11.30.2005

on darwin

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 9.33 pm

The Conservative Movement, as its progenitors like to call it, is now mounting a full-throttled attack on Darwinism even as it has thoroughly embraced Darwin’s bastard child, social Darwinism. On the face of it, these positions may appear inconsistent. What unites them is a profound disdain for science, logic, and fact.
In The Origin of the Species, published 150 years ago, Charles Darwin amassed evidence that mankind evolved through the ages from simpler forms of life through a process he called “natural selection.” This insight became the foundation of modern biological science. But it also greatly disturbed those who believe the Bible’s account of creation to be literally true. In recent years, as America’s Conservative Movement has grown, some of these people have taken over local and state school boards with the result that, for example, Kansas’s new biology standards now single out evolution as a “controversial theory.” Until a few weeks ago, teachers in Dover, Pennsylvania were required to tell their students they should explore “intelligent design” as an alternative to evolution. (The good citizens of Dover just booted out the school board responsible for this, summoning a warning from Conservative Coalition broadcaster Pat Robertson that God would wreak disaster on them.)

Social Darwinism was developed some thirty years after Darwin’s famous book by a social thinker named Herbert Spencer. Extending Darwin into a realm Darwin never intended, Spencer and his followers saw society as a competitive struggle where only those with the strongest moral character should survive, or else the society would weaken. It was Spencer, not Darwin, who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest.” Social Darwinism thereby offered a perfect moral justification for America’s Gilded Age, when robber barons controlled much of American industry, the gap between rich and poor turned into a chasm, urban slums festered, and politicians were bought off by the wealthy. It allowed John D. Rockefeller, for example, to claim that the fortune he accumulated through the giant Standard Oil Trust was “merely a survival of the fittest, … the working out of a law of nature and a law of God.”
The modern Conservative Movement has embraced social Darwinism with no less fervor than it has condemned Darwinism. Social Darwinism gives a moral justification for rejecting social insurance and supporting tax cuts for the rich. “In America,” says Robert Bork, “‘the rich’ are overwhelmingly people – entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, etc. – who have gained their higher incomes through intelligence, imagination, and hard work.” Any transfer of wealth from rich to poor thereby undermines the nation’s moral fiber. Allow the virtuous rich to keep more of their earnings and pay less in taxes, and they’ll be even more virtuous. Give the non-virtuous poor food stamps, Medicaid, and what’s left of welfare, and they’ll fall into deeper moral torpor.
There is, of course, an ideological inconsistency here. If mankind did not evolve according to Darwinist logic, but began instead with Adam and Eve, then it seems unlikely societies evolve according to the survival-of-the-fittest logic of social Darwinism. By the same token, if you believe one’s economic status is the consequence of an automatic process of natural selection, then, presumably, you’d believe that human beings represent the culmination of a similar process, over the ages. That the conservative mind endures such cognitive dissonance is stunning, but not nearly as remarkable as the repeated attempts of conservative mouthpieces such as the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard to convince readers the conservative movement is intellectually coherent.
The only consistency between the right’s attack on Darwinism and embrace of social Darwinism is the utter fatuousness of both. Darwinism is correct. Scientists who are legitimized by peer review and published research are unanimous in their view that evolution is a fact, not a theory. Social Darwinism, meanwhile, is hogwash. Social scientists have long understood that one’s economic status in society is not a function of one’s moral worth. It depends largely on the economic status of one’s parents, the models of success available while growing up, and educational opportunities along the way.
A democracy is imperiled when large numbers of citizens turn their backs on scientific fact. Half of Americans recently polled say they don’t believe in evolution. Almost as many say they believe income and wealth depend on moral worthiness. At a time when American children are slipping behind on international measures of educational attainment, especially in the sciences; when global competition is intensifying; and when the median incomes of Americans are stagnating and the ranks of the poor are increasing, these ideas, propagated by the so-called Conservative Movement, are moving us rapidly backwards.

- i mean arent we fighting a “culture war”AGAINST fundamentalist mullahs?
whom we revile as being “stuck in the middle ages”………

11.29.2005

street prophet

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 11.53 pm


anonymus graffiti - NOLA

11.26.2005

the war on education

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 6.07 pm

you GOTTA love THIS

the Wall Street Journal showed its true colors this holiday season..
with a top 5 reasons list of “things america can be thankful for”

#3..”• Catholic schools in New Orleans. That damaged city’s public schools remain closed, but at least eight of its 35 private Catholic schools are already back teaching, less than three months after Katrina. Here’s a modest proposal to help that city’s poorest kids: Don’t reopen any of the old public schools, 102 of 117 of which were performing below the state average in any case. Make the entire city a charter and voucher testing ground, and watch the creative spirit of teachers, entrepreneurs and students start to flow.”

citx thinks the ONLY thing flowing will be Money into religious schools and SALIVA from the mouths of pedophile priests

the New American Century™…pay attention suckers …it’ll be on YOUR doorstep soon!

