Showing posts with label Senator. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senator. Show all posts

May 5, 2009

GDAE Podcast - Episode 12


Media Reform and Relativity I
  • Progressive Podcast Network adds GDAE Podcast.
  • Media Reform... and Alternatives:
    • Reflections on the failing main stream media with John Nichols
    • Media Bailout Proposal by John Nichols and Robert McChesney
    • Saving the Newspapers: A proposal by US Senator Ben Cardin (D, MD)
    • Alternative Media: Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films
  • MUSIC: Bela Fleck and Chick Corea 'round 2
  • Einstien's Relativity: Part 1, Special Relativity Kinematics (Motion): Speed x Time = Distance

    You can take ACTION: AskDOJ@USDOJ.gov Urge Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate Bush administration lawyers for torture.

Play GDAE Podcast Episode 12 from this page.

Previous Episodes & 60-Sec Promo:

GDAE Podcast Episode 11 April 24, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 10 April 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 9 March 28, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 8 March 15, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 7 March 1, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 6 February 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 5 February 6, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 4 January 24, 2009
GDAE Podcast 60-Second Promo

gdaeman_scroll_small

April 3, 2008

Socialize Risk and Dump it on the Tax Payer

This is worth repeating:

Referring to the Bear Stearns financial "assistance," provided by the Federal Reserve, ... er, I mean the tax payer, Senate Banking Committee chairman, and unsuccessful Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Christopher Dodd had this to say:

What it looks like, if I had to frame this to people is that, we've socialized risk and privatized reward.

I don't think it's an original quote, but you don't see it spoken by a US Senator on corporate media too often.

Contact the Banking Committee to express your support of this statement by Dodd.

Sources:

AFP, US senators worry about taxpayer exposure to Bear Stearns, April 3, 2007.

December 21, 2007

Senator Mikulski on Media Ownership Consolidation

Senator Mikulski's response to my letter opposing FCC rules to allow greater consolidation of media ownership:

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to media consolidation. It's good to hear from you.

I share your concerns about media consolidation and changes to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules that would allow for greater consolidation of media ownership. I want to make sure that competition, localism and diversity of media ownership is preserved. I also want to make sure that the free exchange of ideas, on which our nation is based, continues unabated.

You can be sure that I will be watching this process very closely. I also want you to know that your views on media consolidation will be very helpful to me should the Senate consider any legislation related to media ownership rules in the future.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write. If I can be of any assistance to you in the future, please feel free to let me know.

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator

P.S. If I can be of further assistance in the future, please visit my website at http://mikulski.senate.gov or call my Washington D.C. office at 202-224-4654.

May 6, 2007

The "No Legislation" Option to End the Iraq War

Will the Democrats actually try to repeal the Iraq war authorization? I'm not surprised that Senator Byrd of West Virginia has made this move. But now it appears that Hillary Clinton's Wall Street handlers have given her the nod to support the move. Probably because it is just theater.

In a symbolic gesture, the authorization would end on October 11, 2007, exactly five years after the original authorization. Imagine if, as a symbolic gesture, they proposed revoking authority a week earlier, and saved a week's worth of American lives. I suppose that would be cutting too close to the symbolic bone (why not a month earlier then?)

I suspect the Democrats are creating a negotiating chip. It's refreshing to see them on the offensive. But, as my cynical tone reveals, I can hardly believe this is for real.

So, what's the hitch? Do they have the votes? Does the President have to sign the legislation that would revoke authorization? What happens on October 11, 2007? Are preparations for withdrawal to be made before October 11, 2007?

Senator Christopher J. Dodd gives us a hint. According to Sarah Wheaton on the NY Times Political Caucus blog:

While I applaud this effort, sadly, it will not change the President’s course in Iraq. There is only one binding and responsible way to end this war.


"He reiterated his support for the Feingold-Reid legislation, which would not only set a withdrawal timeline but also ultimately cut off war funds." I do wonder, however, if Feingold's redeployment option is just a form of Republican lite.

The best option I've heard is the "no legislation" option. Congress can simply take no action on funding and tell Bush he has to remove the troops from harms way with the resources he has, period. No vote. No veto. No override vote.

The argument made against this is, "Remember what happened to the Newt Gingrich and the Republicans when they shut down the government by refusing to vote for funding." Well, this case is different. Newt was a radical conservative seeking to cut popular programs supported by the public. In the present case, the moderate liberals are seeking to cut an unpopular war that is not supported by the public.

Sources:

Raw Story report, May 3, 2007, "Senators Clinton, Byrd call to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq," Josh Catone.
~

May 4, 2007

More Make Believe from the Democrats: Benchmarks by which to Blame the Iraqis

Democrats seem to understand that they have public support to extract the US from Iraq. They're getting some good press today with Associated Press reporting, "Democrats not backing down on Iraq Bill." They also seem to be considering Congressman John Murtha's idea of limiting the duration of funding through July, contingent on "benchmarks" that the Iraqi government is to achieve.

