sitting there waiting for a meeting to happen with other legal people. We were working with a kind of a collective of legal people, and we were waiting to have a meeting. And I was literally just sitting there drinking some water and relaxing, when, you know, these Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department people came blazing in, screaming “Get on the floor! Get on the floor!” and waving guns at everybody in their faces.

And they basically—at the time, I quickly thought and opened up my video camera and hit my record button and started recording the scene. Then, because they were, you know, waving guns in my face, of course, I had to hit the floor, but I kept my camera recording the whole time.

After being held for 45 minutes and released, she found her home and car had been broken into - I repeat, broken into - and "all her documents thoroughly searched." Is this unlawful search and seizure? Is this not what the Constitution is supposed to guard against? Are these not police state tactics? Is it not ironic that she is being unlawfully searched and attacked by police because of her open stance against police brutality? Who is asking why? Where is the outrage??

But on Saturday others were also detained: DN!'s Elizabeth Press and I-Witness Video founder Eileen Clancy, whom Amy Goodman found handcuffed and detained in the backyard of their home.

EILEEN CLANCY: They’ve been detaining people for days around here. And they photographed us. They look through our materials. They copy our materials and don’t return them to you. And then you’re merely detained, so you don’t have the same situation where you have police officers swearing out affidavits, which we could prove was false. This seems to be a new technique.

Amy Goodman also mentioned that people are not taking this abuse without self-defense:

The National Lawyers Guild and Communities United Against Police Brutality filed an emergency motion Sunday asking Judge Mark Wernick to grant "injunctive relief to prevent police from seizing video equipment and cellular phones used to document their conduct.” The groups sought a temporary restraining order on police to stop them from illegally detaining journalists and confiscating equipment.

According to Bruce Nestor from the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, who was interviewed by Goodman,

The raids were carried out by Sheriff Bob Fletcher, who had been arguing for months that there needed to be a stronger law enforcement response, and he was being told that wasn’t necessary. And so, he sent his officers in, after doing intelligence gathering and infiltrating these groups.

And then, really what he did is he took common household items that you would find in any home in Minnesota—a hatchet, rope, glass bottles and rags—attached the label “anarchist” to the people who are living in the homes, and then raise this public fear that the anarchists were threatening violence, public disorder. But really, it’s taking a common household item, something you’d find anywhere, calling it an edged weapon and then attacking people for their political beliefs, that then is used to generate this public fear and keep activists detained, as you said, through Wednesday at noon.

If there was a public outcry which is probably unlikely, knowing the American sheep on their way to the slaughter, I suppose the RNC people will say it was all the idea of one rogue police chief, and they had nothing to do with it. So note that there are Federal agents involved.

As Bruce Nestor added,

They did the same thing in the house raids in south Minneapolis. They broke down doors, even though these were knock warrants, meaning they were supposed to knock and announce themselves. I was personally present and saw officers with riot gear and assault rifles, pump action shotguns. The neighbor of one of the houses had a gun pointed in her face when she walked out on her back porch to see what was going on. There were children in all of these houses, and children were held at gunpoint. Everyone was forced to the floor and handcuffed and then detained for about an hour, while they were processed out, and then individuals were released.

It was really an overwhelming show of force, again, designed to heighten public fear to do two things: to make people fearful of the protests, but also to discourage people from protesting. I think it’s somehow designed to say, you know, don’t take to the streets, because this could happen to you, or you could get caught up in this, and therefore, don’t get involved. And that’s why they have that level of force involved.

A former FBI agent, when asked by Goodman about these tactics of sometimes detaining people without arrest, etc, stated:

What it actually is supposed to be is in a major event, such as the RNC, the FBI is really to take the lead on the counterintelligence aspect, which, of course, if there was a true threat—let’s say there was a domestic terrorism group, which is—this is what we’re talking about. We’re talking about at the very most nonviolent civil disobedience. So the confusion with true intelligence for a terrorist threat is quite enormous.

And so, when you start this word “preemptive,” and now, unfortunately, it seems to have migrated to domestic law enforcement.

People put this—they try to say, well, security, we must sacrifice civil liberties. They think of it as a tradeoff. And it is absolutely not true. Our security does depend on good police work. And so, when police do this, and they go against their own community policing model, they actually so distrust, so that if they do want to ask a question of someone next time, let’s say, there is a true threat, somebody may say, “I don’t want to talk to you. I know what happened last week when you handcuffed people incorrectly.” This is just sending a very bad signal to police work.

In other words, security in a police state is very bad, because suspicion takes over from the rule of law, and all safeguards essentially go to hell.

Meanwhile, back as the RNC gets underway, Siun at Firedoglake reports was live in Saint Paul to describe the Heavy Hand of Police:

RUBBER BULLETS FIRED AT 10TH/ST PETER BLACK BLOC. 1 PROTESTER DOWN. national guard also coming to scene reportedly with concussion grenades and smoke.

Legal observers from the Cold Spring Legal collective have been arrested – these are the folks trained to watch for police problems.
Tear gas and water cannons is use as well.

