When Journalists Report For Duty

Norman Solomon's weekly syndicated column -- archived at www.fair.org/media-beat/ -- focuses on media and politics. His latest book is The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media.
© 2001 Norman Solomon

White House Whitewashers
Bush staffers chastise NBC for a Clinton interview, Fleischer whacks Maher and the Bush-was-in-danger story falls apart. Tension mounts between the White House and the media.
By Jake Tapper

WASHINGTON -- On the same day last week that "NBC Nightly News" anchor Tom Brokaw sat down to interview former President Clinton, executives for the program received unexpected phone calls from senior communications staffers at the White House, expressing disappointment about the decision to spotlight Bush's predecessor.

While not asking the network to refrain from running the interview, they expressed the feeling that the Sept. 18 interview with Clinton would not be helpful to the current war on terrorism. Neither NBC nor the White House would comment on the phone calls, but sources familiar with the calls confirmed that they happened.

This news comes on the heels of revelations that President Bush and Air Force One were not, contrary to earlier White House claims, targets of the terrorists who attacked the Pentagon and the World Trade Center Sept. 11. The White House is now saying that those claims, which it used to explain why the president didn't return to Washington immediately that day, were a result of staffers "misunderstanding" security information.

On Wednesday, tensions between the White House and its media critics, real or imagined, threatened to rise even higher. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer took a slap at "Politically Incorrect" host Bill Maher, who called U.S. military strikes on faraway targets "cowardly." Fleischer blasted Maher, claiming it was "a terrible thing to say," and didn't stop there, noting "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."

On the face of it, these moves by the Bush administration to discourage media criticism don't seem to make much sense. By the time of the Clinton interview, for instance, polls were showing unprecedented public support for Bush, which has since only increased. And at the time, all Clinton had to say about Bush was that he supported him, and urged the rest of the country to do the same.

But this White House has developed a particularly tense, mutually distrustful relationship with members of the news media, one that has only seemed to deepen since the Sept. 11 attacks. This relationship seems to be focused specifically on the White House's political and communication staffs (it's virtually impossible to imagine Bush knowing anything about the calls to NBC). And it embodies what many members of the media -- conservative, liberal and nonpartisan -- decry as an arrogant, unnecessarily adversarial attitude, one where questions about White House decisions are regarded as inappropriate and, now, quite possibly unpatriotic.

And the relationship has been particularly hampered by these White House staffers' well-publicized difficulty telling the truth.

It began on a much smaller scale earlier in the year, when various White House officials put out erroneous stories that President Clinton and his administration left behind a vandalized White House and Air Force One. (It was left to the General Accounting Office and President Bush to dismiss those rumors.)

But more recently -- and more alarmingly -- White House staffers like senior advisor Karl Rove and spokesman Ari Fleischer insisted to reporters that Air Force One was a target of terrorists on Sept. 11, and that was why Bush spent much of the day flying to different locations -- first Louisiana, and then to Nebraska -- before finally returning to Washington, D.C., from Florida. By Sept. 13, a reporter asked Fleischer whether, since law enforcement, military and Secret Service personnel didn't back Rove and Fleischer's claims about the threat to Air Force One, "people are going to want to know more information about whether or not that's a credible assertion." Especially since no one other than White House political and communications staffers asserted that the plane was a target.

"I think that people understand it's credible," Fleischer replied.

But on Tuesday, CBS News reported that the story was inaccurate, the result of a "misunderstanding" by staffers. The Associated Press reported that "administration officials said they now doubt whether there was actually a call made threatening the president's plane, Air Force One." Officials went on to say that they had not been able to find a record of such a call, though they maintained that they had been told of a telephone threat.

Presumably, political staffers were sensitive to any charges that Bush was somehow mishandling the crisis on that day by not appearing in Washington to reassure the American people. But the Secret Service was adamant that Bush stay away from the White House and, according to a Los Angeles Times poll, a vast majority of the American people backed the move. According to the poll, 85 percent thought Bush was right to "follow the advice of the Secret Service to stay away from Washington, D.C., and possible danger."

As conservative writer Andrew Sullivan wrote Wednesday, "There was plenty of reason for the president to get to a secure communications base as soon as possible on September 11, and plenty of reason to avoid Washington during an extremely uncertain time. So why the lies? Were these people spinning at a time of grave national crisis? And I thought the Clinton era was over."

Moreover, CBS News reported that radar evidence indicated that the American Airlines Flight 77 plane that hit the Pentagon was not a threat to the White House, despite the claims of administration officials to the contrary. "That is not the radar data that we have seen," Fleischer said when asked about the radar data that conflicted with his account. "The plane was headed toward the White House."

The nation is heading into a war that Bush described in his Thursday address as possibly including "covert operations, secret even in success." One military official told the Washington Post Monday that because "this is the most information-intensive war you can imagine ... We're going to lie about things."