11.25.2005

Noriyuki “Pat” Morita - actor/comedian - dies

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 1.11 pm

11.24.2005

THANKSTAKING

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 12.37 pm

fill your fat gob
feast on the fat of empire
choke

11.22.2005

ownership society

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 12.58 pm

The difference between ideas and things is obvious as soon as someone hits you over the head with an idea..
– so obvious that until recently it was entirely clear to the law.
Things could have owners and ideas could not. Yet this simple distinction is being changed all around us.

Ideas are increasingly treated as property – as things that have owners who may decide who gets to use them and on what terms.
Ideas such as one-click shopping, getting customer reviews on a website or even putting classified ads on the internet are now patented,
which is to say that somebody owns them – Amazon.com the first two, Google, the classified ad patent
– and anybody else who wants to make use of them must pay a rent to the owner.
Last week, Amazon was also granted a patent that covers getting shoppers to review the things they have bought on its website.
BT has tried to patent the hyperlink, Microsoft is trying to patent XML, a way of writing computer files that is fundamental to the operation of modern business.
The fight over the human genome and its patenting – and over the patenting of drugs – is another, and perhaps more familiar front in the war.
Ideas are codified as intellectual property and regarded as among the most important assets a company can own.
As where things are made becomes less important in the formerly industrialised nations of the west, the real value comes in the licence to allow others to make them.
Even facts about the world can, in some cases, become the property of commercial companies.
It was the promise of gaining patents on the human genome that lured investors into the private consortium that attempted to sequence it in competition with the public effort. Laboratory animals have already been patented, starting with the OncoMouse, an animal whose genome has been manipulated to ensure that it develops cancer.
Science was one of the first fields in which the confusion of ideas with things became apparent and damaging. It has always been one in which ideas and techniques were freely shared. You might say that any scientific experiment is worthless until it has been copied – if it can’t be repeated, it isn’t scientific.
Scientific papers, too, measure their influence by how often they are copied or quoted in others. But as the practice of science has grown more expensive, and more commercial,
so has the pressure to patent everything.
The public project that sequenced the human genome, led by Sir John Sulston and Bob Waterston, defined itself as in opposition to patenting data.
This wasn’t just an idealistic stance.
They were convinced that without freely available data the work would flow less swiftly, if at all, and that the results would be very much less useful.
In fact, the so-called private project run by Craig Ventner used a method that relied on the availability of publicly sequenced data as a springboard for the short cuts it took.
Sulston now, after his Nobel prize, spends much of his time campaigning for public access to scientific knowledge and its fruits.
In a world where material goods are so unevenly distributed, the effort to lock up ideas and intellectual riches as well seems to him quite monstrous.
The struggle over patents in science and technology is usually presented as one between rich countries and poor ones,
with big pharmaceuticals on the one side and almost everybody in the world on the other.
It is certainly true that the governments, the peoples and the industries of poor countries have fewer drugs than they might otherwise have because of international patent law.
But so do the big companies themselves. It is not just the results of scientific inquiry, like drugs, that are controlled as intellectual property.
It is, increasingly, the knowledge needed to make them or to understand how they are made.
Where scientists once worked over a safety net composed of other scientists’ experiments,
they can now have the impression that they are working over a minefield composed of other companies’ patents.

In this world, size is no protection. It just makes you a more succulent target for enemy lawyers.
It is the biggest and most enterprising firms, whose work is likely to make use of the greatest bodies of knowledge, that are most at risk.
Naturally, this has a chilling effect on the work that is done. Big pharmaceuticals must patent everything, if only to be certain the competition does not do it first.
They may, of course, later exchange patents with their rivals. But that simply helps to confine invention to the very largest companies, as the smaller ones have little to trade with.
This is even more true in the software industry.
The law of copyright – and of patents – long precedes computers, which fit very uneasily into the old frameworks.
Neither copyright nor patent law is satisfactory here, but patents on software threaten to have the most disastrous effect on the future of programming,
since only programmers can break it. In the beginning, computer software was neither patented nor copyright.
For so long as the machines had no users, only programmers, this made sense.
But in the mid-1970s, people started to see they could make money out of software.
This is not easy or obvious, because when I make a copy of your program, you still have the original, which works just as well as it ever did.
Equally, when you make a copy and sell it to me, it has cost you nothing, so why should you charge me for it as if it were a limited resource?
There is no answer from justice to these questions.
The only answer that makes sense is that certain arrangements of copyright promote a flourishing market in software, which is in society’s general interest,
so it should legislate for them. Without it there would be no commercial software industry, or any way to ensure that free software stays free.
Bill Gates first came to the attention of other hackers when he objected to their taking his earliest Basic programming language and copying it, as they were used to doing.
He won, and Microsoft’s riches rest on copyright law.
But they also depend on its constant violation.
Around every legitimate, full-priced piece of software hangs a penumbra of pirated versions. Most of these will be converted, at some time, into legitimate purchases.
But the fact that you can use most MS software for free has been an important factor in spreading the habit of using it and in killing competition.
The companies that make most fuss about “software piracy” know perfectly well that if it were entirely abolished, they would be less well off.
Software patents came along later, and are much more damaging, because they can be enforced. Copyright protects only particular program code.
It does not – crucially – protect the way that it looks and works. Nor does it protect the clever ideas contained within it.
In a world where software is only protected by copyright, competition works like evolution – by incremental improvement.
Patenting software could stop all that. Because patents are meant to protect inventions, they apply to ways of doing things in software. This can be discussed as if it were real machinery, but in fact it’s an idea, or an arrangement of ideas.
The final problem with software patents is that they can be taken out on business processes, such as Amazon’s one-click buying.
Here, what is protected is not even a trick to writing programs. It is a way of dealing with customers.
That is the kind of innovation the market is meant to spread more quickly than any other mechanism.
Patents on business processes obviously deliberately slow this process down, and if clever business ideas can be patented, why not other ideas?
There is a man in California trying to patent movie plots.
US venture capitalists now refuse to back a company until it has applied for a patent on its business practice, which they will keep if it fails, as most startups must.
If this practice continues, the chilling effect for the future is obvious.
The first company into almost any field will fail.
But if it leaves enough patents behind it, these may strangle all its successors.
Patenting ideas rewards failure and makes success more difficult. You can’t argue that they are needed as incentives.
Bill Gates made his fortune in a world without software patents – and if that’s not big enough to act as an incentive, nothing is.
There is some evidence that patenting has not slowed down research into genomes, simply because researchers ignore them.
But they are impossible to ignore in software, partly because the laws governing infringement are so drastic.
The directors and board members of any company found guilty of patent infringement are liable to triple damages, personally as well as corporately.
So companies that may infringe patents simply can’t be sold until the patent holders are bought off, and this is almost always easier and cheaper than fighting the patent,
no matter how worthless.
This gives the holders of patents tremendous powers of extortion. The only defence is for everybody to do it, which still further clogs up the system.

