Update: Amy Goodman, 2 DN! Producers Charged, Released

Update from Democracy Now! website:

Goodman Charged with Obstruction; Felony Riot Charges Pending Against Kouddous and Salazar

ST. PAUL--Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman and producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar have all been released from police custody in St. Paul following their illegal arrest by Minneapolis Police on Monday afternoon.

All three were violently manhandled by law enforcement officers. Abdel Kouddous was slammed against a wall and the ground, leaving his arms scraped and bloodied. He sustained other injuries to his chest and back. Salazar’s violent arrest by baton-wielding officers, during which she was slammed to the ground while yelling, “I’m Press! Press!,” resulted in her nose bleeding, as well as causing facial pain. Goodman’s arm was violently yanked by police as she was arrested.

On Tuesday, Democracy Now! will broadcast video of these arrests, as well as the broader police action. These will also be available on: www.democracynow.org

Goodman was arrested while questioning police about the unlawful detention of Kouddous and Salazar who 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 arrested on suspicion of rioting, a felony. While the three have been released, they all still face charges stemming from their unlawful arrest. Kouddous and Salazar face pending charges of suspicion of felony riot, while Goodman has been officially charged with obstruction of a legal process and interference with a “peace officer.”

Democracy Now! forcefully rejects all of these charges as false and an attempt at intimidation of these journalists. We demand that the charges be immediately and completely dropped.

Democracy Now! stands by Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar and condemns this action by Twin Cities’ law enforcement as a clear violation of the freedom of the press and the First Amendment rights of these journalists.

During the demonstration in which the Democracy Now! team was arrested, law enforcement officers used pepper spray, rubber bullets, concussion grenades and excessive force against protesters and journalists. Several dozen demonstrators were also arrested during this action, including a photographer for the Associated Press.

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?

Sole Black Reporter Booted from McCain Event

Tallahassee Democrat senior writer Stephen Price was singled out and asked to leave the area reserved for media at a rally for John McCain in Panama City, Florida, on Friday. He had showed his media credentials and employee i.d. in order to enter the area when a member of McCain's security detail asked him to leave.

"I explained I was with the state press, but the Secret Service man said that didn't matter and that I would have to go," Price said.

When another reporter asked why Price was being removed, she too was led out of the area. Other state reporters remained.

Price was the only black reporter among those surrounding McCain's bus ... was he being "profiled"?

Tallahassee Democrat Executive Editor Bob Gabordi said the incident was unwarranted.

"We're deeply concerned and disturbed that our reporter — of all of those in that area — was asked to move," Gabordi said. "My understanding is that Stephen was the only reporter approached and asked to leave the area, and the only reporter in that area who is black. Another reporter who stood up for Stephen was then asked to leave."

Jonathan Block of the McCain campaign, who was not there at the time of the incident, expressed regret, but stated,

"I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that race had nothing to do with it."

Block said the area where Price was standing was restricted to members of the traveling national press corps that accompanies McCain on the campaign trail.

Wow. Really. There's this story line going around that McCain loves to be "unscripted" and was always wandering into unprepared situations, giving the impression of "getting down to the people." Why was the black man singled out? And then why was the other reporter ousted for defending him? Why couldn't they simply tell them right then and there that this area is restricted to press that travels with McCain, if that was, in fact, true???

I'm sure McCain really needs this sort of stuff to keep those "swing voters" wondering. First, he backs a bill in Arizona that would wipe out affirmative action as "quotas", a "reverse racism"-style proposition, to coddle the right-wing racist White First bloc. Then he accuses Obama of racism for mentioning in passing something that could be construed to mean Obama is black. And if McCain infers that he is older, we're supposed to accuse him of "age-ism", right? Now, his security detail is weeding out "suspects"??

And this isn't the first weird incident with McCain's security. Here you can check out how they kicked a librarian out of a public rally for holding a McCain=Bush sign, and charged her with trespassing.

The event, at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts, was billed as 'open to the public.' Yet Carole Kreck, a 61-year-old librarian carrying a 'McCain=Bush' sign, was taken away by police [on orders from McCain's security detail] for trespassing. A police officer told Kreck:
'You have two choices. You can keep your sign here and receive a ticket for trespassing, or you can remove the sign and stay in line and attend this town hall meeting.'
Kreck received a ticket for trespassing and her court date is July 23.

Security trumps free speech. Security trumps reporters' access to a candidate. Dissent and being a person of color seem to always land in the world of "security risk". One of the Republicans' biggest ticket issues is "increase Security." It plays to fear. It plays to the military. But, as this incident is a small but notable example, it doesn't play to our higher goals of fairness, openness, and actual freedom (not rhetorical "freedom" as in "freedom fries"). For McCain, it's a pattern he can't break free from. For the rest of us, it's an election we must weigh in on, in historic numbers, for the other, security-by-freedom, not security-vs-freedom, side.