Asked whether the Pentagon would ever knowingly disseminate false information, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld paraphrased Winston Churchill, who once said that "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Then Rumsfeld tried to be reassuring. "I don't recall that I've ever lied to the press. I don't intend to. And it seems to me that there will not be reason for it."

But when pressed for a specific policy, he said: "The policy is that we will not say a word about anything that will compromise sources or methods. We will not say a word that will in any way endanger anyone's life by discussing operations."

Now, reporters are left to wonder what's still to come. And they've been regularly reminded that criticism is not appreciated, and will not be easily tolerated.

Fleischer added to the tension on Wednesday when asked about Maher's statement that the U.S. has "been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly."

Fleischer didn't refrain from comment, as he frequently does when asked about such pop culture issues. Nor did he note that even President Bush had been critical of President Clinton's 1998 retaliatory strike against Osama bin Laden through missile strikes -- "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive," Bush told four senators on Sept. 14, according to Newsweek.

No, Fleischer called Maher's comments "a terrible thing to say, and it's unfortunate." His ominous follow-up remarks, that "Americans ... need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is," would seem to portend further strains in the relationship between the White House and even its loyal opposition as the nation moves toward war.
© 2001Jake Tapper

That was the time that the then Pakistani head of state Benazir Bhutto had warned President Reagan: 'You are creating a Frankenstein.'
© 2001 Ed Vulliamy

Fans Of Term Limits Changing Their Tune

The most eloquent contradiction to such foolishness has been uttered again and again by Mr. Giuliani, in his exhortations that amid mourning and uncertainty we must return to normal life. With respect to the democratic process now underway to replace him, the Mayor should heed his own wise advice.
© 2001 Joe Conason email Joe at: jconason@observer.com.

Press Self-Censorship

If the president's people want him to look big, it'd definitely help if they quit acting so small.
© 2001 Gene Lyons is a Little Rock author and recipient of the National Magazine Award.

Quotable Quote

Adept at manipulating real grievances, terrorist networks breed on poverty, despair, and social injustice. Do you think you can wipe out or even reduce this scourge, Mr. President, without seriously and systematically addressing the root causes of terrorism?
© 2001 Martin A. Lee (martinalee17@yahoo.com) is the author of Acid Dreams and The Beast Reawakens.

There were also reports of fierce fighting in the mountains of northern Afghanistan. Rebel guerrillas said they had seized a north-eastern district from Taliban troops, while the Taliban said that at least a dozen opposition soldiers were killed and several hurt in a blast at a base north of Kabul.
© 2001 Luke Harding & Duncan Campbell

O'Connor Foresees Limits On Freedom
By Linda Greenhouse

Describing herself as "still tearful" after viewing the World Trade Center site, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told a law school audience in Manhattan yesterday that as part of the country's response to terrorism, "we're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country."

Lawyers have a special duty to work to maintain the rule of law in the face of terrorism, Justice O'Connor said, adding in a quotation from Margaret Thatcher, the former British prime minister: "Where law ends, tyranny begins."

Justice O'Connor, who was on an official visit to India when the terrorist attacks took place on Sept. 11, was the first Supreme Court justice to speak publicly about the events and their possible legal consequences. She was the main speaker at the groundbreaking for a law school building at New York University in Greenwich Village.

Her brief remarks emphasized the need to proceed with care in the aftermath of a national trauma that she said "will cause us to re-examine some of our laws pertaining to criminal surveillance, wiretapping, immigration and so on."

Lawyers would play an important role in striking the right balance, she said, adding, "Lawyers and academics will help define how to maintain a fair and a just society with a strong rule of law at a time when many are more concerned with safety and a measure of vengeance."

Justice O'Connor did not offer an analysis of any particular proposal, instead observing that "no single response is appropriate for every situation."

Referring to the prospect that military deployments overseas rather than domestic prosecutions will be a principal means of bringing terrorists to justice, she said: "It is possible, if not likely, that we will rely more on international rules of war than on our cherished constitutional standards for criminal prosecutions in responding to threats to our national security."

Justice O'Connor posed a series of questions at the ceremony:

"First, can a society that prides itself on equality before the law treat terrorists differently than ordinary criminals? And where do we draw the line between them? Second, at what point does the cost to civil liberties from legislation designed to prevent terrorism outweigh the added security that that legislation provides?"

Without answering the questions herself, she concluded: "These are tough questions, and they're going to require a great deal of study, goodwill and expertise to resolve them. And in the years to come, it will become clear that the need for lawyers does not diminish in times of crisis; it only increases."

Justice O'Connor, who grew up in Arizona, said her visit to New York and the trade center site had changed her image of a city she and her husband, John, had considered "harsh, brash, brassy, tough."

