NASA calls on employees to permit investigators to delve into medical, financial and past employment records, and to question friends and acquaintances about everything from their finances to sex lives, according to the suit. The requirements apply to everyone from janitors to visiting professors.
The suit claims violations of the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, 14th Amendment protection against invasion of the right to privacy, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Privacy Act, and rights under the California Constitution.
Those in more sensitive positions are asked to disclose financial records, list foreign trips and give the government permission to view their medical history.
Dennis Byrnes, a flight dynamics engineer who has worked on trajectory designs for Galileo and the Apollo moon landings, said he was afraid the requirements would prompt people to "flee" government service.
The plan is a "flawed promise of security at the expense of freedom," he said.
Employees who don't meet the deadline will be barred from JPL and will be "voluntarily terminated" as of Oct. 27.
Without irony, the Bush administration and the media charge that Iran is "meddling" in Iraq, otherwise presumably free from foreign interference.
The rhetoric about Iran has escalated to the point where both political parties and practically the whole US press accept it as legitimate and, in fact, honorable, that "all options are on the table," to quote Hillary Clinton and everybody else, possibly even nuclear weapons. "All options on the table" means that Washington threatens war.
The UN Charter outlaws "the threat or use of force." The United States, which has chosen to become an outlaw state, disregards international laws and norms. We're allowed to threaten anybody we want -- and to attack anyone we choose.
Terrorism will never be eradicated completely; does this mean future presidents will assert extraordinary war powers indefinitely?
I'm afraid of creating a society where the burden is on citizens to prove their innocence, rather than on government to prove wrongdoing. Most of all, I'm afraid of living in a society where a subservient populace surrenders its liberties to an all-powerful government.
Americans remain tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing total government supervision is necessary and helpful, and because they still enjoy a high level of material comfort. That tolerance may wane, however, as our standard of living falls due to spiraling debt, endless deficit spending at home and abroad, a declining fiat dollar, inflation, higher interest rates, and failing entitlement programs. At that point attitudes toward omnipotent government may change, but the trend toward authoritarianism will be difficult to reverse.
- "Supporters of the plan say letting more Mexican trucks on U.S. highways will save American consumers hundreds of millions of dollars." I'm missing how this will benefit American consumers, not just corporate interests. Is it pointing toward need for the old Wal-mart conversation of when do you stop sacrificing other important considerations just to get a lower price, or something else? Now if they're saying it will save corporations hundreds of millions, I can totally see that - but it's time to stop kowtowing to corporations.- Traffic congestion (both of traffic speed and environmental impacts), which slow, polluting, big trucks just make worse.- Making sure those inspections are up to snuff, instead of just waved through or subject to easy corruption. (similar to what I've seen in both Mexico and Thailand, just from my limited experiences)- I just get the feeling lots of little things haven't been thought about. For example, how do license and registration work in this case? If U.S. versions are required, who pays for it - the Mexican companies? What about the infrastructure strain, are they contributing to paying for that somehow?- Two of our big challenges with Mexico are illegal immigration and the drug trade. Do we not see either of these getting much worse through this arrangement?
Hmmm, should be interesting.Kucinich has arguably been actively on the smart side of more issues than any other candidate (voting against the Iraq war, supporting universal healthcare in smart ways, repeal of the PATRIOT Act, etc.) - I doubt he'd just now start espousing the 9/11 conspiracy stuff and might have an interesting new consideration. This could be another differentiator for him, or the end of his validity...
Then, the bluntness and candor that had so often damaged Mr. Goldwater's presidential campaign a decade earlier and his outspoken and harsh criticism of Nixon's failure to deal with the growing Watergate scandal were among the vital ingredients of his political renaissance.
The president, he contended, had shown "a tendency to dibble and dabble and argue on very nebulous grounds like executive privilege and confidentiality when all the American people wanted to know was the truth."
Everything that my country supposedly is and was, stood for then and now, is all slowly disintegrating in a fire that no one seems capable enough of putting out. This sort of corruption goes from deep within our military, our justice department, our Congress, and right up to the President himself. This sort of corruption would have a hard time being rooted out from the government even if there were a Stalin-esque purge. This sort of corruption will become a mortal wound to what it means to be American if left untreated.
It is scary to entertain the thought that the country you are a citizen of has suddenly become the bad guy - that you're on the wrong side of this, whatever this is. Looking across the field at the enemy, what adds to the depression is the notion that in this situation there are no good guys. Who's leading the charge for freedom, human rights, and all that lovely stuff that I was told we once were champions of. Who's waging that battle? Who's answering that call?