For most people these concerns may seem abstract – at least until they listen to music,
where arguments about ownership are fought over all the time in the courts and, increasingly, inside the gadgets that we use.
Only last week, Sony was forced to withdraw software concealed on some of its CDs that installs itself – without the owner’s knowledge or informed consent – on a computer,
prevents copies being made and breaks the machine if an attempt is made to remove it.
At least 47 recent CDs have been infected in this way, and one recent survey suggests that they in turn have infected half a million PCs during the last three months.
Any PC thus infected can be attacked by more obviously malevolent hackers who can use the Sony technology to install their own programs on the victims’ PCs.
But whether it is Sony or some Russian mafia gang that ends up working through these security holes,
it won’t be you, the poor sap who thought he/she owned the computer and had bought the music.
Legally, of course, we don’t buy music, any more than we buy software. We agree to buy certain, limited rights,
which vary from country to country but which have all been routinely disregarded until very recently.
In the US, for instance, it is illegal to copy your own CDs on to your own iPod.
Obviously, this is a law that is broken all the time, or nobody there would ever buy an iPod.
The 60GB model sells for $350; to fill it up with freshly downloaded content from the Apple store could easily cost another $25,000.
Just as with computer software, the legal market has broken down because there is no obligation for buyer and seller to agree on a price, or even on what is being sold.
Computers have made it possible for both sides to cheat on their agreements.
Buyers can use some forms of file sharing and sellers can write ever more restrictive licence agreements to make it clear they are not selling anything, merely renting it out.
There are some download services where the music you have already downloaded will no longer play if you stop your subscription.
The obvious answer is to pay for it with money similarly protected – special digital rights money, which would vanish, like fairy gold, when you stopped playing with the new toy. Nobody would accept payment on those terms. Why are there companies which think the opposite is fair?
The answer is that they are operating in a climate where intellectual property seems to guarantee an endless, effortless stream of money to its owners.
The big content owners have been determining the world’s intellectual property regimes for the last few decades.
By clever lobbying at extraordinarily boring conferences, they had managed by the late 90s to commit governments, through the world trade talks,
to a draconian program of laws extending the notion of intellectual property to the point where a Norwegian teenager can be threatened with jail
when he writes a clever program to let him watch DVDs on his own computer – because he is said to be providing tools to steal intellectual property.
This is madness. Ideas aren’t things. They’re much more valuable than that.

Intellectual property – treating some ideas as if they were in some circumstances things that can be owned and traded –
is itself no more than an idea that can be copied, modified and improved.
It is this process of freely copying them and changing them that has given us the world of material abundance in which we live.
If our ideas of intellectual property are wrong, we must change them, improve them and return them to their original purpose.
When intellectual property rules diminish the supply of new ideas, they steal from all of us.

11.17.2005

one MORE for the GALLOWS

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 2.45 pm

TRAITOR

HIS story

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 11.35 am

citizen x would like you
to consider these two articles:

1. ONE

2. TWO

for comparative purposes
with special emphasis on the LEGAL issues raised.

think JESSICA LYNCH

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 11.04 am

yeah..havent heard THAT name in a while..
Pvt. Jessica Lynch..the “hero” who was “rescued” from her Iraqi captors
maybe the absence of reference to miss Lynch of late
is due to the fact that the ENTIRE story of her rescue
and EVEN captivity were FABRICATED.
used as a politically expedient means to an end.