Now, she said, "there is a new spirit here and it's one of warmth, solidarity, humanity and determination that we have not witnessed before." She added: "It's very noticeable and very moving."
© 2001 Linda Greenhouse

Fundies Vs Rationalists
Two world views result in smashed towers and torn-up freedoms.
By Bryan Zepp Jamieson

Fundamentalism isn’t a religion. It’s a personality disorder. It gets associated with religion a lot, because religion, with its claim to be able to provide final answers to life’s greatest mysteries, appeals to a mind-set that is fearful of uncertainty, antagonistic toward a world where trains don’t run on time and other people might do things that the fundamentalist is afraid to try personally.

Most religions attract fundamentalists, and the results are often ludicrous. The Prophet never told anyone that massacring over 5,000 innocent civilians was a good thing. Jesus never demanded that his teachings–let alone Exodus–be forced upon non-believers. Even religions that don’t have the type of authoritarian regimentation that is so important to the fundamentalist mind are afflicted by the breed. There are fundamentalist Buddhists, fundamentalist Quakers (Nixon was one such), and there are even fundamentalist dog breeders.

But fundamentalists exist everywhere there are commonly-held beliefs or enthusiasms, and they tend to accept the "truths" of their objects of veneration as perfect and inviolable. A fundamentalist Constitutionalist (known as a "strict constructionalist") will often steadfastly ignore all amendments after the initial bill of rights as being latter-day dilutions of the original, perfect whole. A fundamentalist baseball fan will insist that no change could possibly improve baseball.

Molly Ivins noted that the psychological testing procedures used to judge whether individuals were competent to serve as policemen included fundamentalism as a disqualifying personality trait. That makes sense: if you get pulled over for a speeding violation, you don’t want to find yourself facing a livid cop who is outraged that you have violated his sense of order and perfection in his cosmos. You want, at the very worst, a cop who is mildly disgusted at you for being stupid in public and who is going to write you up no matter what excuse you give him.

Baseball is a good example. Baseball has seen quite a few changes since 1957, when the Giants and Dodgers moved west. That wasn’t the first change in baseball since 1876, but it marked the point where change markedly accelerated. With nearly every change that brought baseball of 1957, with its eight teams in each division, early October World Series, no DH, wool or cotton uniforms, and higher pitching mound closer to the baseball of today, there is legitimate room for debate about whether the changes improved or hurt the game. Any of the changes. All of the changes.

But fundamentalists will point to a time when baseball was pure and holy (yes, some people will use the word "holy") and describe every alteration made since then as the work of the devil, a communist plot to turn American youth into soccer fans, proof of a general decline in morals and public good taste. (Soccer fundies can be even worse; at least rooting for the "wrong baseball team" in some areas won’t get you killed).

Fundies have an often frightening ability to organize and march in lockstep to achieve their desires. Since they are people who need regimentation of and authority over their lives, and since there’s no shortage of selfless volunteers willing to provide same for just a little bit of unlimited wealth and power, they tend to be a force in their field of interest that far outweighs their numbers.

To return to the baseball analogy, the fundamentalists, who basically worship the game, have managed to stave off some of the dafter suggestions made over the years, like flourescent orange baseballs, outfield fences pulled to within 250 feet of home plate, and have just generally prevented baseball from being taken over by "change for the sake of change". They forced all change to be subject to considerably scrutiny and criticism, and while there’s lots of room for argument over the efficacy of any given change, the game hasn’t been destroyed. Yet.

So fundamentalists, in their place, have a valuable function. They are the brakes on social change, and while that can often be frustrating, and sometimes prolongs injustice, it also prevents some truly hideous mistakes. Over the years, for example, some 2,500 proposals to change the Constitution of the United States have made it to the House floor, and it’s safe to say that about 2,400 of them were truly idiotic ideas, ranging from assigning votes based on personal wealth to banning flag burning to banning the sale of alcohol. Eighteen of them subsequently went successfully through the rest of the process, only one of which was truly idiotic. People will favor or oppose all amendments for various reasons, good and bad. Fundamentalists will oppose all amendments, and are good at setting up organized resistance to same.

But fundamentalists should never, ever be put in a leadership role, and there’s a good set of reasons for it.

First, they can’t tolerate diversity of thought. They are the keepers of the flame, the arbiters of what is true and good, and dissent, ipso facto, is evil, and demeaning to their purpose. Almost all organizations and certainly all countries have some diversity, and if the differences are visible or distinct in some other way, savage repression and even genocide will result. In Baseball, it results in great players being denied recognition for sins that aren’t even crimes in the greater society: Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson are both banned from the Hall of Fame, and in Jackson’s case, he wasn’t even guilty of what he was accused of!

