Dean is first and great.

In response to this post

I want you to consider this:

Defend the Alien Tort Claims Act

The Alien Tort Claims Act is one of the only tools Americans have to make human rights abusers pay for their actions. Now the U.S. Justice Department is trying to undermine this important law. Don’t let it happen!

The Alien Tort Claims Act allows foreign victims of serious human rights abuse abroad to sue the perpetrators in U.S. courts. No other country has a law quite like it. The accused perpetrator must be in the U.S. to be served court papers, but otherwise neither the victim nor the perpetrator need to reside in the United States.

The ATCA was written in 1789, one of the first laws of the new American republic. The text of the law reads, in its entirety: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort [personal injury] only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”

So the ATCA grants U.S. courts jurisdiction in any dispute where it is alleged that the “law of nations,” or international laws, are broken. This is significant because it gives foreigners the right to seek compensation for violations of international law in U.S. courts.

The original intent of the law was probably to persuade European countries that the new United States would not become a haven for pirates. But in the modern age, it’s equally important that the United States not be a haven for human rights abusers.

There was no human rights movement in 1789, and there was no international human rights law. However, by 1979 torture was a violation of the “law of nations.” So, the father and sister of Joel Filartiga, a seventeen-year-old who had been tortured to death in Paraguay, used the act against Joel’s torturer, who was living in Brooklyn at the time.

In the Filartiga case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the Alien Tort Claims Act allows victims to sue in U.S. courts for serious violations of international human rights law.

Joel’s family members never collected a dime of the $10 million damages they won in the Second Circuit. But they won the satisfaction of seeing justice done, of knowing that the crimes of Joel’s torturer had entered into the public record.

Since 1979, only 25 cases against corporations have been brought under the ATCA. The cases are hard to bring. Because the plaintiffs are rarely able to collect any money, even when they win, the lawyers who bring these cases are working basically for free. Documenting crimes in a faraway country can be difficult (the work of Human Rights Watch has been used in some cases as evidence).

Some cases, such as the Bosnian victims of a rape camp who sued the Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, involve complicated legal arguments about who can be held responsible for a crime. In recent years, in a handful of cases, the ATCA has been used in lawsuits against U.S. corporations who are accused of knowingly benefiting from serious human rights abuse.

For more than twenty years, ATCA cases have been brought without opposition from the U.S. government, both Democratic and Republican administrations. Occasionally, the courts have asked for the opinion of the U.S. State Department in one case or another. But with the administration of George W. Bush, we have seen a dramatic new campaign against this valuable law.

The U.S. Justice Department recently filed an “amicus” (friend of the court) brief in a Ninth Circuit case involving the energy company UNOCAL and a group of Burmese people who say they were forced to work as slaves on a UNOCAL pipeline project. The Justice Department brief took issue with the very use of ATCA to file human rights cases.

Some international business groups are openly campaigning against ATCA. They are asking Congress to repeal or amend the law so that companies cannot be sued.

What you can do:

Write to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and tell him to stop attacking ATCA.

Write your representatives in the U.S. House and Senate and urge them not to let this law be undermined. Members of Congress can write amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs supporting the use of ATCA in ongoing court cases. They can make sure that no legislation is proposed to repeal or amend ATCA -- and if such legislation does come to a vote, they can make sure it’s defeated.

Raise awareness of this issue. Use the information on this Web site to write an op-ed in your local paper.

Get your local bar association interested. Lawyers groups have a special role to play.

Write to the businesses behind the anti-ATCA campaign and tell them to start behaving like good corporate citizens.



 

Forgot the link to the previous article

what a great thread article in the latimes. kudos.

143. (last thread)

 Thanks Linda.  I think you will start seeing me more here.  It is time to stop lurking a jump in the mix.

Anderson wrote "I think you will start seeing me more here."

Just so you're not surprised when it happens, as a matter of routine, most of the thread comments on most days won't relate to the topic of the lead article.

tom, ya don't say.

are u ready to rumble, literally are you ready.

REID AND FEINGOLD UP BUSH'S ANTY

Washington D.C. -­ U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.

"I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation," Reid said. "I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period."

"I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end," Feingold said. "Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq."

The language of the legislation reads:

(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

Exactly the opposite of what George Bush has been demanding. It just got interesting.