Update at 11:04 pacific -Reports coming in via indymedia twitter:

COPS ARE INDISCRIMINATELY USING TEAR GAS AND PEPPER SPRAY AT 7TH AND MINNESOTA STREETS. HELP NEEDED ASAP: WATER, MEDICS. JOURNALISTS GASSED

Also reports of police horses being used against marchers.

Update at 10:41 (pacific) Lindsay just saw 12 bicycle cops ride past in gas masks - and there are reports that "Justice Department officers directing riot police on 6th St to "get ready" are popping up on the Indy tweets.

Lindsay, Glenn and Jane are out in St. Paul getting the story from the ground as the RNC starts up – and we’ll be bringing you continuing news throughout the day.

A large march to the Excel Center is beginning in about an hour and folks are rallying now – undeterred by the police raids you’ve already seen reported here. As Matt Stoller notes, the RNC is meeting in their very own Green Zone while the pepper spray and arrests have already started in the streets of St. Paul today.

So just who are these people and why are they gathering in the streets to march on the RNC?

Well, there's the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War. Pacifist groups. People who actually dare to exercise their Constitution-given rights to protest the failed policies of the Republican party, the same policies that have given us the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, mass surveillance on the American people, torture, Guantanamo prison, prison ships, and that Alcatraz in the Indian Ocean, Diego Garcia.

People like Amy Goodman, a well-respected and well-known journalist who should certainly pose no threat to the Republican Party or any other party - had they not lost their minds. Goodbye, Constitution? What does this say about the GOP and its policies? If you're thinking of hiring John McCain for President, well... take a look at the GOP store window, their convention. Is this the future you want for America?

Censorship by Aggression vs. Free Speech for Wimps: Don’t Throw Out the Scales with the Blindfold, Ms. Liberty

Bridgethought of the Day: If it’s about the Constitution, it’s probably about balance.

Imagine the drafters of the Constitution in cartoon heaven with cloud-like thoughts floating over their heads, collectively envisioning Blind Justice holding the Scales … pretty great vision for a Constitution, that …

Plunging suddenly to earth, we are hit with the most well-known and fervently beloved feature of the constitution, the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.

Since “freedom of speech” refers specifically to the Constitutional Amendment No. 1, it follows that we should examine it as defined by its usage in that document. Further looking at the interpretation of this protection, it is clear that it refers to the free expression of opinion on public issues. Having the freedom to express one’s views is of tantamount importance in a democracy, where sharing opinions should lead to a general consensus, and the ability to voice dissent is critical in making that democracy work and promote peace and prosperity, not totalitarian-based security.

It is not, however, about self-expression per se. That is important because often what gets bandied about as “free speech” is simply referring to the use of profanity, obscenity, extreme expressions, or such things as wearing revealing clothing, torn jeans, or tattoos. Self-expression tends to get confused with the expression of an opinion or view, and so someone who dresses provocatively or rides with a motorcycle gang is considered a proponent of the First Amendment, and using his “God-given right to freedom of speech.” To pass a law against these activities may be dead in the water from sheer unpopularity, but it shouldn’t be a Constitutional issue.

Of course, the Constitution only refers to government interference in the right to the free expression of ideas and opinions. There is no law enforcing a person’s right to free speech, but only an Amendment prohibiting the passing of laws that would infringe on that right. However, at times self-expression seems to supercede freedom of speech to the point where the latter is in fact abridged, not by government, but by the abuse of power by media players, strongmen (and women) in the field of communications and “the press”.

At the time the Constitution was drafted, “media” did not exist as a power-broker in the sense it does today. Yes, there were press outlets and controls, and yes, the press of the day did influence public opinion and did have control over what people heard or did not hear, and what opinions were promulgated. But even so, the press of that day was also constrained by its very nature - being restricted to print. There was a certain decorum to how news and opinions were presented that remained until the media “revolution” of the late 20th Century. Suddenly now time is compressed, and a minute has become an interminably long time interval as compared with the 15-second spot. There’s no time to contemplate, to go into historical background and detailed descriptions and analysis. There’s barely enough time to get in a few keywords. And you’d better choose them well, because the competition for space/time is stiff.

The ad campaign has become the Press Standard for speech. Each word is a sentence in itself. Grammar intrudes as an archaic artifice. Instead we read as we enter Wal-Mart: “Good. Works.” and “Always”. What do you mean, “always”? What’s so “good” about “works”, and what “works”? Why even ask? We were led down the path to understand it means “always cheaper” and “doing good for the community”, the two main Wal-Mart themes that drive their profit margins ever higher. So in this type of speech-world, we have the rise of the sharp-tongued sound-bite-delivery icons, personalities cultivated for their aura of free-speaking, opinionated style delivered on time, every time, in as few, but shocking, words as possible.