THIS story rings bells in MY head.
same old thing.
MY sources tell me that US intelligence personnel
were WELL AWARE of the existance of a secret torture jail
because they WERE THERE studying the techniques used by
the Badr brigade interrogators on “their own kind”
and I AM expected to believe the US forces in Baghdad
went to all the trouble of surrounding the interior ministry building
“seizing” it from Iraqi police..
all because a mother had reported her 15 year old son MISSING?
yeah
do the Navy S.E.A.L.s rescue cats out of FUCKING trees as well?

FUCK OFF KARL ROVE!..id wondered what you were up to.

11.16.2005

ciao meow

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 3.35 pm

why would anyone kill a child?

coming SOON to a town near you

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 12.08 pm

THE WAR ON CHILDREN

11.15.2005

the FIX is IN

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 9.23 am

As the legal noose tightens around the Bush inner circle, a shocking government report shows the floor under the legitimacy of their alleged election is crumbling.

The latest critical confirmation of key indicators that the election of 2004 was stolen comes in an extremely powerful, penetrating report from the Government Accountability Office that has gotten virtually no mainstream media coverage.
The government’s lead investigative agency is known for its general incorruptibility and its thorough, in-depth analyses. Its concurrence with assertions widely dismissed as “conspiracy theories” adds crucial new weight to the case that Team Bush has no legitimate business being in the White House.
Nearly a year ago, senior Judiciary Committee Democrat John Conyers (D MI) asked the GAO to investigate electronic voting machines as they were used during the November 2, 2004 presidential election. The request came amidst widespread complaints in Ohio and elsewhere that often shocking irregularities defined their performance.
According to CNN, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee received “more than 57,000 complaints” following Bush’s alleged re-election. Many such concerns were memorialized under oath in a series of sworn statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations conducted in Ohio by the Free Press and other election protection organizations.
The non-partisan GAO report has now found that, “some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes.”
The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non transparent software. Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that “public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines.” The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O’Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush.

Bush’s official margin of victory in Ohio was just 118,775 votes out of more than 5.6 million cast. Election protection advocates argue that O’Dell’s statement still stands as a clear sign of an effort, apparently successful, to steal the White House.
Among other things, the GAO confirms that:
1. Some electronic voting machines “did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected.” In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush’s official margin of victory.
2. “It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate.” Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.
3. “Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level.” 3. Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards can easily be done, according to the GAO.
4. The GAO also confirms that access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems(DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one machine provided access to the whole network. This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not require a “widespread conspiracy” but rather the cooperation of a very small number of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With 800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done by just one programmer.
5. Access to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily guessed passwords. So even relatively amateur hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote tallies.
6. The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy, meaning, again, getting into the system was an easy matter.
7. One DRE model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would cause the entire network to fail, re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the Presidency of the United States was decided.
8. GAO identified further problems with the security protocols and background screening practices for vendor personnel, confirming still more easy access to the system.
In essence, the GAO study makes it clear that no bank, grocery store or mom & pop chop shop would dare operate its business on a computer system as flimsy, fragile and easily manipulated as the one on which the 2004 election turned.
The GAO findings are particularly damning when set in the context of an election run in Ohio by a Secretary of State simultaneously working as co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign. Far from what election theft skeptics have long asserted, the GAO findings confirm that the electronic network on which 800,000 Ohio votes were cast was vulnerable enough to allow a tiny handful of operatives—or less—to turn the whole vote count using personal computers operating on relatively simple software.
The GAO documentation flows alongside other crucial realities surrounding the 2004 vote count. For example:
The exit polls showed Kerry winning in Ohio, until an unexplained last minute shift gave the election to Bush. Similar definitive shifts also occurred in Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, a virtual statistical impossibility.
A few weeks prior to the election, an unauthorized former ES&S voting machine company employee, was caught on the ballot-making machine in Auglaize County
Election officials in Mahoning County now concede that at least 18 machines visibly transferred votes for Kerry to Bush. Voters who pushed Kerry’s name saw Bush’s name light up, again and again, all day long. Officials claim the problems were quickly solved, but sworn statements and affidavits say otherwise. They confirm similar problems in Franklin County(Columbus). Kerry’s margins in both counties were suspiciously low.
A voting machine in Mahoning County recorded a negative 25 million votes for Kerry. The problem was allegedly fixed.
In Gahanna Ward 1B, at a fundamentalist church, a so-called “electronic transfer glitch” gave Bush nearly 4000 extra votes when only 638 people voted at that polling place. The tally was allegedly corrected, but remains infamous as the “loaves and fishes” vote count.
In Franklin County, dozens of voters swore under oath that their vote for Kerry faded away on the DRE without a paper trail.
In Miami County, at 1:43am after Election Day, with the county’s central tabulator reporting 100% of the vote – 19,000 more votes mysteriously arrived; 13,000 were for Bush at the same percentage as prior to the additional votes, a virtual statistical impossibility.
In Cleveland, large, entirely implausible vote totals turned up for obscure third party candidates in traditional Democratic African-American wards. Vote counts in neighboring wards showed virtually no votes for those candidates, with 90% going instead for Kerry.
Prior to one of Blackwell’s illegitimate “show recounts,” technicians from Triad voting machine company showed up unannounced at the Hocking County Board of Elections and removed the computer hard drive.
In response to official information requests, Shelby and other counties admit to having discarded key records and equipment before any recount could take place.
In a conference call with Rev. Jackson, Attorney Cliff Arnebeck, Attorney Bob Fitrakis and others, John Kerry confirmed that he lost every precinct in New Mexico that had a touchscreen voting machine. The losses had no correlation with ethnicity, social class or traditional party affiliation—-only with the fact that touchscreen machines were used.
In a public letter, Rep. Conyers has stated that “by and large, when it comes to a voting machine, the average voter is getting a lemon – the Ford Pinto of voting technology. We must demand better.”
But the GAO report now confirms that electronic voting machines as deployed in 2004 were in fact perfectly engineered to allow a very small number of partisans with minimal computer skills and equipment to shift enough votes to put George W. Bush back in the White House.
Given the growing body of evidence, it appears increasingly clear that’s exactly what happened.