Banned Cartoon in "First Amendment"-gutted US

Here's the cartoon (actually one of 4) banned by the US Army, drawn by Sami al-Hajj, the Al Jazeera cameraman held in the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, according to his lawyer.

Other than freedom of expression, what threat does it pose?

Gitmo: Weapon Against Free Speech, Al-Jazeera Specifically

Democracy Now! has a great interview with the brother of a Guantanamo detainee, the cameraman for Al-Jazeera, Sami al-Haj, who is being held without charge in the infamous U.S. gulag for torture and rights-abuses in the name of the so-called "Global War on Terror". Here is a transcript of that interview. It highlights the fact that the U.S. government has been targeting Al-Jazeera because of alleged ties with Al-Qaeda - merely based on the fact that it has been reporting on Al-Qaeda and received news releases from the organization. Imagine taking such actions on news agencies here merely for receiving news releases from, say, the Ku Klux Klan, or the Communist Workers' Party. It's all about freedom of speech - bulldozed internationally, courtesy of Bushco, in the name of Security. And War. And being afraid, very afraid of ... them:

AMY GOODMAN: It has been six years since the US set up the prison at Guantanamo in the so-called “war on terror.” Over 800 men and boys, so-called "enemy combatants,” have been held without charge at Guantanamo since January 11, 2002. Not one of these prisoners has been put on trial. Hundreds have been released without charge after years in detention. Four prisoners have committed suicide; many others have tried to do so. Today, 275 people are still imprisoned at Guantanamo.
We turn now to the case of one of these prisoners. His name is Sami Al-Haj. He’s thirty-eight years old, an Al Jazeera cameraman, arrested in Pakistan, December 2001, while traveling to Afghanistan for work with Al Jazeera. He was transferred to US custody, flown to Bagram Air Base—six months later, flown to Guantanamo Bay. He’s been in prison there without charge ever since. Sami Al-Haj has been on hunger strike since January 7th of last year. He’s believed to be in deteriorating health.


