Tuesday, September 17, 2002

CATHOLIC BISHOPS SAY "UNPROVOKED ATTACK ON IRAQ IS UNJUST WAR, AND IMMORAL" -- THANK GOD SOMEONE HAS THE GUTS TO STAND UP TO BUSH


U.S. bishops oppose 'pre-emptive, unilateral' force against Iraq


By Willy Thorn

Catholic News Service



WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Any "pre-emptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq" cannot be justified at this time, the U.S. bishops told President Bush.



The bishops urged Bush "to step back from the brink of war and help lead the world to act together to fashion an effective global response to Iraq's threats."



In a letter to Bush, the bishops used Catholic just-war criteria to argue that unilateral strikes against Iraq would differ from the use of force against Afghanistan, part of a broader war against terrorism in response to Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.



(more)

TRENT "CHEERLEADER" LOTT TRIES TO BULLY SENATE DEMOCRATS TO RUBBER-STAMP HOMELAND SECURITY ACT, A.K.A. TOTALITARIAN STATE ENABLING ACT, OF 2002, URGES UNION BUSTING AND CONSTITUTION SHREDDING AS NATIONAL POLICY


Editorial by Liberty in Mourning


Trent Lott went on one of his infantile tirades today. He is whining about "the slow pace of Senate debate on the homeland security bill", and blames Sen. Robert Byrd (D-Hero) for "holding it up" for petty reasons like workers' civil service rights, collective bargaining agreements of unions, and the most disgusting thing of all, according to Mr. Lott: Constitutional protection from the arbitrary, excessive, unchecked executive power which the Bushies so crave.



While Mr. Lott sniveled, ``I fear the Senate Democrats are fiddling while Rome has the potential to burn,'' White House propaganda mouthpiece Ari fLIEscher crabbed, ``It's being talked to death.'' BOO HOO. My nose--and hemorrhoids--bleed for them! :-( [/sarcasm]



Sen. Byrd admonished Sen. Lott that this legislation cannot be passed as is--especially not to a regime with an anti-democratic penchant for secrecy as this one, with utter distrust and contempt for Congress and the people. Byrd essentially makes the argument that if Bush got exacty what he wanted, Congress will effectively be handing the pResident the keys to a totalitarian police state, in which the Constitution itself would be outlawed; American citizens would be reduced to subjects of a third-world dictatorship at the mercy of the whims of the executive branch; workers would be reduced to mere pawns and playthings for Bush's abusive delight; and Congress would not be allowed to keep an check on any abuse and/or excess of power. The executive branch would become emperor and Congress would become little more than the Parliaments in Communist dictatorships: window dressings and puppets used to rubber-stamp the emperor's every whim.



Is the America Trent Lott, Ari fLIEscher, and the neoconservative Repugs want --a totalitarian police state where the people have no rights--the America we should settle for? Are Americans wearing blinders? Have We the People been hoodwinked into thinking we should surrender our liberties in exchange for the ILLUSION of security? AMERICA, WAKE THE HELL UP NOW!!! FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL FOR YOUR LIBERTY BECAUSE TOMORROW MAY BE TOO LATE TO GET IT BACK!!


U.S. court rules against closed 9/11 hearing (REUTERS)

DETROIT, Sept 17 (Reuters) - A district court in Detroit ruled on Tuesday that the government violated the constitutional rights of a Lebanese man arrested after the Sept. 11 attacks by subjecting him to secret detention and deportation hearings.

Judge Nancy Edmunds of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan also ruled that Rabih Haddad, the Michigan-based founder of an Islamic charity who was arrested in December, 2001, for overstaying his tourist visa, should be freed within 10 days or granted new hearings that are open to public scrutiny.

(snip)

"Courts have found that an open hearing is fundamental to guarantee a fair hearing," she said.

(snip)

In one of the previous rulings, a federal appeals court in Cincinnati also ruled last month that the Bush administration had violated the constitution in Haddad's case.

(snip)

"The government has failed to make a particularized showing that its interests in fighting terrorism are implicated in Haddad's case," she said.

"An open detention and removal hearing will assure the public that the government itself is honoring the very democratic principles that the terrorists who committed the atrocities of 9/11 sought to destroy," she added.

Monday, September 16, 2002

ARE REPUBLICANS HYPOCRITES ON THE TERRORIST ISSUE? WE THINK SO, AND WE HAVE PROOF!

With all the Republican tough talk on international, Islamic terrorism, Democrats, back in June of 2002, charged that the GOP is soft on domestic terrorism. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) blasted the GOP for blocking Federal hate crimes legislation, rightfully asserts that "hate crimes are a form of domestic terrorism" because the crimes target not just one person, but aim to intimidate or force an entire group of people into silence or submission. And looking back on his charges, and upon the actions of the Bush regime, Kennedy is absolutely right.

Neocon chickenhawk Republicans sanctimoniously parade around television and AM hate radio accusing Democrats of being soft on terror when they won't rubber-stamp Bush's Homeland Security (read: American Gestapo) Act of 2002--replete with union-busting, pension-robbing, Constitution-shredding, Posse-Comitatus-Act-flouting, lawless, Internet-censoring, religious-fanaticism-enabling, free-speech-squeching, ethnic-profiling, due process-robbing, buck-passing, and dictatorship-building provisions all sneaked into it, which actually reads more like a blueprint for a police state than a plan to fight terrorism--but throw temper tantrums when Democrats push for a bill which actually will crack down on domestic terrorist acts. Why? Could it be that the fascist wing of the GOP actually either condones, supports or even secretly encourages acts of terror when they 1) occur within the borders of the United States; 2) are directed at (unpopular) racial, ethnic, religious, or gender minorities, such as blacks, Arab-Americans, Muslims, or gays; and/or 3) there is a more likely chance than not that these crimes will not only go unpunished, but actually rewarded? Skeptical minds just want to find out.
FAUX NEWS: MURDOCH'S FASCIST PROPAGANDA RAG INFLAMES HATRED OF DEMOCRATS BY SUGGESTING THAT 5 SUSPECTED TERRORISTS NABBED IN BUFFALO, NY SUBURB MENTIONED AS "REGISTERED DEMOCRATS"

Fox News is at it again with its irresponsible, inflammatory, anti-Democratic, right-wing tabloid lies they try to pass off as news. What are these Nazis up to? Trying to outlaw the Democratic Party by suggesting to its target audience of dittoheads that Democrats sympathize with terrorists if they side with the Constitution instead of a imperious dictator, as Fox News suggests we should?! Buffalo News, the local paper which reported that five men were picked up for providing support to terrorist organizations, was the first to mention such tripe.

What Fox doesn't bother to tell its viewers is that the right-wing fascist government, which so aggressively persecutes Democrats and liberals, goes out of its way to protect the most dangerous terrorists in America: the white, right-wing domestic terrorists who routinely victimize racial/ethnic minorities, terrorize gays, rape women, bomb abortion clinics (I oppose abortion, but two wrongs don't make a right), and plot to undermine democracy in America and replace it with a Christianist fundamentalist dictatorship--and have the unmitigated gall to condemn Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, when they do the same things themselves. To the Christianist fundamentalists, whose double standards of terrorism are outdone only by their hatred and hypocrisy in general, it's OK for THEM to perpetrate acts of terror with inpunity, but it is NOT OK for Muslims to do likewise, nor is it OK for liberals to question the illegitimate authority of an unelected dictator.