NY Times v United States - 1971 - Freedom of the Press (Kindly click on)
The New York Times received secret info about the US involvement in the Vietnam War, specifically what had "really" happened at the Gulf of Tonkin. It turned out that the President had exaggerated the incident and used that exaggeration to gain increased war powers form congress (the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution). The New York Times sought to publish the information and the government attempted to get an injunction barring them from going to press with it. The Times sued claiming that the government was infringing upon their first amendment right of freedom of speech. The government claimed that a limitation of that right was in order because it was dangerous to the security of the nation.
The court affirmed the position of the New York Times. The court ruled that the information did not represent a clear and present danger to national security and that the governments attempt to suppress the information was an attempt at censorship and a violation of first amendment rights to freedom of the press.
I might point out the current administration is attempting to 'turn the tables' on the Freedom of the Press by THREATENING the profession of journalism, seeking control of their content and conducting investigations into their reporting. Recently, The Bush White House investigated 'leaks' that provided the American Public/American Electorate with facts regarding the illegal activity of their government including that of spying/wiretapping their Privacy Rights into obligion in the name of National Security. This Freedom is precious and has always been a bastion of safety for the democracy that has been the USA. That is BEFORE the current Bush Administration and it's biased House and Senate.
In response to President Bush and General Hayden breaking the law and by passing the FISA Court, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (click on), while conducting illegal search of personal privacy Senator Spector proposed and passed law that altered the FISA law making it retroactive to protect a blatantly criminal president (click on.) The point is, if a bigoted legislature, along with an equally bigoted Executive Branch will take matters of Privacy into their own hands 'after the fact' exonerating all of them from criminal trespass to say the least; then what else will they do. They are self righteous and dangerous and act to place themselves above the law with absolutely free abandon to the rights of the citizens of this country. They did not 'strengthen' FISA, they compromised it to justify their criminality.
Minorty Law. Is there actually such a thing? Yes. It is sought, by exception, through the courts creating precedent to protect those that are nonconformists. Nonconformists by their pure definition of whom them are in life. By choice. By nature. By circumstance. By circumstance beyond their control and cast into 'dire' circumstance requried by law. Victims. Victims to their own government, innocent of wrong doing, through acts of law that stigmatize their lives and cause hardship on them.
Minority has a rather simple definiton. The one most disturbing that this Executive Branch, Senate and House seek to oppress out of self righteousness and faux agendas of freedom are based not only in bigotry but religious bias. The one definition that should never be oppressed by our Constitution or Amendments is the primary understanding that the 'minority' is/can be same UNTIL it reaches majority. By oppressing the 'ideas' of minorities that normally would receive precedent with odds stacked against them by not only a Biased and Bigoted Executive Branch, Majority Legislative Branch of Both House, but, a Judicial Branch the most important of freedoms will be wrenched away from Americans. The democracy that is purported to be the most precious on Earth, will create a Consitution of 'dogma' and not law.
During the Senate Hearings of Samuel Alito some very distrubing 'trends' were brought up by the indignant Senator Brownback.
In referring to The Defense of Marriage Act, which is an extremely biased document, Senator Brownback gave a 'head nod' to the 'shifting' of "...full faith and credit clause of the USA Constitution." That clause provides for domestic tranquility. It requires law that is federal to 'blanket' the country with the same understanding and application. It prevents Civil War. It keeps states from warring with each other. It provides free movement between states of citizens without undo hardship. In other words, a citizen's rights in the Northeast of the USA is no different than the citizen rights in the Southwest. Not to say there aren't stark cultural differences, obviously there are, but the basic fundamental understanding of law as we have come to enjoy it applies directly across the board in all the USA states and territories so people don't 'trip' over themselves. When an employer transfers an employee from state to state neither that employer or the employee need the services of an attorney to come to understand 'new' applications of law to their lives that did not exist before.
Those 'head nods' continued through the entire time Senator Brownback conducted his speech. It was a speech. It was not about questions regarding decisions made by Samuel Alito. Mr. Alito openly stated same when he admitted he never had cases to decide regarding the 'contradiction' of the "...full faith and credit clause." Imagine that. Never before in all the years and the scope of practice of Mr. Alito did he have one case before him regarding this important application of federal law. Imagine that. All this time. Yet. In a brief and obscure moment Senator Brownback brushed aside the importance of the USA Constitution and replaced it with a faux agenda of bigoted and biased opinion allowing Mr. Alito to further espouse the virtues of such a decision. You'll excuse me but Senator Brownback's 'ballsy' approach to hearings about Supreme Court Justices was not only out of line by expressing personal preferences but blatantly victimized every person in the country purporting he knew better than an unchallenged Judge did.He continued his 'head nodding' of his party's priorities and clearly illustrated the self righteous path of bigotry and bias never before exerted in Supreme Court opinion. In other words, Senator Brownback was giving exuberant approval to replacing Constitutional law with religious dogma. He clearly, through his words and actions brought to focus THE PRIORITY the Robert's Court should take whether or not it was even considered by any of the justices before such actions. Senator Brownback did not break a law, he violated ethics. He didn't care because the current Ethics Panels of both legislative houses are closed for business to allow the Republican Majority to carry on as they wish with impunity.