GAO report

11.14.2005

democracy ‘aint worth a plug nickel

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 2.31 pm

The “accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands
… may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

In blatant defiance of the Constitution’s guarantees of Habeas Corpus and separation of powers,
the Senate on Thursday approved the Graham Amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Act by a vote of 49 to 42.
Five Democrats joined all but 4 Republican Senators in giving the President unfettered power to hold prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba,
for the rest of their lives, with no criminal charges, and no right to challenge their confinement by Habeas Corpus.
Last year, the Supreme Court held in Rasul v. Bush that the Guantánamo detainees are entitled to file habeas petitions in US courts
to contest their detentions. The high court determined that non-US citizens held at Guantánamo,
“no less than American citizens, are entitled to invoke the federal courts’ authority” to hear their petitions under 28 USC § 2241,
the US Habeas Corpus statute.

The Supreme Court stated firmly in Rasul, “Consistent with the historic purpose of the writ, this Court has recognized the federal courts’ power to review applications for habeas relief in a wide variety of cases involving Executive detention, in wartime as well as in times of peace.”
The Graham Amendment is crafted to render Rasul a nullity by cutting off the rights of Guantánamo prisoners to have their habeas petitions considered by the federal courts. The Amendment limits federal court review to the narrow issue of the validity of decisions rendered by Combatant Status Review Tribunals. These kangaroo courts were set up to determine whether the Guantánamo prisoners are “enemy combatants.” They are not independent judicial tribunals, but rather administrative proceedings stacked with military officials who can use secret or even fabricated evidence. The prisoner is not entitled to be represented by an attorney.
Only a handful of prisoners at Guantánamo have been charged with crimes. Their cases will be heard in military commissions that George W. Bush established to impose long sentences and even execute detainees with virtually no judicial oversight. Without habeas access to federal courts, Bush and Donald Rumsfeld will ostensibly serve as prosecutor, judge and executioner in the military commissions. This flies in the face of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. Three days before the Graham Amendment was passed, the Supreme Court announced it would review the legality of those military commissions in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
Even though the majority of prisoners detained at Guantánamo admittedly pose no threat to the United States, they continue to languish in virtual isolation under torturous conditions. Two hundred of them, who have decided death is preferable to life, are trying to starve themselves in a hunger strike.
Last month, the Senate passed the McCain Amendment, which makes it unlawful for any “individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location [to be] subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” Bush and Cheney have fought this measure tooth-and-nail because it would interfere with their ability to torture prisoners with impunity. The Graham Amendment will undermine the ability of tortured prisoners to enforce the McCain Amendment in federal courts.
By foreclosing judicial review of sentences imposed by the military commissions, the Graham Amendment also violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, a ratified treaty and therefore part of US law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. That article prohibits “the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” Unlawful combatants are protected by Common Article 3.
Violations of Common Article 3 constitute war crimes under the federal War Crimes Act. Violators can receive life in prison, or even the death penalty if the victim dies.

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s pernicious Amendment was proposed and passed with no debate about its far-ranging implications and without any hearings. The senators who voted for it bought into Bush’s “war on terror” mantra, ignoring the basic constitutional principles that inform our system of government.
These senators will have the opportunity to rectify this grave threat to the Constitution. As early as today, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) will attempt to strike from the Amendment the language barring Guantánamo prisoners from habeas relief. Senator John McCain may support a compromise. He said, “Based on ongoing discussions, it is entirely possible that the current version of the amendment will be modified to address concerns about lawful treatment and the scope of independent appeals.”
More than 100 legal scholars, including this writer, have signed a letter urging senators to adopt an amendment of the kind proposed by Senator Bingaman. The Center for Constitutional Rights concurs: “Habeas Corpus is a fundamental right that our entire legal tradition is founded on. Unfettered Executive power jeopardizes our free and democratic society. Creating ‘no law zones’ of unreviewable Executive power at Guantánamo undermines the moral standing of the United State in the eyes of the world and endangers the lives of US soldiers abroad.”
The Graham Amendment has also drawn opposition from Judge John Gibbons, who argued Rasul v. Bush before the Supreme Court; John Hutson, Dean of Franklin Pearce Law Center and former Judge Advocate General of the US Navy; and the National Institute for Military Justice. NIMJ President Eugene R. Fidell wrote, “We disable ourselves from objecting to flagrant lawlessness elsewhere when we shut the doors to our courts, which are the jewel in the crown of our democracy.”
Habeas Corpus, known as The Great Writ, is the final bastion of liberty for those unjustly held. The last time this country suspended Habeas Corpus was for the internment of tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans during World War II. That travesty is now universally recognized as a shameful chapter in our nation’s history. To suspend The Great Writ once again, while allegations of systematic torture continue to emerge from US prisons, will threaten our Constitution and render “quaint” our democracy.