“Evil”, “hot”, “apocalyptic”, “secret”, “sex”, “killer”, “clout”, “power”, “terror”, etc. We need magnetic words to attract large numbers of iron filings, aka ratings, aka “people”, to our profit-driven presentations of “speech”, presented as “what people really think” and “you decide”, as if all of this was actually encouraging some kind of elevated free speech right-in-the-sky. This First Amendment has been raised to the height of Icon, even though until we got into the 20th Century, it was actually never invoked to strike down a single law. National security, protection against libel, and “clear and present danger” to the public or the State (be it federal or local), or the people in it, all superceded any First Amendment right - in days of yore.

Had this view been prevalent, it would have been likely that cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad would not have been protected on Constitutional grounds, since they could incite such volatile emotions as to present a danger to social stability, and hence, threaten national security. Today, however, there exists an argument that the Muslims were wrong to be offended to the point that they reacted violently, and we should not be held responsible for inciting their rage. This argument is typical of those favoring personal self-expression over decency-mitigated public opinion-expression. My personal view is that this argument is irrelevant since one cannot predict the response of another, and that the view expressed could be done in such a way as to not blatantly inflame already fanned fires and emotions in a time when so little is being done to put out fires and so much done to set many more. In other words, I believe in the more old-fashioned or traditional view wherein decorum and general decency is an appropriate mitigator of raw inflammatory self-expression. You can get the idea across a better way.

My basis for this view is that the issue of self-expression should not supercede the issue of freedom of speech as the expression of ideas and opinions. When it becomes overly focused on personal self-expression, you get a situation where one man’s right to offend another becomes constitutionally protected, while more mild-mannered types must face the firing squad of media aggression, from which they can find no relief. In fact, the media “darlings”, those rapid-fire attack dogs of opinion, leave little or no room for dissent, dominating the world of opinion with fangs and sabers, those sale-grabbing, ratings-raising shock-value words, and so the mild-mannered anti-war vegan weenie goes to bed silent. Who hears what thinking, contemplative people have to say? Do they even exist? In a world where conformity confirms existence, is there really a silent majority? Or just so much dark matter that we really aren’t sure is even there, or if it’s there, what it is…?

Ann Coulter v. Freedom of Speech.

It’s an obvious choice: Ms. Free Speech herself, acid-tongued Ann is the Poster Girl for Censorship by Aggression. Being vociferous or pointedly aggressive is a popular commodity in the media, but it is not protected by the First Amendment. It protects the expression of opinion, yes, but not when the manner of expression itself practically inhibits or abridges others' ability to express their dissenting views. Thus, the shouting matches that pass for "free speech" on Fox News are actually orgies of censorship - of views different than the shows' power-brokers or venom-spewers. Profanity per se then is not protected by the Constitution, but the expression of an opposite opinion is. Similarly, Ann Coulter's vicious tirades against those whose opinions she hates in a sense censors their free expression of opinion. Her attacks on the 9-11 widows who happen not to revel in George W's warslime were not merely libelous, but almost extortionary - a threat to anyone who could similarly express their views. The net effect: chill, Amendment #1...

Natalie Maines, the Dixie Chick who famously expressed her "shame" at being from the same state as Prez Bush, was made a pariah, the Chicks' music shunned, and a general backlash against her sent a chill down First Amendment-lovers' spines - those few still among us, that is. They weren't offended at a song expressing a desire to murder a husband in revenge for mistreatment, a criminal act, but rather by a political opinion freely expressed. Hmmmmm...

Of course, there's no law against limiting another's freedom of speech by aggressive tactics. The Constitution only protects us from government enacting laws or regulations that limit such freedom. And the media is not a law, nor are any people, taken as individuals, "government". But there are laws that limit freedom of speech, notably in the Patriot Act, where suspicion of terrorism can be based on statements people make, and that suspicion is grounds for prosecution. Once branded a terrorist, a person loses all his rights as a human being and becomes, for all intents and purposes, a cartoon villain in some video game from hell. The War on Terror has opened up a black hole in the Bill of Rights in which everything we know and believe to be right and true no longer exists, and even light cannot escape, let alone democracy or that archaic idea, "freedom."

In this world where saying something critical of Administration policies can mean TV death by rabies, there's also a substantial tide of human rebellion against the stifling atmosphere and vicious attacks dominating the right. The way some such as Bill O'Reilly smear dissenters from their hallowed views puts them directly at odds with the goals of the Constitution - to allow the free exchange of ideas in order to further democracy, not promote My Way.

It is this very threat to our Constitutional rights and human liberty that caused the American public to lose their stomach for things as they are, and for which Democrats have regained a measure of power. But Dems beware - it's not a liberal/conservative issue. It's the "liberal"
aggression against "conservative" views that brought Republicans to power in the first place. Power tends to corrupt - when maintaining and increasing it begins to encroach on the more fundamental values, such as freedom of speech - in the traditional sense.

We have to keep remembering that dissent is not unpatriotic - trying to suppress it is. Sometimes what we think of as "freedom of speech" - virulent, power-laden, heavy-handed Talk - can actually undermine the Real freedom of speech: saying what you think.

Take that, Acid Ann - and don't tread on me.