Equal application of Civil Rights provide for safety to citizens. Mr. Alito went on with embellished statements regarding 'the way' in which 'minority law' is decided. Through 'judicial decision' and not amendment. He stated applying constitutional principle to the 'situation at hand.' He couldn't be more correct. It's basic Law 101. Why even bring it up? It was irrelivant except to APPEAR to grant Senator Brownback his 'dream come true' in confirming him. A clear signal to the Republican Base that the country would be coming under tow to the advent of a biased and bigoted regime of decisions that would reverse 'minority law.' A simpleton statement that was political in nature made by a man being considered for the highest seat in the Judiciary. "Excuse me." Politics in the Supreme Court? Oh, really.
The next example was made of 'The seasonal holiday' of the winter solstice whereby Mr. Brownback pointed out how, in the face of Supreme Court decisions, he 'believed in' a 'robust' public square and not a naked one. The public square is a bit of a euphemism here in that it removes the 'idea' of 'the general public' and replaces it with 'a particular public.' That public is one that celebrates holidays. See, the displays of religious preference are not only offensive to 'the minority' of agnostics, atheists or pagans in the USA; but also religions like Jehovah Witness whom also don't participate in war. Jehovah Witnesses have gone to prison refusing to be soldiers. They don't practice holidays. They don't observe birthdays or practice birthday parties. Someday, will they be required, in the name of good parenting, to have birthday parties for their children because the majority seems to believe it is necessary to uplift a child as they age from year to year?
A naked public square is not an offensive public square. It reflects "Lady Justice" and her blindfold as she holds the scales of justice in her out stretched hand. The 'naked' public that Mr. Brownback referred to is 'the general public' with law blind to the numbers in the populous of the USA and the demands of the majority. Balance. Balance is what makes the democray of the USA unique and a work across generations of expansive Civil Rights. That tradition is being destroyed by the bias and bigotry of The Republican Party.Additionally, there is a contradiction of terms between the breech of both the concept of 'the general public' and the word 'robust' as Mr. Brownback uses it. Mr. Brownback does not recognize the general public as an aspect of a robust public square. By applying the 'idea' of robust that was to say it included all those in the country. Not so. In his application of robust he completely ostracizes the reality of 'beliefs' that are absent of a display. It is a direct application of religous dogma and also a breech of "... the full faith and credit clause of the USA Constitution." Mr. Brownback and Mr. Alito want to discriminate against all the protections of the law of the USA of every citizen of this country replacing it with dogmatic understanding of a particular segment of the populous of this country. If 'robust' were applied to marriage law it would apply to all citizens including same sex relationships, that 'understanding of robust' is completely absent in any discussion by Mr. Brownback and Mr. Alito during the Senate hearings.
Currently, there are crisis everywhere across the face of this country that spills over to the world. In the past the USA has been very generous in it's application of Civil Rights to all citizens. In the past the USA has been very generous in promoting human rights to the International Community. One of the most serious breeches 'of recognition' of crisis in this country, as reflected in the world, is of HIV/AIDS. Across this country the rising majority of deaths from HIV are black women. Oddly, or perhaps not so oddly, the rising deaths in the world are from HIV. Only this past week, Kofi Annan made a compelling speech that was an appeal regarding the 'loss of ground' the world is experiencing in the fight against HIV. That needs to be a concern of all of us. In the halls of Congress of the USA, it is not.
There have been monies appropriated for efforts in Africa while at the same time women of those same countries are being denied funding in Planned Parenthood clinics because they offer abortion as an option to stop unwanted pregnancies. So, therefore, internationally, the USA is no longer viewed as a partner to the 'idea' of freedom of choice but instead to dogmatic ritual of oppressive governments. Internationally, there is oppression of eductation and distribution of items such as condoms that prevent the spread of HIV. Domestically, the USA promotes the spread of HIV when 'clean needle programs' are denied to ADDICTS. Addicts whom have fallen victim to traffiked drugs from 'Broken Borders.' Drugs provided by border towns where women and children are abused and die as objects of prostitution and an illegal sex trade.
The 'idea' of Minority Law in the USA has been a strength whereby people's lives have been enhanced both domestically and abroad. "Minority Law" as brought to full bloom by the Burger Court is being rolled back through inappropriate measures of a very bigoted Republican Party. These people not only seek to dominate issues of Minority Law for what they foolishly view as advantageous politics, but, they are beginning to hack away at majority law as well. Senator Lindsay Graham and Senator John Warner claim to be moderates, yet they represent some very disturbed priorites. These men are not misguided. They are seeking control over the Constitution in very dangerous and inappropriate ways. They are not moderates at all.