I once had a Constitutional fundamentalist tell me that the country had been going to hell ever since the Marbury vs. Madison decision. I asked a couple of followup questions to make sure he understood what this decision was, and when this decision occurred. I couldn’t believe it. He was serious: Marbury vs. Madison, in which the Supreme Court essentially granted to itself the power of judicial review upon the constitutionality of specific laws. It’s hard to imagine how the Supreme Court could function without such a power, but since it wasn’t mentioned in the Constitution, this guy felt it was an abrogation of power, and that the country hadn’t amounted to its potential because of that decision.

The decision occurred in 1803. The US hasn’t been worth a damn since. Nosiree, Bob.

One reason fundamentalists can’t lead is because of their great inner flaw. If you talk to two baseball fundamentalists (often self-described as "purists") about the ideal state of baseball, you are likely to get two different views of ideal baseball. One might rhapsodize about Napoleon LaJoie, all day games, double headers, no PA system, five cent popcorn. Another might talk about the stalwart days when men were men and sheep were scared, the good old days of Fernando Valenzeula and Dwight Gooden, ‘way back before there were teams in Florida and Arizona.

They might react to the guy who passed up tickets to Game seven of the World Series to catch the Ottawa-Atlanta NHL preseason match on TV with resigned sighs. What can you do about atheists?

But when it comes to one another, they are likely to experience murderous rage. The heretic is always hated more than the infidel, because the infidel is blind to truth, whereas the heretic perverts it. Infidels should be taught, and if they can’t learn, then they should die. Heretics already know, but consciously choose evil, and must die!

Fortunately, societal pressures and the rule of law keep them in check, which is why we see so few massacres at baseball games. (Soccer is another story, of course). < P> Fundamentalist regimes most often fall from internal divisions. It is their greatest weakness. It’s cause for hope should Ashcroft, Falwell and Moon gain control of our government through the GOP. The first thing that would happen is that Ashcroft and Falwell, no longer needing Moon, would turn on him. (Moon isn’t an easy subject for fundamentalist Christians. He believes that he, not Jesus, is the Saviour and Redeemer of all Mankind. I checked with our local parish priest, and he seemed reasonably sure that the Vatican still had Jesus as the number one guy on that particular list, and that if Moon was rated at all, it was pretty far down on the list.) After they got rid of Moon, or he got rid of them, there would be divisions galore among all the other supporters.

After that, you would have major sectarian strife, with groups from one church flying large planes into tall buildings owned by groups from another church, and they would have death camps for Christians Utilizing Lesser Theologies, and in all this, American freedom would have about as much chance as a soap bubble in a thermonuclear explosion.

Letting fundies run the country just wouldn’t be a real good idea at all. Genocide, whether the victims are Jews or Mets fans, just doesn’t coincide with the idea of a free and pluralistic society.

The biggest flaw in fundamentalism is that it truly cannot understand the forces of rationality. Fundamentalists find it impossible to believe that members of their own church, political party, TV fan club or baseball fantasy league could even consider other points of view to be valid.

So when Ashcroft said that bin Laden hated and feared freedom, he was quite correct. The only problem is that Ashcroft, too, is a fundamentalist. And when crisis arrived, he was ready, with 51 new laws designed to make sure that there was a lot less of that freedom floating around, encouraging people to sustain false beliefs.

Fundamentalists don’t just fly planes into buildings and blow up restaurants and imprison dissenters. They also pass laws to "counter terrorism" and even "keep America free".

Don’t let your fear of middle Easter terrorists blind you to the very real threat of domestic terrorists who use pens instead of 757s to subvert your freedoms.
© 2001 Bryan Jamieson

Dead Letter Office

Heil Bush,

Dear Propaganda Ansager Fleischer,

Congratulations you have just been awarded the Vidkun Quisling Award for 2001. Your name will now live throughout history with such past award winners as Marcus Junius Brutus, Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold, Vidkun Quisling and last year's winner Volksjudge Antoni (light-fingers) Scalia.

Without your help shilling for us, spinning the truth, telling out right lies and ignoring the real news, holding onto power after our Coup D' Etat would have been impossible. With the help of our mutual friends, the other "Media Whores," you have made it possible for all of us to goose-step off to a brave new bank account.

Along with this award there will be an Iron Cross 2nd class presented by our glorious Fuhrer Herr Bush at a gala celebration in der Fuhrer Bunker (formally the White House) on 12-15-2001. We salute you Herr Fleischer! Sieg Heil!

Signed,
Deputy Fuhrer Cheney

Heil Bush

Ashcroft Seeks To Boost Power Of Secret Court
By Edmund Sanders
Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON - Meeting in a windowless, bug- proof chamber deep inside the U.S. Justice Department, a secretive U.S. court wields extraordinary power to approve government requests to listen in on citizens' phone calls or to break in their homes to seize evidence.

The court's seven judges just can't seem to say no. Since it was established in 1978, the court has approved thousands of government wiretap and warrant requests - and denied only one.