ASIM AL-HAJ: [translated] Before I make my statement, I would like to say that Sami Al-Haj is a victim of a political operation against Al Jazeera, which Washington does not approve of. And as evidence of this is the fact that he was interrogated 130 times. And during these times, the interrogations were all about Al Jazeera and alleged relations between Al Jazeera and al-Qaeda.
They tried to induce him to work as a spy for American intelligence in return for US citizenship for him and for his family and to help him even write a book, on the condition that he would spy on his colleagues at Al Jazeera. For example, if you look at the allegation that he was involved in sales of rockets or missiles to Afghanistan, I mean, how could a reporter or a media person traveling to a country he’s never been to before carry this? Would he carry these in his luggage or what?
AMY GOODMAN: How does this make you feel about the United States, Asim?
ASIM AL-HAJ: [translated] We believe that what the American administration does is apart from what the American people do and feel. We feel that the American people are peaceful, good people, and we love them.
And what is happening now leads to or begs the question: how come he was never tried in a civil court? How come the evidence against him is not presented publicly? And why does the American administration insist on maintaining his detention, despite earlier promises of his release? And why is it that he is being kept in Guantanamo, while many other detainees, including leaders in al Taliban and people who had actually carried arms, are being released?
And if Sami dies, who will be responsible for this? And to who would we—if we were to file suit, that would be against whom? The most difficult thing for a human being is to be subject to injustice against which you cannot do anything, for yourself or for in support of others.
AMY GOODMAN: Asim, tell us about your brother. How is his health right now? How long has he been at Guantanamo?
ASIM AL-HAJ: [translated] Right now, Sami is suffering deteriorating health, both physically and mentally.
AMY GOODMAN: How do you know? How do you communicate with him in prison?
ASIM AL-HAJ: [translated] We have no means of communicating with him, except through very infrequent letters. So far, since his imprisonment, we have had about ten such letters. These letters contain very little, other than greetings and best wishes during the days of feasts, and all the rest is redacted.
We send most of our letters through the Red Cross, and sometimes we send some letters through his attorney, who visits with him every two or three months. And all the news that we have on information regarding his deteriorating health have come to us by way of his attorney. Every time he goes to visit, he comes back with worse news.
AMY GOODMAN: Is your brother—is Sami Al-Haj on hunger strike, and how long has it been?
ASIM AL-HAJ: [translated] On the 7th of January of this year, he has been on hunger strike for one year.
AMY GOODMAN: How can he survive?
ASIM AL-HAJ: [translated] According to his attorney, he is fed twice a day through a nasal gastric tube. He also drinks water. And we’re told that he is also given some pills.
AMY GOODMAN: Asim, I was talking to Clive Stafford Smith, his attorney. He says that he sent a letter to his seven-year-old son. Sami has sent a letter to Mohammed in the case of his death.
ASIM AL-HAJ: [translated] Are you asking about details of this letter?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes.
ASIM AL-HAJ: [translated] The letter reads, “My beloved son Mohammed, I ask you to listen to your mom and to do well in school.” And in this letter, he says, “If you’re asking about your father, your father is in chains in an island that is thousands of kilometers away.” And he also says, “I am full of hope that I will return to see you and to be with you when you start talking.”
AMY GOODMAN: Asim Al-Haj, do you think Al Jazeera is doing enough to try to free your brother?
ASIM AL-HAJ: [translated] In the beginning, it seemed as though Al Jazeera was not doing enough, and we were wondering why. Al Jazeera then informed us that they were trying to do their work sort of behind the scenes in as diplomatic a manner as possible in order not to complicate things. Then, when they failed to accomplish any results, then they started to try to get him freed in a public manner. And now we are very satisfied with their work. In fact, we’re very grateful for what they do.
AMY GOODMAN: What are they doing?
ASIM AL-HAJ: [translated] First of all, Al Jazeera supports his family, his wife and his son, in Doha, Qatar. And they are also waging a campaign both on the legal front and also in the media.
What we understand is that the American government has imposed some conditions to free Sami and the other eight Sudanese prisoners out of the original twelve, because three have been released. So they have given the Sudanese government a list of these conditions.
AMY GOODMAN: What are these conditions?
ASIM AL-HAJ: [translated] I have had no access to this document, but what I understand is, one of the worst things in it is that the Sudanese government must pledge that Sami and the other released detainees would not leave Sudan. And the other is that there would have to be a pledge that they would not be making declarations and statements about anything that they have suffered since their detention, and also some guarantees that American intelligence would have access to them at any time.
We reject these conditions. We consider this an assault on Sami’s rights and simply an extension of his detention just being in the Sudan.
Now, I would like to make my statement in English.
AMY GOODMAN: Go ahead, please.
ASIM AL-HAJ: I don’t simply want to appeal to people’s feelings. I want them to use their minds. Why is there an information and media cover-up on Guantanamo? Why has the world and its international institutions failed to press the United States to abide by international law? Show your proof. Try us or set us free. Open all prisons connected to the so-called “war on terror” for international investigation, or shut them down now. Keep media away from politics. Why Sami Al-Haj are being punished? Free Sami Al-Haj now!
AMY GOODMAN: Asim Al-Haj, the brother of Sami Al-Haj. He’s been imprisoned at Guantanamo for more than five years, imprisoned overall for close to six years. If you’d like to see the video images, the photographs of Sami Al-Haj and his family, you can go to our website at democracynow.org. Asim Al-Haj was speaking to us from Khartoum, Sudan. I spoke to him on Friday.

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.

The Whitanic House

Bridgethought of the Day: If the Bush administration is really unsinkable, why is it nobody can breathe? Is anyone still cognizant of the fact that the only cause of death is oxygen-starvation?

'Way back in 2005, almost an apocalypse ago in today's time-compressing world, a man who represented the best and brightest of patriots, of people who believe in Right and God and Country, and Integrity and Being Your Level Best, commit suicide over corruption and massive wrongdoing in Iraq, and we're talking about the U.S. side, not even the Iraqis, not only the insurgents or "jihadis". You can read the details in this article from Alternet.org. U.S. Contractors in Iraq apparently were sabotaging the military itself, stealing weapons and equipment and killing Iraqis. This man, Col. Ted Westhusing, was there to do good, and found himself up against a mountain of evil. Who put that mountain there, and why?

Iran-Contra Revisited, Apocalypse Now Style

Jumping back to Now again, we need to take a very hard look at the reports coming out of veteran story-breaker (think My Lai in Vietnam and AbuGhraib in Iraq) Seymour Hirsh published in the New Yorker exposing the sins of Bush II & Corp. In his article entitled "The Redirection", Mr. Hirsh states:

In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has
significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some
inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United
States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the
region,propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni
Muslims.

He goes on to explain that the U.S. has a "strategic bombing plan" for Iran and has built up to the point where they can strike inside Iran on a 24-hour notice. Aircraft carrier groups are already moving into position, and military sources say a spring strike would be ready to ... spring. And that one of the influences in the Administration's foreign policy decision-making for the region is Saudi Arabia's Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a close friend of the Bush family. Seems he's the guy who sees the "rise of the Shias" as a greater threat than Sunni insurgents or al-Qaeda, and now plays the role of self-proclaimed expert on Islamic and Middle East affairs. Therefore, we must "re-direct" our entire nation and all that comes with it, military might, corporate power, and last - we hope not least, but "hope" ain't good enough, people. Thousands of people going over to be killed, and to kill - no, calling it a "war" doesn't make it any less gutwrenching - with no doubt innocents and good folks on both sides - for the "vision" of a guy who hasn't exactly been right, and whose motives aren't exactly on the same page we claim to be opening here... and with the side effect of money going to terrorist groups in the name of - what? democracy? patriotism? national security?