In the case of Habeous Corpus, Lindsay Graham purports to be an expert. He uses his view of the world to put forward faux agendas seeking approval of lay people in the electorate and authority of his power as a Senator and a majority party Senator.
From "Slate" Magazine...
"Here is the one thing I can tell you for sure as a military lawyer," Graham said, as quoted in the Congressional Record. "A POW or an enemy combatant facing law of armed conflict charges has not been given the right of habeas corpus for 200 years because our own people in our own military facing court-martials, who could be sentenced to death, do not have the right of habeas corpus. It is about military law. I am not changing anything. I am getting us back to what we have done for 200 years."
Yet in reality, it's Graham's provision that breaks with the law of the last two centuries. The Supreme Court has heard and granted habeas corpus petitions brought by enemy combatants challenging their detentions since the Civil War....(click on)
ESPECIALLY, in the case of Civil War whereby opposition have been brothers historically. As a matter of fact, it could be argued that the case of the American Taliban was one of civil war as well. In the case of Civil War whom are Americans and whom are not?
In the case of Senator John Warner two disturbing facts. He put forward a provision completely changing and voiding the role of 'civilian' at the leadership of the CIA. He did this with Democratic Senator Levin toeing the line.
"Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., and Levin, that committee's ranking member, have also included language in this year's defense authorization bill that would allow Hayden to keep his four-star rank while he serves as CIA director. The defense authorization bill would require that officers serving in civilian roles "not be subject to supervision or control by the secretary of defense or by any officer or employee of the Department of Defense, except as directed by the secretary or the secretary's designee concerning reassignment from such position." (click on)
Just like that. One day the director of the CIA is a civilian and the next day it's all different. Without a second thought.
Additionally, Senator Warner asked General Hayden during his confirmation hearings why the USA knew nothing about Iran. Had no intelligence on Iran at all.
Oh?
Top U.S. intelligence official: Iran may have nuclear bomb by 2010 (click on)
By Reuters
LONDON - America's leading intelligence official said Iran could have a nuclear bomb by 2010 and has accused Tehran of being the world's top state sponsor of terrorism.Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte also said lessons have been learned from intelligence failures in the Iraq war.On Iran's nuclear capability, Negroponte told BBC Radio on Friday: "The estimate we have made is that sometime between the beginning of the next decade and the middle of the next decade they might be in a position to have a nuclear weapon which is a cause of great concern."
Negroponte said Iran seemed determined to develop nuclear weapons but admitted "We don't have clear-cut knowledge.""They seem to be determined -- that is our assessment -- that they are determined to develop nuclear weapons," he said
Statement by IAEA Director General on Iran (click on)
31 May 2006 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei welcomes the announcement today by U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, expressing the readiness of the U.S. Government to join the EU-Iran talks once Iran responds positively to the IAEA Board of Governor´s call for the suspension of enrichment-related and reprocessing activities as a confidence-building measure.Dr. ElBaradei strongly encourages Iran to create the conditions necessary for the resumption of these talks, with U.S. participation, with a view to achieving a comprehensive settlement that is acceptable to both the international community and Iran.
Additionally ...
US Secretary of State and IAEA Head Talk Non-Proliferation (click on)
Staff Report
25 May 2006
IAEa Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and US Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice in Washington, 24 May 2006. (Photo: US Department of State)
Non-proliferation was the focus of talks between IAEA Head Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei and US Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice in Washington yesterday. At the heart of discussions: Iran, the recent US-India deal and new approaches to contain sensitive nuclear technology.
The Director General met with Dr. Rice as part of a two-week visit to the US.
... On the India-US Agreement on nuclear cooperation, Dr. ElBaradei said that for him, "this is a win-win agreement and I hope it will be also for Congress." Speaking with Dr. Rice, the IAEA chief said he hoped the deal could "make sure that India becomes a partner in the non-proliferation framework."
On New Approaches to Sensitive Nuclear Technology: Dr. Rice thanked Dr. ElBaradei for work on "some innovative non-proliferation ideas like fuel assurances that would allow the proliferation risks associated with civil nuclear programs to be minimized."
Dr. ElBaradei has been 'on the ground' in Iran as well as a team of inspectors. DON'T TELL me that the USA knows NOTHING regarding Iran.
ElBaradei Outlines Expectations as Inspectors Depart to Iran
Staff Report
30 September 2003
A team of senior IAEA inspectors will arrive in Tehran Thursday, 2 October launching an active and intense period of talks and inspections.
Speaking to reporters at IAEA Headquarters today, Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei called on Iran to provide “full transparency and full disclosure” of the history and nature of its nuclear program.
Dr. ElBaradei said these coming weeks will be “decisive” and that the 31 October deadline imposed by the IAEA Board of Governors was “non-negotiable” and should allow Iran “ample time” to “come with a full and accurate declaration.”
Minority Law.
There is such a thing.
There has always been such a thing.
The Republican Party is a parasite to this country and it's treasury as well as a hinderence to global peace, environmental safety and responsibility, nuclear non-proliferation, human rights and empowering women.
end