It's the later part that is generally suspect. True enough that Iraqi's aren't showing the "resolve" necessary to solve the "problems" in Iraq. But the unraveling of Iraq's society is due predominantly to US policies. Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin knew in advance we were going to war on false pretenses, and now hides behind false notions that he was sworn to secrecy and couldn't divulge that fact:

I was angry about it. [But] frankly, I couldn't do much about it because, in the intelligence committee, we are sworn to secrecy." Durbin went on to say "We can't walk outside the door and say the statement made yesterday by the White House is in direct contradiction to classified information that is being given to this Congress.

That, as we all know, is BS. Durbin is also sworn to protect the Constitution against all foes, external and internal. Ray MacGovern, who's getting a lot of air play on this blog reacted to the Durbin blather as follows:

Classification is to protect sources and methods. It’s not to protect presidents, OK? And so, he should have come out and said, “Look, this is not what I’m hearing in the Intelligence Committee. Hold the presses. We’re not going to go to war until I get satisfaction.” He didn’t do that.

And now we're in a war, and Iraq is taking the brunt of it, and these same Democratic politicians are saying Iraq needs to meet benchmarks? As predicted predicted by Robert Fisk and Gary Younge, the US Iraq exit strategy is going to be "Blame the Iraqis." "Oops. They didn't meet their benchmarks for resolving their problems. We gotta go. Sorree." It's pathetic. More make believe by the Democrats.

Sources:

References to Durbin and McGovern from DemocracyNow, May 1, 2007.

misspellings: Durban, bench mark, ray macgovern, secracy
~

April 8, 2007

Senator Ben Cardin on Military Commissions Act

.
A letter from Senator Ben Cardin:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the treatment of detainees and the trial of suspected terrorists by the U.S. Government.

In September 2006, I voted against H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act. Both the House and Senate passed this bill and President Bush signed it into law in October 2006. When it comes to establishing procedures for trying suspected terrorists, Congress has an obligation under the Constitution to enact legislation that will be upheld by the courts. Congress acted on H.R. 6166 as a result of a June 2006 Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld struck down the President's military commissions, stating that they violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. The Court noted that Congress, not the President, has the authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to "define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations." I voted against H.R. 6166 because I am concerned
that the courts will strike down the Military Commissions Act, too.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the Military Commissions Act is that it eliminates the fundamental legal action by which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment, known as habeas corpus, and permits the Federal Government to
hold detainees indefinitely without charge, trial, or the right to an independent hearing to weigh the evidence against them. On February 13, 2007, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) introduced S. 576, the Restoring the Constitution Act. This bill, which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, restores habeas corpus for
individuals held in U.S. custody and overturns many of the provisions of the Military Commissions Act. I will give this bill careful consideration and I anticipate that the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I sit, will hold hearings on it, too.

I strongly support our government's efforts to isolate, track down, and deter, or capture those individuals who are planning terrorist attacks against the United States. We must bring these terrorists to justice swiftly. I was disappointed that the House leadership failed to reach out to Members on both sides of the aisle
last year in crafting the Military Commissions Act. We should heed the warning given by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State Colin Powell, who argues that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against
terrorism."

The 9/11 Commission recommended that "the United States should engage its friends to develop a common coalition approach toward the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists." New principles might draw upon Article 3 of the
Geneva Conventions. Allegations that "the United States abused prisoners in its custody make it harder to build the diplomatic, political, and military alliances the [U.S.] government will need." I believe the Military Commissions Act undermines the protections of the Geneva Conventions and, by weakening our moral authority,
makes it harder for us to work with allies to win the war against terrorism and protect Americans.

I share the concerns of many current and former military officers who testified to Congress that any weakening of these protections will place American soldiers at risk if they are captured. I am pleased that in December 2005, Congress adopted Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) legislation and outlawed the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment by U.S. personnel, which would endanger the treatment of our American soldiers who are held captive. But I am disappointed that this legislation allows the use of statements obtained by some of this prohibited behavior to be admissible in court.

We must join with our allies to win the war against terrorism and bring terrorists to justice. Our Constitution contains the very values we hold dear that make us proud to be Americans, and which motivate our soldiers to lay down their lives in defense of this country. I have sworn to uphold and defend our Constitution
and to protect our democracy. The Military Commissions Act takes a step backward, is inconsistent with the rule of law, and will make it harder to work with our allies to build an effective coalition to defeat terrorism.

Five years after the 9/11 attacks, it is inexcusable that not a single one of the terrorists who planned the 9/11 attacks has been brought to trial. Congress must ultimately discharge its constitutional duty to create military commissions that are
consistent with the rule of law and that will produce convictions of terrorists that will be upheld by our courts.
~