The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser. While Rice has been deeply involved in shaping the public policy, former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney.

Or, as Tom Englehardt said, "Seymour Hersh's recent report that Iran-Contra veterans working out of Dick Cheney's office are using stolen funds from Iraq to arm al Qaeda-tied groups and foment a larger Sunni-Shia war is a very big deal. "

Doesn't sound good to me - Dick Cheney, of Haliburton fame, Elliot Abrams, Mr. Iran-Contra Enabler, and Prince Bandar, whose government isn't exactly a model democracy, with a human rights record of shame. But to an American public that has been described as "blase about torture" and seems far more interested in pointless yelling matches called "political shows" or better yet, celebrity gossip, than whether or not they will wake up tomorrow in a democracy, a police state, or a state of siege, all this news falls on deaf ears.

He who has ears, let him hear. We need more air. More O2.

When the Whitanic House sinks, I'm afraid more will sink with it than some incompetent policy-makers. Where are the "we the People" kind of people? Like Seymour Hirsh?

Unsinkable. That's what they said. It's that hubris thing again. Mixed with rank incompetence.

Freedom Takes Courage, Dissent, Honesty, and Real Reporting

It's time to address the issue of lying vs. honesty and reporting fairly or unfairly in our democracy. Carl Bernstein had something important to say on this in Frontline:


"I think what we're talking about with the Bush administration is a far different matter in which disinformation, misinformation and unwillingness to tell the truth -- a willingness to lie both in the Oval Office, in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in the office of the vice president, the vice president himself -- is something that I have never witnessed before on this scale.

"The lying in the Nixon White House had most often to do with covering up Watergate, with the Nixon administration's illegal activities. Here, in this presidency, there is an unwillingness to be truthful, both contextually and in terms of basic facts that ought to be of great concern to people of all ideologies. ...

"This president has a record of dishonesty and obfuscation that is Nixonian in character in its willingness to manipulate the press, to manipulate the truth. We have gone to war on the basis of misinformation, disinformation and knowing lies from top to bottom. That is an astonishing fact. That's what this story is about: the willingness of the president and the vice president and the people around them to try to undermine people who have effectively opposed them by telling the truth. It happened with [Sen.] John McCain in South Carolina. It happened with [Sen.] John Kerry. It's happened with [Sen.] Max Cleland in Georgia. It's happened with many other people. That's the real story, and that's the story that [the press] should have been writing. ...

"It's very difficult, as a reporter, to get across that when you say, "This is a presidency of great dishonesty," that this is not a matter of opinion. This is demonstrable fact. If you go back and look at the president's statements, you look at the statements of the vice president, you look at the statements of Condoleezza Rice, you go through the record, you look at what[counterterrorism expert] Richard Clarke has written, you look at what we know -- it's demonstrable. It's fact.

"Now, how do you quantify it? That's a different question. But to me, if there is a great failure by the so-called mainstream press in this presidency, it's the unwillingness to look at the lies and disinformation and misinformation and add them up and say clearly, "Here's what they said; here's what the known facts were," because when that is done, you then see this isn't a partisan matter.

"This is a matter of the truth, particularly about this war. This is a presidency that is not willing to tell the truth very often if it is contrary to its interests. It's not about ideology from whence I say this. It's about being a reporter and saying: "That's what the story is. Let's see what they said; let's see what the facts are." ...

This issue is not "liberal" vs. "conservative": in theory, both sides have a vested interest in free speech, in reporting not being biased, in government not being heavy-handed propagandists via media outlets, and in there being accountability for dishonesty in government. Otherwise, the government takes on a life of its own, unaccountable to the people who then are being lied to about it being democratic, about the government being "theirs", about their having true participation or representation in government. In other words, this breakdown of trust is precisely the hallmark of dictatorships and totalitarian governments. There is a reason, not madness, that many fear the United States is becoming a police state. There is a reason, not madness, that many fear totalitarianism creeping into government, hidden legislation by hidden legislation, Patriot Act loophole by Patriot Act V? loophole.

It starts with waging war for lies disguised as ineptitude, it continues with secret torture camps disguised as "freedom protection" camps, it gets nasty with increased surveillance, until finally, what??? Goodbye, government "by the people" - Hello, watch your back, folks... Is that what you want?