I hope that the Dems can stand fast when the 'thugs and their media stenographers turn up the heat. For someone with an approval rating below 1/3, Bush is pretty uppity.

6.

 Yeah, I know.  I've been lurking for months.  I  kind of  wish we (look I wrote  "we")  did stick more to the topic, but then again... Phil (we're usually ahead of the blog by two or more posts) and others have a point.  

Kevin, Thank you for bringing Patrick's story to us.
Thank you Patrick.

--------------------
5.
Andrew, excellent!

-------------------

7.
linda b

WOOOOOT! THANK YOU for this post!!! What great news. I'm just about to forgive Senator Reid!
Russ, Russ, Russ, Russ!!!!

Throughout the land of pundits, you can hear the sound faintly but it's clear. It goes, "Things are looking better in Iraaaaaaaq. The surge is woooorrrrking..."

Many pundits and White House apologists have come right out and said it  Fox News Channel's John Gibson took a break from encouraging white supremacy to say it. The Washington Post's Robert Kagan said it. Bill Kristol said it, too. Then again, everything Kristol has ever said about Iraq -- EVER -- has been total horseshit.

We all know about Senator McCain's completely debunked observations this past week. As Crooks & Liars noted, he even walked the streets of Baghdad on Sunday whilst flanked by more firepower than the goddamn Death Star. Though Newsweek later reported:

"Less then 30 minutes after McCain wrapped up, a barrage of half a dozen mortars peppered the boundaries of the Green Zone, where the senators held their press conference."

But it's working, damn your eyes! Flip through the prime time talking head shows this week and you'll hear it. You don't really need to actively watch to hear it, either. In fact, I encourage you to avert your eyes anyway, especially if Hannity has a member of the administration on his show. His hair and eyes get this sparkly-twinkly teen-girl-on-prom-night glow that shines brightly enough to burn your retinas. Wear a welding mask or maybe do something more constructive and leave the TV sound on in the background. You will absolutely hear at least one or two pundits allude to the idea that the escalation surge is working. And that's the plan. It's the well-worn modern Republican media strategy: you don't need to win every debate, you just need to create enough doubt (reasonable or otherwise) in the minds of the people and you've won the argument.

It's not working this time, at least by way of the poll numbers. The American aren't getting their message, according to Gallup.

"A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds nearly  two in three Americans believing the current escalation of U.S. troops in Baghdad 'has not made much difference or has actually made the situation there worse.'

A full 60-percent of Americans want the troops home by 2008, according to the same poll. The congressional Democrats understand this, but the president and the dwindling few who agree with him are simply too self-deluded to know that we're only wasting American and Iraqi lives, resources and money, and we'll continue to do so until the president leaves office. We're looking at another two years (or more) of blood and death because a small faction of cultists are putting the president's ego over reasonable strategy in the region.

I can hardly think of anything else that's more brazenly homicidal than encouraging the deliberate killing of more soldiers and civilians just so President George W. Bush can leave office without having to change his mind. It's like Rove grabbing a small animal and saying, "You know, I went through the trouble of capturing this small animal, I might as well rip its head off. No turning back now, yo! Whee!"

And we're not winning -- nor will we ever defeat the insurgency in Iraq using military forces. Seriously, it's bordering on psychotic to believe that President Bush, a man who couldn't describe the difference between Shi'ites and Sunnis before the war, could somehow be the first commander-in-chief in the history of warfare to overcome a guerrilla insurgency without a 10-to-1 advantage and nearly four years after losing the initiative on the battlefield.

No matter what degree of doubt the White House sprinkles into the water supply, the numbers don't lie. March sadly posted the highest number of civilian deaths in Iraq this year: 1,808. By this or any other measure, it's not working. No military effort will ever work in Iraq. Ever.

But I suppose if enough people are eventually led to believe that we're winning, then we won. Reality is perception. So why can't we just say we've won now? I think I can go along with that. We won! Wow, it's actually kind of fun to lie to yourself. I can see why it's so popular with Bush, Cheney, Malkin, Gibson, Kristol and Senator McCain.

So, if Bush vetos, and they decide to give funding to operate, they will slide in a separate Bill to start the redeployment and STOP FUNDING, to ensure and end to our occupation.


YEAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!