11.11.2005

i solemnly swear…..

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 12.00 am


an OUTRAGE!

11.10.2005

Miró…Ladders Cross the Blue Sky in a Wheel of Fire

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 4.21 pm

….?

11.7.2005

you may ask…WHY?

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 7.17 pm

by Doug Ireland
republished from ZNet

Saturday night was the 10th day of the spreading youth riots that have much of France in flames—and it was the worst night ever since the first riot erupted in a suburban Paris ghetto of low-income housing, with 1295 vehicles—from private cars to public buses—burned last night, a huge jump from the 897 set afire the previous evening. And, for the first time, the violence born in the suburban ghettos last night invaded the center of Paris—some 40 vehicles were set alight in Le Marais (the pricey home to the most famous gay ghetto in Paris, around the Place de la Republique nearby, and in the bourgeois 17th arrondissement, only a stone’s throw from the dilapidated ghetto of the Goutte d’Or in the 18th arrondissement.

As someone who lived in France for nearly a decade, and who has visited those suburban ghettos, where the violence started, on reporting trips any number of times, I have not been surprised by this tsunami of inchoate youth rebellion that is engulfing France. It is the result of thirty years of government neglect: of the failure of the French political classes—of both right and left—to make any serious effort to integrate its Muslim and black populations into the larger French economy and culture; and of the deep-seated, searing, soul-destroying racism that the unemployed and profoundly alienated young of the ghettos face every day of their lives, both from the police, and when trying to find a job or decent housing.
To understand the origins of this profound crisis for France, it is important to step back and remember that the ghettos where festering resentment has now burst into flames were created as a matter of industrial policy by the French state.
If France’s population of immigrant origin—mostly Arab, some black—is today quite large (more than 10% of the total population), it is because there was a government and industrial policy during the post-World War II boom years of reconstruction and economic expansion which the French call “les trentes glorieuses”—the 30 glorious years—to recruit from France’s foreign colonies laborers and factory and menial workers for jobs which there were no Frenchmen to fill. These immigrant workers were desperately needed to allow the French economy to expand due to the shortage of male manpower caused by two World Wars, which killed many Frenchmen, and slashed the native French birth-rates too. Moreover, these immigrant workers were considered passive and unlikely to strike (unlike the highly political French working class and its Communist-led unions.) This government-and-industry-sponsored influx of Arab workers (many of whom saved up to bring their families to France from North Africa) was reinforced following Algerian independence by the Harkis.
The Harkis (whose story is movingly told by Dalila Kerchouche in her Destins de Harkis) were the native Algerians who fought for and worked with France during the post-war anti-colonial struggles for independence—and who for their trouble were horribly treated by France. Some 100,000 Harkis were killed by the Algerian FLN (National Liberation Front) after the French shamelessly abandoned them to a lethal fate when the French occupying army evacuated itself and the French colonists from Algeria. Moreover, those Harki families who were saved, often at the initiative of individual military commanders who refused to obey orders not to evacuate them, once in France were parked in unspeakable, filthy, crowded concentration camps for many long years and never benefited from any government aid—a nice reward for their sacrifices for France, of which they were, after all, legally citizens. Their ghettoized children and grandchildren, naturally, harbor certain resentments.
France’s other immigrant workers were warehoused in huge, high-rise low-income housing ghettos—known as “cités” (Americans would say “the projects”)—specially built for them, and deliberately placed out of sight in the suburbs around most of France’s major urban agglomerations, so that their darker-skinned inhabitants wouldn’t pollute the center cities of Paris, Lyon, Toulouse, Lille, Nice and the others of white France’s urban centers today encircled by flames. Often there was only just enough public transport provided to take these uneducated working class Arabs and blacks directly to their jobs in the burgeoning factories of the “peripherique”—the suburban peripheries that encircled Paris and its smaller sisters—but little or none linking the ghettos to the urban centers.
Now 30, 40, and 50 years old, these high-rise human warehouses in the isolated suburbs are today run-down, dilapidated, sinister places, with broken elevators that remain unrepaired, heating systems left dysfunctional in winter, dirt and dog-shit in the hallways, broken windows, and few commercial amenities—shopping for basic necessities is often quite limited and difficult, while entertainment and recreational facilities for youth are truncated and totally inadequate when they’re not non-existent. Both apartments and schools are over-crowded (birth control is a cultural taboo in the Muslim culture the immigrants brought with them and transmitted to their children, and even for their male grandchildren of today—who’ve adopted hip-hop culture and created their own French-language rap music of extraordinary vitality (which often embodies stinging social and political content)—condoms are a no-no because of Arab machismo, contributing to rising AIDS rates in the ghettos.
The first week in December will mark the 22nd anniversary of the Marche des Beurs (Beur means Arab in French slang). I was present to see the cortege of 100,000 arrive in Paris—it was the Franco-Arab equivalent of Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Justice The Marche des Beurs was organized from Lyon’s horrific, enormous suburban high-rise ghetto, Les Minguettes, with the help of a charismatic left-wing French Catholic worker-priest, Father Christian Delorme, and its central theme was the demand to be recognized as French “comme les autres”—like everyone else … a demand, in sum, for complete integration. But for the mass of Franco-Arabs, little has changed since 1983—and the integrationist movement of “jeunes beurs” created around that march petered out in frustration and despair. In recent years, its place has been taken by Islamist fundamentalists operating through local mosques—the mediatic symbol of this retreat into a separatist, communitarian-religious politics is the slick demagogue Tariq Ramadan, a philosophy professor who uses one cosmetically democratic discourse when he’s speaking on French TV, and a fiery, hard-line fundamentalist discourse in the Arab-language cassettes of his speeches that sell like hotcakes to Franco-Arab ghetto youth. (Ramadan’s double language has been meticulously documented by the Arab-speaking journalist Caroline Fourest in her book published last fall by Editions Grasset, “Frere Tariq: discourse, methode et strategie de Tariq Ramadan,” extracts from which have been published in the weekly l’Express.) But the current rebellion has little to do with Islamic fundamentalism.
In 1990, Francois Mitterrand—the Socialist President then—described what life was like for jobless ghetto youths warehoused in the overcrowded “cités”:
“What hope does a young person have who’s been born in a quartier without a soul, who lives in an unspeakably ugly high-rise, surrounded by more ugliness, imprisoned by gray walls in a gray wasteland and condemned to a gray life, with all around a society that prefers to look away until it’s time to get mad, time to FORBID.”