And it's all done in proceedings so classified that even those Americans who are targeted for surveillance have no right to know about it, much less to challenge it.

Now, following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration is asking Congress to extend the reach of this little-understood federal court, whose specialty is overseeing the government's surveillance of spies, terrorists and agents of foreign powers.

But the proposal is threatening to upset the delicate post-Watergate balance between protecting national security and spying on Americans.

The court was created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in response to the Nixon administration's practice of using its intelligence-gathering powers to spy on its political enemies.

The Bush administration says the need for beefed-up covert surveillance was highlighted by the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

``Law enforcement needs a strengthened and streamlined ability for our intelligence-gathering abilities to gather the information necessary to disrupt, weaken and eliminate the infrastructure of terrorist organizations,'' Attorney General John Ashcroft told Congress last week.

One of the most controversial proposals in Ashcroft's package of antiterrorism legislation would allow the government to use the court for other types of investigations, including criminal cases not chiefly related to gathering foreign intelligence.

But would such a revision allow the government to use the law to pursue cases that do not affect national security, thereby dodging constitutional protections ordinarily enjoyed by individuals against surveillance?

``It's a slippery slope,'' said Morton Halperin, a former State Department adviser who helped write FISA, as the law is known, while at the American Civil Liberties Union. ``The law is supposed to be used for intelligence, not for criminal investigations.''

Because FISA wiretaps and warrants must clear a lower legal hurdle than criminal ones, Halperin worries that the FBI might be tempted to use FISA as an ``end run'' around the Fourth Amendment, which restricts surveillance of U.S. citizens in criminal investigations.

The low-profile FISA court, whose seven active and semiretired judges are selected by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, has probably been working overtime amid the massive investigation into the attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

Last year, the court granted more than 1,000 wiretaps and search warrants, double the number of a decade ago, according to the Center for Democracy and Technology, citing Justice Department figures. Today, FISA warrants are nearly as common as wiretaps for all criminal inquiries combined, including drugs, gambling and organized crime.

On the one occasion when the FISA court denied a government warrant request, it was because the request fell outside the court's jurisdiction, said David Sobel, attorney for the Electronic Information Privacy Information Center.

Critics say the recent surge in FISA warrants suggests they are being used for purposes beyond intelligence- gathering.

``FISA is designed to deal with espionage and terrorism, but there are always concerns that it is being used for other crimes, such as drug conspiracies,'' said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who observed FISA proceedings in the 1980s while working for the National Security Agency.

But proving misuse is virtually impossible, Turley said, because the proceedings are never disclosed.

A FISA request begins at an intelligence or national security agency, but it is the FBI that is responsible for implementing the program. The Justice Department must sign off on every application, which can run as long as 40 to 50 pages.

Although it's called a court, the process is less like a trial and more like an administrative hearing. There is no court reporter, and few written records. The only witnesses are government employees; there is no adversarial process.

Unlike wiretaps issued under criminal law, FISA applications do not require showing a crime occurred. The government must demonstrate only the target is likely to be an agent of a foreign government or power.

FISA may be used only when foreign intelligence gathering is ``the'' purpose of the investigation. The Justice Department wants to change the language so intelligence gathering may be only ``a'' purpose or ``a significant'' purpose.

Legal experts say that would open the door to FISA warrants in criminal investigations, as long as intelligence gathering was a component.

Congress has rejected Ashcroft's call to approve his proposals this week, indicating it will take a more cautious approach.

``The expansion of FISA is a good idea,'' said Sen. John Edwards, D- N.C., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. ``But we are going to have to make sure we are doing it within the limits of the Constitution.''

Just Do It
By Tally Briggs

What the hell is Bush waiting for? No, I am not referring to him launching all the Big Toys, I am talking about federalizing airport security. It seems he is doing almost everything else, ramping up the Air Marshall program, installing more secure cockpit doors, even deploying The National Guard to have a presence in the major airports. Ok, not bad. But what good are the National Guard really going to do standing around with automatic weapons when they aren’t the ones who are sitting at the baggage scanners and looking for the "danger items"?

I have never been a good flyer. I was fine as a little kid, because I thought we were traveling to a different planet. When my parents and I would fly from Riverside’s Flabob airport aboard Bonanza Airlines to Las Vegas, I also thought that the states would be different colors like the puzzles and maps I used to have as a child. That when you flew from brown California and crossed the state line into Nevada, you’d see the boarder since Nevada was purple. But as I grew older, and realized the devastation of mechanical failure, bad weather, or countless other disasters which could occur, my fear developed into a monster with a mind of it’s own. Even though I know, living in Southern California that I risk my life on a daily basis driving on the endless L.A. freeways, and that it is far safer to fly anywhere in an airplane, it doesn’t ease my fears completely.