12.

Well, maybe this is wishful thinking, but aren't bills considered sort of in the order they're filed? If so, then if the supplemental is vetoed, then this latest one will already by in the cue--clean, without any funding or "pork" attached.

BUSH,IRAM AND SELECTIVE OUTRAGE

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040207M.shtml

  One of the least endearing features of Washington's political/media hierarchy is its propensity for selective outrage, like what is now coming from George W. Bush about the "inexcusable behavior" of the Iranian government in holding 15 British sailors whom Bush has labeled "hostages."

    This is the same President Bush who often mocks the very idea that international law should apply to him; he's fond of the punch line: "International law? I better call my lawyer." But Bush becomes a pious defender of international law when it suits his geopolitical interests.

    The major U.S. news media predictably follows along, getting into an arms-crossed harrumph over foreigners trampling on the inviolate principles of international law, the same rules that should never constrain U.S. actions.

    So, when British sailors were captured on March 23 after they may or may not have crossed over an ill-defined demarcation between Iraqi and Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf, the assumption in the U.S. media was that Iran must be wrong.

By CRISTIAN SALAZAR, Associated Press Writer 31 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Authorities are investigating a suspicious fire that destroyed the synagogue of an anti-Zionist Jewish group that had been heavily criticized for attending a conference in Iran last year where participants debated the Holocaust.

No one was injured in Sunday night's fire. A senior Neturei Karta rabbi and his family, who lived on the top floor of the three-story structure, were not home.

"It may in the future be found to be accidental, but at this time we're treating it as a suspicious fire and we're investigating it as such," said Sgt. Daniel Hyman of the Ramapo Police Department, which serves the suburban community of Monsey, about 35 miles north of New York City.

Neturei Karta had been the target of threats in the past because of its involvement in the anti-Zionism movement. The group does not dispute that the Holocaust occurred, said Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss.

"There's no question that the issue is to stifle the opposition to Zionism," Weiss said after the fire. "Anybody who would like to reveal to the world their opposition to this political, national movement of Zionism is attacked."

The fire was reported in....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070402/ap_on_re_us/synagogue_fire_8

i saw the C-Span book TV piece on Blackwater referred to on the previous thread. it was an interview of Jeremy Scahill about his book "Blackwater: The Rise Of The World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army", and it was absolutely horrifying.

suggestion: write Senators and Reps identifying yourself as a taxpayer and demand that they not vote any more funds for the war until they give us details on how the first $500-600 billion has been spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how this next $100 billion is going to be spent. In particular, how much of it is going to private contractor companies/security firms/mercenaries, who are they, what exactly are we paying them for, and exactly what lasting or even temporary value have we gotten for our money.

and then ask them about the hundreds of millions of dollars (billions, maybe?) that FEMA/Homeland Security funneled to Blackwater and other security firms in New Orleans and across the Gulf coast following Katrina.

and then ask them about the billions of dollars we are paying these companies in other "hot spots" around the world.

privatization of the military and other government functions is just a get-rich-quick con game - and American taxpayers get suckered every time.

House Speaker Pelosi arrives in Lebanon for talks with officials

By The Associated Press

BEIRUT, Lebanon - U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi arrived in Lebanon Monday for talks with Lebanese officials as part of a fact-finding trip to the Middle East that has drawn criticism from the White House because it includes a visit to Syria.

Pelosi, heading a congressional delegation, arrived in Lebanon from Israel, where she met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the families of the two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah.....

....Pelosi's trip has drawn criticism from the White House because of a planned stop in Syria on Wednesday. The White House called her Syria visit last week a bad decision because the administration considers the country a supporter of terrorism....

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/845016.html

I'll be gone for a week bloggers - taking a trip down the coast

Where is the Oversight???

Democracy in America is in danger!  Corporations Rule!

The Military Industrial War Machine Eisenhower warned about  is now in existence.  See the article on Mercenaries working for the State Department.

13.

Monica Smith

I'm sure you know better than I if when a Bill was already introduced, passed, gets vetoed and needs to funded, if it gets attention(brought up again) before the new Bill linda b posted.

I'm searching, and I haven't fund that Bill yet.