Well, Mitterrand’s perceptive and moving words remained just that—words—for his urban policy was an underfunded, unfocussed failure that only put a few band-aids on a metastasizing cancer—and 15 years after Mitterrand’s diagnosis, the hopelessness and alienation of these ghetto youths and their “gray lives” has only become deeper and more rancid still.
The response to the last ten days of violent youth rebellion by the conservative government has been inept and tone-deaf. For the first four days of the rebellion, Chirac and his Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin decided to let the hyper-ambitious, megalomaniacal Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, lead the government’s response to the youth’s violence and arson. Chirac and Villepin detest Sarkozy, who has been openly campaigning to replace Chirac as president in 2007 (Villepin was made P.M. in the hopes that he could block Sarkozy for the right’s presidential nomination), The President and his P.M. thought that “Sarko,” as he’s commonly referred to in France—who won his widespread popularity as a hardline, law-and-order demagogue on the issue of domestic insecurity—would be unable to stop the violence, and thus damage his presidential campaign.
But Sarkozy only poured verbal kerosene on the flames, dismissing the ghetto youth in the most insulting and racist terms and calling for a policy of repression. “Sarko” made headlines with his declarations that he would “karcherise” the ghettos of “la racaille”—words the U.S. press has utterly inadequately translated to mean “clean” the ghettos of “scum.” But these two words have an infinitely harsher and insulting flavor in French. “Karcher” is the well-known brand name of a system of cleaning surfaces by super-high-pressure sand-blasting or water-blasting that very violently peals away the outer skin of encrusted dirt—like pigeon-shit—even at the risk of damaging what’s underneath. To apply this term to young human beings and proffer it as a strategy is a verbally fascist insult and, as a policy proposed by an Interior Minister, is about as close as one can get to hollering “ethnic cleansing” without actually saying so. It implies raw police power and force used very aggressively, with little regard for human rights. I wonder how many Anglo-American correspondents get the inflammatory, terribly vicious flavor of the word in French? The translation of “karcherise” by “clean” just misses completely the inflammatory violence of what Sarko was really saying. And “racaille” is infinitely more pejorative than “scum” to French-speakers—it has the flavor of characterizing an entire group of people as subhuman, inherently evil and criminal, worthless, and is, in other words, one of the most serious insults one could launch at the rebellious ghetto youth.
As the rebellion has spread beyond the Paris suburbs as far south as Marseilles and Nice and as far north as Lille, Sarkozy has been thundering that the spreading violence is centrally “organized.” But on the telephone this morning from Paris, the dean of French investigative reporters—Claude Angeli, editor of Le Canard Enchaine—told me, “That’s not true—this isn’t being organized by the Islamist fundamentalists, as Sarkozy is implying to scare people. Sure, kids in neighborhoods are using their cellphones and text messages to warn each other where the cops are coming so they can move and pick other targets for their arson. But the rebellion is spreading because the youth have a sense of solidarity that comes from watching television—they imitate what they’re seeing, and they sense themselves targeted by Sarkozy’s inflammatory rhetoric. The rebellion is spreading spontaneously—driven especially by racist police conduct that is the daily lot of these youths. It’s incredible the level of police racism—they’re arrested or controlled and have their papers checked because they have dark skins, and the police are verbally brutal, calling them ‘bougnoules’ [a racist insult, something like the American “towel-heads”, only worse] and telling them, ‘Lower your eyes! Lower your eyes!’ as if they had no right to look a policeman in the face. It’s utterly dehumanizing. No wonder these kids feel so divorced from authority.”
A team report in today’s French daily, Liberation (where I was once a columnist), interviews ghetto youths, and asks them to explain the reasons for their anger. And, the paper reports, “All, or almost all, cite ‘Sarko’….a 22-year old student says, ‘Sarkozy owes us his excuses for what he said. When I see what’s happened, I come back to the same image: Sarkozy when he went to Argenteuil, raising his head and thundering, Madame, we’re going to clean all that up. Result? Sarko sent every body over the top, he showed a total disrespect toward everybody” in the ghetto.” A 13-year-old tells the Liberation reporters: ”’It’s us who are going to put Sarkozy through the Karcher…Will I be out making trouble tonight?’ He smiles and says, ‘that’s classified information.’” Another 28-year-old youth: “Who’s setting the fires? They’re kids between 14 and 22, we don’t really know who they are because they put on masks, don’t talk, and don’t brag about it the next day … but instead of fucking everything up where they live, it would be better if they held a demo, or went and fucked up the people and the stores in Paris. We’ve got minister, Sarko, who says ‘You’re all the same.’ Me, I say non, we all say non—but in reply we still get, ‘You’re all the same.’ That response from the government creates something in common between all of us, a kind of solidarity. These kids want to get attention, to let people know they exist. So, they same to themselves, ‘If we get nasty and create panic, they won’t forget us, they’ll know we’re in a neighborhood where we need help.”
Yesterday, when Sarkozy—who is Minister of Religion as well as Interior Minister—wanted to make an appearance at the Catholic Bishops’ conference in Paris, they refused to let him speak—and instead, the Bishops issued a ringing statement denouncing “those who would call for repression and instill fear” instead of responding to the economic, social, and racial causes of the riots. This was an unusually sharp rebuke directed squarely at Sarkozy.
Under the headline “Budget Cuts Exasperate Suburban Mayors,” Le Monde reports today on how Chirac and his conservatives have compounded 30 years of neglect of the ghettos by slashing even deeper into social programs: 20% annual cuts in subsidies for neighborhood groups that work with youths since 2003, cuts in youth job-training programs and tax credits for hiring ghetto youth, cuts in education and programs to teach kids how to read and write, cuts in neighborhood police who get to know ghetto kids and work with them (when Sarkozy went to Toulouse, he told the neighborhood police: “You’re job is not to be playing soccer with these kids, your job is to arrest them!”) With fewer and fewer neighborhood cops to do preventive work that defuses youth alienation and violence, the alternative is to wait for more explosions and then send in the CRS (Compagnies Republicaines de Securite, hard-line paramilitary SWAT teams). Budget cuts for social programs plus more repression, is a prescription for more violence.
That’s why Le Monde’s editorial today warned that a continuation of this blind policy creates a big risk of provoking a repeat of 2002, when the neo-fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen made it into the runoff.
And a majority of the country, empoisoned even more by racism after the violence of the last ten days, seems willing to accept more and more repression: a poll released last night on France 2 public TV shows that 57% of the French support Nicolas Sarkozy’s hard-line approach to the ghetto youths’ rebellion, now spreading right across France. Sarko’s demagogy seems to be working—at least with the electorate—but it won’t stop the violence, it will only increase it.