No, I have been the queen of the "extra-shot-for-a-dollar-more" bloody marys at the airport bars before departure. The odd thing is that I have always felt far safer on overseas flights on international carriers. I have never experienced the fear on a flight from LAX to Heathrow on Virgin Atlantic or British Airways the way I do on a United flight from Burbank to Denver. Perhaps it’s the comfort of knowing the international carriers are far more meticulous when it comes to security. Or maybe it’s just the fact the alcohol and headphones are free. Lately however, I have become better at flying. More relaxed, not as stressed, even when we hit major turbulence from Vegas to Burbank I was able to continue reading my in-flight magazine hysteria free. Then came 9/11/01. Well, just kiss my courage good-bye.

For some time now I have been unconsciously aware, far away in the back of my mind, that airport security is not what it should be. I must have been in complete denial, seeing, but yet not allowing it to permeate my conscious thought or else I never would have boarded a plane. The holes in security were painfully apparent to anyone who was willing to look and see them for what they are. The staff, woefully and obviously underpaid, overworked, and under trained. Let’s face it, as nice as these people are, and I do commend them tremendously for that, since they must receive enormous amounts of abuse being in such a public service position, should we trust them with National Security? Should we trust anyone with National Security other than the Government? It is National Security we are talking about, as it concerns our ports. Even Las Vegas and Denver are International points of entry.

By privatizing, and/or leaving this to the airlines or airports, which are already financially strapped to the point of bankruptcy, means continuing to bottom line the most important aspect - security. Everyone who comes in contact with the aircraft should be under some kind of federal jurisdiction. From the security staff, to the cleaning crew and caterers, all should be accountable. They should be well paid, have great benefits, and strive for the lowest turnover possible, with plenty of room for advancement, not hoping to get hired at the terminal Burger King in order to get a better paying job. There should be enough staff at security scanners so there is always more than one pair of eyes scanning bags, just in case one person is momentarily distracted, the other can be a backup. There should also be enough staff so that no one spends too much time in any one position long enough for fatigue to set in. They should not have a quota of 5 seconds to screen a bag, security personnel in Europe admit it takes a minimum of 12 – 15 seconds to scan a bag, and even that may not be enough. It may take upgrading the equipment from the bag scanners to the human scanners.

Why isn’t the government jumping all over this? One guess. Cash. Bush is too busy continuing to push more tax cuts for the rich to stimulate the economy. How he figures this is going to work is quite beyond me. These people already have money. If they were going to invest, they already would be. Giving them more money to do what they already have the capital to do, but are not, is a waste of time and money. It doesn’t take a financial genius to figure out that you give money to people who are dying to spend it: the lower and middle classes who are currently living paycheck to paycheck, if they still have jobs.

I for one would gladly give back my tax advance to have safer aviation in this country. I’d also happily pay more taxes for better National Security. Hell, I am ready, next time I fly, to walk up to the first security checkpoint and declare, "Hi! I am willing to volunteer to strip naked if it will make my flight safer, and I get to my destination alive and well. Isn’t everyone ready to do that? Show of hands please. Who isn’t? You sir? Ok, you cannot fly, terribly sorry." If this was a requirement – and you saw the person who balked or refused – would you want to get on the plane with them? And besides, stripping naked is nothing compared to what Ashcroft wants to do to my rights. No I am all for keeping my civil liberties, but I don’t think getting a full body imaging scan is violating anything. Hell, it may even help point out early signs of breast or ovarian cancer! See, it could be a public health tool too! Bonus! Where do I sign up?

Does the Bush appointistration actually think we’ll feel better about getting on an airplane simply because he says we should? You buying my ticket and my flight insurance there Smirky? Better still, are you flying with me? With all the bragging lately of these public officials taking "commercial flights" - who knew they weren't? Who knew our tax dollars have been paying for private jets all this time?

Personally, I am not sure I trust a government that is not willing to jump at the chance to take responsibility for all of this, especially when almost every other country on the planet with an airport is in charge of their airport security.

But then, I have a lot of trust issues lately.

Anyone for a cruise?
© 2001 Tally Briggs email Tally at: bardgal@yahoo.com

The Cartoon Corner

This edition we're proud to showcase the cartoons of Bill Deore

War Pigs
By John (Ozzy) Osbourne

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds,
Oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight
They leave that role to the poor
Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'till their judgment day comes,
Yeah!

Now in darkness, world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs of the power
Hand of god has struck the hour
Day of judgement, god is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings
All right now!
© 2001 Ozzy Osbourne

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." ... Edmund Burke

THE MEDIA COVER-UP OF THE GORE VICTORY
By Maggie.