Oh, this is getting me excited and hopeful.......I know, I know, tamper it down...so much still can happen, but it's a really good sign.......Planning for the worst Bush is capable of and having a back up to say BAM, take THAT. :)


linda b, where did that Feingold/Reid news come from?

Fred
18.

Be safe. And stay away from Wheat Gluten. :)

For your amusement, I am posting this transcript excerpt from, yes, believe it, yesterday's Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace asking Sen. Mitch McConnell some questions:

"WALLACE: Senator McConnell. . . . Back in 1996, you maybe remember there was a controversy in the Clinton White House about the fact that they had obtained FBI documents on hundreds of former officials from the Reagan years and the Bush, H.R. Bush, Bush-41 years.

"Here on "FOX NEWS SUNDAY back in 1996, you demanded full Congressional hearings. Let's take a look.

"(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

"MCCONNELL: I think the testimony, obviously, ought to be sworn testimony and we ought to go all the way into this and take as much time as we can to reassure the American people that this sort of thing is not going to happen in the future.

"(END VIDEO CLIP)

"WALLACE: Given that same reasoning, Senator McConnell, shouldn't Karl Rove, shouldn't other White House officials be called before Congress, testify in public and under oath?

"MCCONNELL: Well, first of all, with regard to Justice Department, there are going to be hearings. The attorney general's coming up. There was a hearing Thursday.

"With regard to White House officials, it'll be up to the president to decide, frankly, whether and when and under what circumstances members of his own administration testify.

"Sometimes -- of his own White House staff. Sometimes White House staff has testified, sometimes not. When presidents have dug in their heels, it's gone to court.

"This kind of tug of war has gone under administrations of both parties for a long time.

"WALLACE: Senator McConnell, my point is that back in 1996, you were saying those White House aides should testify in open hearing. These were White House aides of Bill Clinton, in open hearing under oath.

"Why shouldn't the same rules apply for the Bush White House and people like Karl Rove?

"MCCONNELL: And what I'm telling you is the president's going to make that decision. I was a senator. I was talking about an administration. The president made the decision in 1996, President Clinton, as to how that would be done, and this president's going to make the same decision and we'll see how it all works out.

"WALLACE: Well, you're still a senator. So the question is do you call on this president to do the same thing?

"MCCONNELL: I'm calling on this president to do what he thinks is appropriate with regard to his aides testifying. What Fred Fielding, the White House counsel, has offered is, I gather, still under discussion as to how and when and under what conditions the White House aides will testify."

Chris Wallace setting a snare trap for Sen. McConnell on Fox News:  Does this mark the onset of the Apocolypse?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,263107,00.html

Ha, ha.  Happy April Fool's Day, Sen. McConnell.  You are one.

Hi everybody!

Wow, I wander off for awhile and look -- HTML formatting and all kinds of other goodies. Kewl.

I have signed on as the media gal for an upcoming local campaign of a DFA member. The announcement is still a week away so I can't say too much but once we go official I will keep you up to date on how it's going. We are very optimistic!

Good to see you all again!

From the supremes:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/2/1...

20.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/20070402.html

Shoot, try this

http://tinyurl.com/2su5g3

Wow, volney's back!

16.

NO, PRIVATIZATION OF THE MILITARY and other government functions is a scheme to get out of being accountable to the public for how their power and their money is being used. The amount of money is almost irrelevant. They'd do it for no money, as they did during the days of slavery, if they could.
The mentality of the power-crazed has not changed.

22.

This is a good example of my hypothesis that the primary characteristic of Republicans is that they want a leader so they don't have to make decisions. It's a choice-avoidance strategem.

When McConnell challenged Clinton's staff to be forthcoming, he was doing what someone told him. Ditto for his position now. He's doing and saying what his leader told him.

Obedience is freedom from responsibility and accountability. That's a hard thing for people who LIKE making choices and being responsible to understand, but we have to try.

If you make the wrong assumptions about people's motives, you're going to end up wrong.

Think about it. If you're always willing to do what someone else tells you, aren't you being totally unselfish? And isn't that a virtue? The right is always right because it has only one duty--obedience. When you are obedient, you can do no wrong.

Volney! Hey, welcome back.

_________________________

Monica, thank you for the link.

29. Monica Smith
Mon, 04/02/07
11:20 am

Monica, we're somewhat in agreement - the lack of accountability and results is a big part of what I meant by "suckered".