Where do we as a people, as a supposedly superior society, where do we go from here? How do we change this? Who do we hold accountable and how?
What kind of a nation have we become, when we sink to the depths of all we claim to hate - when we finally became what we beheld?
"And that's why in 1941, America invaded China," noted Stewart.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Pelosi's Stand on Impeachment is Killing the Democratic PartyIt's not just the Constitution that's suffering because of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's nutty and unprincipled "impeachment-off-the-table" position blocking any effort to impeach President Bush or Vice President Cheney for their many crimes and abuses of power.
Her position on impeachment is killing the Democratic Party too, by driving away not just progressived members of the party, but independents who voted for Democrats last November expecting some action in defense of the Constitution.
I see this anger welling up among progressives and independents everywhere I travel, as people say they've simply had it with the Democrats. The support of the party for a bill continuing funding for the war through September was terrible. The Democrats' rush to pass a bill granting Bush the authority to spy without a warrant on Americans, and to expand the power to spy domestically well beyond phones and internet to even include break-ins was a last straw.
My own little call for people so sign an "I Quit This Party" petition has seen a jump from 300 to now 400 signers. (Sign up on the column to the right.) When it gets to 500 I'll be sending the list off to Pelosi, as well as to the offices of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean.
Four or five hundred party defectors may seem like small loss, but it reflects a larger trend across the country.
Here's a letter I got from the head of a group of active Democrats in central Pennsylvania--the very kind of heartland area that Democrats will need if they are going to win the presidency and hang on to or make gains in Congress next year.
Writes Kathy Ember, a Democratic Committee member in Pennsylvania, and president of the Kutztown Democratic Club:
I am the president of a very active grassroots Democratic club just outside Philadelphia in PA. Recently, I got an email from Nancy Pelosi, asking all of us to help build the grassroots.
EXCUSE ME Nancy, but we have been working our butts off out here for years trying to do just that. WE are the ones that put that Democrats back in power in Congress. We've been there for you, but you have let us down by not holding the current administration responsible for their crimes.
Not only are you losing us...you are making it impossible for us to "build the grassroots". Do you know how people look at you now when you ask them to join the Democrats? They laugh in your face. Why, they want to know, should we join or support a party that has done nothing toward getting out of Iraq or impeaching this president?
I am in contact with other Democratic clubs across PA. Some have recently changed the word "Democrats" in their name to a lower case "d". Others have abandoned their association with the Democrats altogether and have formed instead "citizen action groups."
When will the Democrats in Washington wake up and realize that it's not impeachment that will hurt the party...it is the lack of it.
I believe that the aptly named Ember is just one spark in a prairie fire that is going to sweep away the conservative Democratic establishment in 2008. Whether it is by turning to third party candidates, or just sitting out the next election, these angry and frustrated Democrats are showing that they've been betrayed one too many times by the Democratic Party.
Either Pelosi--who is facing an election challenge by Cindy Sheehan in her own San Francisco district--better do an about face and open the path to impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney. Otherwise, she and her fellow party leaders are going to find themselves either ousted in primaries, or back in the position of minority "leaders" in 2009.
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that it can be invoked when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns .
Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with the United States Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis.
The senator from New York added, "When you've got that big an agenda facing you, you should not telegraph to our adversaries that you're willing to meet with them without preconditions during the first year in office."
Though he added that there is substantive difference between him and Clinton over meeting with adversaries, he added, "I think that strong countries and strong presidents meet and talk with our adversaries."
2)
Clinton and Obama also disagreed over his previous remarks that nuclear weapons should be off the table in dealing with Pakistan, where U.S. intelligence officials say al Qaeda-linked militants are holed up in tribal regions. Clinton has said it is not appropriate to take any option off the table on such a matter.
Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina said that Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, "is not a wonderful leader, but he provides some stability in Pakistan. And there is a great risk, if he's overthrown, about a radical government taking over."
The Hatch Act (5 USC 7321-7326) restricts the political activity of executive branch employees of the federal government. These federal and D.C. employees may not use official authority or influence to interfere with an election, solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency, engage in political activity while: on duty, in a government office, wearing an official uniform, or using a government vehicle .An employee who violates the Hatch Act shall be removed from their position, and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay the employee or individual.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Rove, who never graduated from college, is known for his encyclopedic knowledge of U.S. politics, able to speak knowledgeably about virtually any congressional district in the U.S., even down to the precinct level.