Yesterday, after I sent out the first batch of messages regarding the cover-up of the final results of the Florida vote count, I received a telephone call from someone who, like David Podvin’s source, does not want to be named. He worked on the NORC recount. Although he was not privy to any final numbers, he confirmed David’s story, in the sense that the trend was obviously toward many, many more votes for Gore than were included in the totals certified by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris.

The Florida Ballot Project page of the University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center (NORC)’s website contains the following text:

We have now completed all data-collection operations for the Florida Ballot Project. In recent weeks, we have developed computer databases that contain the results of the ballot examinations. At this moment, the databases are essentially complete.

The next step is to release the data to our clients, the media group, who will analyze the data and report initial findings. After a brief embargo, we will make the databases available to the public through our website.

No schedule has been set for that process. The media group has postponed release because of the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.

I received a telephone call this morning from someone who also wants to remain anonymous, a member of the political press who has contacts in the higher echelons of both the Democratic and the Republican parties. He spoke to a University of Chicago official this past Monday (The New York Times’ announcement of an indefinite postponement was made on the previous Thursday), who said that the results "will be released soon."

Let’s make sure that happens. I invite you to write to members of the consortium and to NORC demanding the release of the data.

The New York Times Co., letters@nytimes.com
Dow Jones & Co. (Wall Street Journal), http://public.wsj.com/tour/ijcontact.html
The Associated Press, opinion@thewire.ap.org
The Washington Post Co., letters@washpost.com
Cable News Network, http://www.cnn.com/feedback/
The Palm Beach Post, pbonline@pbpost.com
The St. Petersburg Times, letters@SPTimes.com
Tribune Co., ctc-TribLetter@Tribune.com
NORC, norcinfo@norcmail.uchicago.edu

I’ll keep you updated on any additional information I receive.
© 2001 G.A.G.

TO: All Those Interested In A Candlelight Vigil Planned For December 12, 2001.

I have rewritten a suggested letter for requesting a Proclamation in recognition of the events of December 12th. I suggest the you get these written and in the mail as soon as possible. I have always requested these from the Governor of my state. I have tried to write this so as not to give the Republican Governors an excuse for not issuing you a proclamation. In Florida, the governors office issues very a very fancy proclamation that would rival the Declaration of Independence to organizations, groups requesting them. They are fantastic attention getters when trying to get media coverage for your event. When I send out my announcements to the local TV stations, Radio, Newspapers, etc, I always include a copy of the proclamation. Other suggestions would be to ask your Senators, your Mayor, to also prepare a similar proclamation. I ask all of them. The worst that can happen is that they will say no. If they say no, chalk it up on your little list of who NOT to vote for next time! Submit the wording for the proclamation below to your elected officials and ask them to prepare a proclamation for your event.

SUPPORT THE OREGON DEMOCRATS' PROPOSAL TO IMPEACH THE FELONIOUS FIVE!

Here's what you can do to help:

1. Write your members of Congress and urge them to support the Democratic Party of Oregon's resolution.

2. Contact your local and/or state Democratic Party office urging them to also support the resolution.

3. Contribute to the Democratic Party of Oregon. We plan to continue to promote this resolution and your contribution, no matter how small, will help us in this fight for democracy. Click on Democratic Party of Oregon to send your support today!

Supreme Injustice
by STEVE COBBLE

Lest we forget--just over six months ago, the Rehnquist Court stole an election in broad daylight. In fear of the truth, the Scalia Five intervened to block all votes from being counted, an action "unprecedented" (both historically and judicially) in US history. Though the June 12 "anniversary" went unnoticed by the media, we must never forget.

Was it the worst Supreme Court decision in US history, as American University Constitutional scholar Jamin Raskin has suggested? Considering that Raskin is a staunch civil rights advocate, the very thought that he would rank Bush v. Gore lower than both the Dred Scott and Plessy rulings is instructive. Nor does Raskin stand alone in his opinion of this judicial coup.

Justice John Paul Stevens: "One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. I respectfully dissent."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "In sum, the Court's conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court's own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States. I dissent." And related is the unsigned per curiam decision of the Scalia 5, a transparent attempt to try to avoid history's scarlet letter.

Hendrik Hertzberg, former presidential speechwriter: "The election of 2000 was not stolen. It was expropriated."

David Kairys, Temple University: "We had a constitutional crisis, and it was Bush v. Gore. History will not be kind."

Suzanna Sherry, Vanderbilt University: "There is really very little way to reconcile this opinion other than that they wanted Bush to win."

Jeffrey Rosen, legal scholar: "They have...made it impossible for citizens of the United States to sustain any kind of faith in the rule of law as something larger than the self-interested political preferences of William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Sandra Day O'Connor."

Randall Kennedy, Harvard University: "But we should also insist that there be no confirmation for Scalia-like champions of the right-wing agenda. The Supreme Court has hurt its own reputation by wrongly intervening to ensure the victory of George W. Bush. Those who abhor what the Court did should say so and say so loudly and clearly."