But I completely disagree about money being irrelevant. Money is a very seductive form of power - in our pseudo-capitalist system it is THE most universal and effective form of power. The availability of huge sums of easy money is central to the privatization con game and in large part accounts for the magnitude and immoral excesses of the privatization problem.

Slavery was an economic system; the racist beliefs used to justify slavery were just propaganda tools purveyed and played upon most effectively by the elites -- both north and south -- who benefited from it. If slavery hadn't meant huge profits for the few at the expense of the many, it would not have lasted as long as it did.

This story is from the Silicon Valley Metro (ht: Robert, our intrepid copyeditor):

SEN. Dianne Feinstein has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. As previously and extensively reviewed in these pages, Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein.

As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design. She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband's companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/49970...

33.

Feinstein should have resigned from her subcommittee a very long time ago. Situations such as hers somewhat dilute the perceived severity of the Repugs' corruption in DC.

Totally off topic...

I am sitting in my office in downtown Cincinnati and I hear the Reds Opening Day Parade going by on the street below.  It is spring and baseball is back.

 In that parade are many of the politicians running for City Council.  I had hoped to be marching with Greg Harris, my favorite candidate, but I am only working 2 days this week  (I am having surgery to repair a tear in my knee's miniscus on Weds) so I have to actually work rather than take off to march.

On that note, you may recall that I mentioned that I am on the nominating committee for the Democratic City Council Candidates (this if for the general election, we don't have a primary for Council).  We have 9 candidates and there are 9 seats on council, so I know that the preference will be to nominate all 9 for endorsement (then the vote goes to the entire body).  I have reservations about endorsing a couple of the candidates who have been acting rather dino-ish lately, so I will speak up and express my concerns.  I may not change the outcome but I will at least ensure that a progressive voice is heard.  The meeting is tomorrow, wish me luck.

linda in SFNM

I will be walking in other parades (once my knee heals) - I sure will miss walking with you!

22.

Tom

Thanks for that transcript. McConnell represents hypocrisy at its best and most entertaining.

35.

Lynn, good luck with your surgery. I had similar last year on one knee, it was well worth the temporary inconvenience. I'm sure your candidate will be missing your support in the parade but you'll be back stronger than ever.

34. Joan* In*Florida
Mon, 04/02/07
12:24 pm

Feinstein is only the tip of the iceberg - many Dems (especially the DLC ones) at all levels, including in state governorships and statehouses, are and have been heavily invested in the military-industrial-congressional-academic complex for the past 25 years. It's getting progressively worse, more costly and more convoluted, and is increasingly hidden from public view.

16. Jean Wyant: great suggestions, thanks!



Lynn - good luck with the surgery! xoxoxoxoxoxo

good luck with the surgery, mine is coming up (same one)

your namesake has a pretty new baby, and Jessica is next

39.

True Jean except most is not all -- at least in DC -- have not placed themselves on subcommittees that decide where the money is to go.

Would you believe THERE IS A NEW THREAD ALREADY!

Phil, a new baby, allright!  That is good news!

So, how long did it take for your knees to heal?  (those who have had the surgery)

Did you have to limit driving?  be on crutches long? 

new thread

30.

Monica Smith
Mon, 04/02/07
11:31 am


This is a good example of my hypothesis that the primary characteristic of Republicans is that they want a leader so they don't have to make decisions. It's a choice-avoidance strategem.
...

Obedience is freedom from responsibility and accountability. That's a hard thing for people who LIKE making choices and being responsible to understand, but we have to try.
...

Think about it. If you're always willing to do what someone else tells you, aren't you being totally unselfish? And isn't that a virtue? The right is always right because it has only one duty--obedience. When you are obedient, you can do no wrong.
----------

Intersting ideas, Monica, imo....
I was also thinking about that same theme a little..., although with "Presidency" theme in mind.

Why people (not only Reps, Demos too!,...lol) are having so DESPERATE NEED for "Mr.President"? Isn't that for the same exactly reason you've pointed out? Isn't that in order to gain "freedom from responsibility and accountability"?

Thinking a little further in that direction, you may find that the most "free" people on Earth ARE SLAVES. In that sense having as a leader a "Tribal Chief" OR a "Mr.President" makes very little difference...