citx say- is VIOLENCE the only language we understand?

11.5.2005

paris IS burning

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 11.16 am

as rioting spreads from Paris suburbs throughout the country…
and confronted with POVERTY..UNEMPLOYMENT and INEQUALITY..
it seems the French govt would RATHER see..
-like their counterparts in the US-
DRUG DEALERS and ISLAMIC MILITANTS
the SAME sham that has kept the PENTAGON swimming in money
since the end of our EQUALLY fictitous COLD WAR.

POVERTY IS VIOLENCE
*MORT POUR RIEN*

citx asks…”why do we need to study history..IF we are FORBIDDEN to learn from it?”

11.4.2005

SHARIA law in US?/citx issues FATWA

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 1.21 pm

*mayor calls for graffiti writers to have thumbs cut off on television*
well kiddies..this is another example of the “mindset”
that has been gaining ground since the junta took power in 2000
it is characterized by INTOLERANCE
a preoccupation with “law” and “order”
even when, in practice, it may VIOLATE our most fundamental values
so
in the NEW tradition
of what used to be the USA

i am calling for GRAFFITI JIHAD
against the Mayor of Las Vegas
yes
a FATWA
calling for all graf crews to UNITE
and BOMB..BOMB..BOMB

11.1.2005

SA SOO FEE;)

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 11.16 pm

Qu’est qui ce passe?

watch HERE

serious implications

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 4.11 pm

the consequences of actions like THIS are all the MORE threatening as a result of their NOT being recognized.

maybe citizen x is being alarmist..
perhaps a GIGANTIC scandal will be had over the news.
ya.

Powered by WordPress