Jesse Jackson and John Sweeney: "But if it comes down for justices to the 14th amendment and the promise of equal protection, one can only hope for the sake of the country that they consider how not counting all the votes mirrors too closely the habits of heart and mind that brought us slavery and segregation--the original sins of our nation that the equal protection clause sought to repair."

And, of course, Vincent Bugliosi, prosecutor of Charles Manson and author of several bestselling true-crime books, in The Betrayal of America: ". . . the Court committed the unpardonable sin of being a knowing surrogate for the Republican Party instead of being an impartial arbiter of the law.... [The Court searched] mightily for a way, any way at all, to aid their choice for president, Bush, in the suppression of the truth, finally settling, in their judicial coup d'État, on the untenable argument that there was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause..."

Recent polls indicate the public's growing dissatisfaction with the results of the Scalia Five's decision. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center and Princeton Survey Research Associates (June 13-17) showed George W. Bush's job approval rating at just 50 percent, down six points from March; the New York Times survey with CBS News (June 14-18) put the rating at 53 percent, down seven points from March. And Democracy Corps's Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll (June 11-13) found that 48 percent of likely voters think the nation is currently on the "wrong track." Perhaps most tellingly, 25 percent of voters in the Democracy Corps poll said that the phrase "not really elected President" describes Bush "very well," with another 15 percent saying that it describes him "well"--in other words, six months after the Scalia Five coup, 40 percent of likely voters still believe Bush was not really elected President.

What then, is to be done?

The least we can do is know our own history, and to understand that what the Injustices did was an insult to the dreams and ideals of Lexington and Concord, Valley Forge and Jefferson and Paine, Gettsyburg and Lincoln and Douglass, Selma and King, Seneca Falls and Anthony, Delano and Chavez, Flint and Debs and Lewis. We can bear witness to injustice, in the nonviolent protest tradition of Thoreau, Gandhi, King, Havel, Robinson, Chavez.

The Scalia Five's judicial coup came down on the second Tuesday last December. So, on the second Tuesday of July, July 10, 2001, the Tuesday after the Pro-Democracy Convention in Philadelphia, the Tuesday between Independence Day and Bastille Day, the Institute for Policy Studies and friends are calling for a peaceful, nonviolent vigil at the Supreme Court building, at noon.

On July 10--and each Tuesday at noon from then on--let's gather at the scene of the crime, and bear witness to the truth. The Scalia Five won't be there; but we should be.

Bring a candle or a bell, like the Czechs a decade ago. Bring a copy of the Voters' Bill of Rights, or the US Constitution. Send an e-mail to all your friends, with your favorite quote from this list. Bring Pablo Neruda's and Marge Piercy's poems. Bring the next generation, so they will never forget. Bring your commitment to restore, rebuild, and expand American democracy. The Supreme Court cheated. Democracy lost. For now.
©2001 STEVE COBBLE

Send $100 or $1000 to The Heritage Foundation or Other Right-Wing Groups

This ultra-conservative group needs donations! Lend them a helping hand by sending them a few $100 or $1000 bills ... Confederate ones! Click here to print or download the bills. Send them to other right-wing groups as well!

And if you still want to annoy the Heritage Foundation, you can always go to their online donation form as soon as you try to leave the page, a pop-up window appears asking why you decided not to donate. Give them an explanation, but remember to be polite!

TO OUR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS

We, the undersigned voters, know that our cherished democracy is endangered from within by the grave and potentially fatal flaws in our voting systems exposed by the Presidential Election of 2000.

As our elected representatives, you have the duty, the opportunity, and the privilege to correct these flaws and to restore fair and honest elections throughout our nation. To this end, we charge you to construct and pass a VOTERS BILL OF RIGHTS, which shall include:

Strict enforcement and extension of the Voting Rights Act to prevent the disenfranchisement of voters and require full investigation and criminal prosecution of any offenders;

Standardized, easily understandable federal election ballots

Funding to replace old and unreliable voting machines to ensure that every vote is counted fairly and accurately

Genuine campaign finance reform that bans campaign contributions from special interests

Replacement of the Electoral College with a majority-rule election, or substantial reform of the Electoral College to allow for proportional representation

Measures to increase voter participation by eliminating bureaucratic hurdles to voter registration and turnout, including language barriers, physical barriers, archaic equipment, and lack of resources

Enactment and enforcement of a VOTERS BILL OF RIGHTS will restore trust in our government and encourage participation in our democratic processes. The linchpin of a democracy is the process by which we select our representatives and leaders. The right to vote is our defining right as citizens of this nation. We call upon our elected representatives to protect our Constitution from abusive exercise of government power by enacting a VOTERS BILL OF RIGHTS.

We pledge our full and constant support for enactment of a VOTERS BILL OF RIGHTS.