(just another reminder that choosing to forego college doesn't mean you can't go places)
Looks like along with the failures, that subpoena heat was finally catching up - hope it stays hot. A statement I agree with (in that I think it's being underestimated by the Dems):
In the interview with the Journal, Rove said he expects Senator Hillary Clinton to win the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. He described her as a ``tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate'' and said Republicans have ``a very good chance'' of holding on to the presidency, according to the Journal.
Bizarre... those electronic voting machines are a farce. (Counting votes shouldn't be that hard.)
Did anyone else say "WTF" that it would cost $184,000 for a full paper recount (of 14,000 ballots?)
Ten people could do that in 15 minutes...
Three volunteers can count and record one vote every 2 seconds (One to count, one to record, one to oversee). If you had five stations where this was going on, that's just 15 volunteers counting 150 votes a minute, or 9000 votes an hour.
In just over 90 minutes, they could have hand counted, recorded, and verified all the PAPER votes cast at the straw poll without spending a dime.
And how much did those Diebold machines cost? I bet more than a dime.
And how faulty are they? Apparently, they have problems every single election—even in a straw poll.
Six years ago today, the president, on vacation in Crawford, was handed an intelligence briefing document. It was titled, "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US."... Six years ago today, Bush received one of the most important warnings any president has ever received — and he told the CIA official who handed him the warning, "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
Continuing their NATO tradition... (No Action, Talk Only)
From: "Joe Trippi, Edwards for President" < info@johnedwards.com>
Subject: Send a BIG message to Gonzales
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:09:13 -0400
Dear friend,
Today, we need your help to send a message to insiders like George Bush's Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who have no respect for the rule of law, our rights and freedoms, or the Constitution.
Gonzales, the man who helped enable torture at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and illegal spying on Americans, is now facing a possible perjury investigation for lying to Congress.
President Bush may be incapable of admitting when he makes a mistake (yes, too many to count)—but you and I and the American people still have the power to tell Gonzales that it is time to go!
Add your name to our message to Gonzales today.
www.johnedwards.com/action/sign-petitions/gonzales
We have a simple message to deliver to Gonzales:
Remember the Constitution that you were sworn to uphold?
Remember what this country stands for?
Remember the laws you were supposed to defend?
If you do, then do what is right—just once—and resign.
But then again, maybe it has been so long since Gonzales read the Constitution that he forgot what this great document says.
Well, let's remind him.
www.johnedwards.com/action/sign-petitions/gonzales
For every signature we collect (and this is where friends and family become very helpful), we will send Gonzales a copy of the Constitution. You can even add a special message like:
"Do the right thing for once - resign."
"What will it take for you to resign?"
"I believe perjury is against the law."
"R-E-S-I-G-N"
Add whatever reasonable note you think could make him do what is right.
But here's the best part—with your help, we can send Gonzales a really BIG message.
If we gather over 25,000 signatures online, we're not just going to mail them.
We're going to put them at the bottom of the largest copy of the Constitution you have ever seen, and deliver it straight to Gonzales' office at the Robert F. Kennedy Justice Department building in Washington, D.C..
How big a copy of the Constitution? Big. Really big.
And maybe—just maybe, when he sees that Constitution with all of your signatures, Gonzales will remember that his job is not to protect George Bush—it is to protect the rights and freedoms of the American people.
And maybe—just maybe, if enough of us speak out he will once—just once—do what is right, and resign. No matter what he does, history will record that at this critical moment you and I took a stand. And we're going to keep standing up for what is right when our nation needs us—because that's what this campaign is all about.
So if you want to join the fight for real change, then please add your name right now and help send Gonzales a message he will never forget.
www.johnedwards.com/action/sign-petitions/gonzales
Thank you,
-- Joe Trippi
Monday, July 30th, 2007
P.S. - This grassroots movement to change America depends on your support, so contribute today—even a small contribution—and help John Edwards and our campaign fight for the kind of change you and America deserve.
www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/gonzales
How You Can Take Action 
Paid for by John Edwards for President 410 Market Street, Suite 400, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 (919) 636-3131. johnedwards.com . Contributions to John Edwards for President are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.
"If this change is made, it will virtually guarantee that a Republican wins the White House in 2008," Lehane said in an e-mail.
