Tag Archives: citizen

Rand Paul Agrees Tsarnaev Is No ‘Enemy Combatant’

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

It hasn’t made as many headlines as his marathon filibuster over drones, but Monday Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told Fox Business host Neil Cavuto Monday that he supports trying Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in court rather than holding him as an “enemy combatant.”

Here’s the transcript of their exchange (emphasis added):

PAUL: Well, you know, I want to congratulate law enforcement for getting and capturing these terrorists, first of all. But, what we do with them, you know. I think we can still preserve the Bill of Rights. I see no reason why our Constitution is not strong enough to convict this young man with a jury trial, with the Bill of Rights, we do it to horrible people all of the time, rapists and murderers. They get lawyers, they get trials with juries. And we seem to be able to do a pretty good job of justice. So I think we can do it through our court system.

CAVUTO: All right, so the whole, enemy combatant thing is a moot point for you. The fact is that an American citizen will be served American justice. And will get — he will get, if guilty, his just deserts.

PAUL: You know, when I talk to our young soldiers, and my wife and I have been working, we’re trying to build houses for some of these wounded veterans, who’ve really sacrificed their bodies literally, they tell me they are fighting for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and I believe them. And I know that that’s what they represent, I think they are disheartened to think, oh, we’re going to just tell people, oh, no jury trial any more. So I think it is something worth standing up for.

Law enforcement has yet to turn up any evidence of an operational connection between the Tsarnaev brothers Al Qaeda or its affiliates. Without such evidence, holding Tsarnaev as an “enemy combatant” is probably illegal. Paul’s support for the Obama administration’s decision to try Dzhokhar in criminal court without holding him in military detention first has not received much attention. That may be because Paul also suggested that immigration from Chechnya should be restricted in the wake of the marathon attacks.

The Tsarnaev brothers are of Chechen descent. But they emigrated to the US from Dagestan, not Chechnya. Tamerlan was 15 and Dzhokhar was eight. Presumably they hadn’t yet begun planning to bomb the Boston Marathon.

View the original here – 

Rand Paul Agrees Tsarnaev Is No ‘Enemy Combatant’

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rand Paul Agrees Tsarnaev Is No ‘Enemy Combatant’

Here’s What Lindsey Graham Really Thinks About How We Should Handle Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Sen. Lindsey Graham thinks the Boston bombing suspect should be held as an enemy combatant. Dave Weigel isn’t convinced:

The 2001 authorization of force made official a war between the United States and terrorist organizations/state sponsors who could be tied to the 9/11 attacks. Yaser Esam Hamdi was an American citizen caught on the battlefield of Afghanistan, by the Northern Alliance. How do you stretch that case far enough to cover Tsarnaev?

Well, here’s Graham last night on Greta Van Susteren’s show making the case:

GRAHAM: I don’t want to hold him for more than 30 days, but within 30 days he can petition a judge and say, hey, I’m not an enemy combatant….To hold him as an enemy combatant they’d have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you’re tied to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or affiliated groups. Chechnyan Islamic groups are affiliated with al-Qaeda under our laws.

VAN SUSTEREN: So is it enough that he visited Chechnya for six months for you to conclude that there’s a threshold met that he’s part of a group?

GRAHAM: I think so. If I were president of the United States who makes this decision, I would say, this is clearly a mass terrorist attack. Runs down evidence against the older Tsarnaev brother ….All that would allow me as president to say that I want to find out more in the national security legal system, not the criminal justice legal system.

In a statement a few days ago, Graham and a few other senators made the same point he made last night: “any future trial” would be held in a civilian court, but Tsarnaev should be questioned by intelligence analysts in the meantime: “The questioning of an enemy combatant for national security purposes has no limit on time or scope. In a case like this it could take weeks to prepare the questions that are needed to be asked and months before intelligence gathering is completed.”

The emphasis here is a little different than it was on Van Susteren’s show, where she repeatedly mentioned the 30-day limit on questioning. So would Tsarnaev be held for 30 days or would he be held indefinitely? Technically the former, but Graham sure seems to think that indefinitely is a lot more likely, and he’s OK with that.

It’s all moot now, since President Obama has made the decision to keep Tsarnaev in the criminal justice system. As for Graham, he might not want to try Tsarnaev in front of a military commission, but I get the pretty strong impression that he’d be just fine with tossing Tsarnaev in a brig somewhere and keeping him there forever without any trial at all. Adam Serwer has more here.

Continued – 

Here’s What Lindsey Graham Really Thinks About How We Should Handle Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s What Lindsey Graham Really Thinks About How We Should Handle Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

READ: Here Are the Federal Charges Against Boston Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Dhzokhar Tsarnaev slung his backpack off his shoulder and dropped it on the ground. A few minutes later, an explosion ripped into the crowd that had gathered to watch the Boston marathon. As the frightened people around him turned and looked in the direction of the first explosion, Dhzokhar Tsarnaev glanced toward the chaos and then “calmly but rapidly” headed the other way. Ten seconds later, the bomb in Dzhokhar’s backpack went off.

That’s all on video captured by a local surveillance cameras, according to the criminal complaint filed Monday against the Dhzokhar Tsarnaev, the only surviving suspect in last week’s bombings, which killed three people and maimed more than two hundred others. The complaint lays out the government’s view of events, but it’s not proof of guilt, Tsarnaev’s culpability will be decided in court. The document charges Tsarnaev with using a weapon of mass destruction (federal law defines almost any explosive as WMD) and malicious destruction of property causing death. More charges could be forthcoming. Republican lawmakers had demanded that Tsarnaev, a naturalized American citizen, be held in indefinite military detention, the complaint affirms the Obama administration’s decision to keep Tsarnaev within the federal criminal justice system. It also upholds Obama’s promise not to put an American citizen in indefinite military detention. American citizens are not eligible to be tried by military commission, but more detainees at Gitmo have died than have been successfully tried in that system anyway.

The complaint goes into detail about how the police found the Tsarnaev brothers after they allegedly carried out the bombing. “Did you hear about the Boston explosion? I did that,” one of the brothers told a man they allegedly carjacked Thursday night, according to the complaint. The carjacking victim escaped while the brothers were shopping at a convenience store. The ensuing gunfight during which Dzhokhar’s brother Tamerlan was killed occurred when local Boston police located the stolen car, which, according to the complaint, contained two additional unexploded homemade bombs. Tsarnaev was found several hours later hiding in a boat in a Watertown backyard, with gunshot wounds to his neck, head, legs and hand.

It remains unclear whether Tsarnaev has been read his Miranda rights, though he has the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent whether law enforcement officers inform him of those rights or not.

You can read the whole complaint here:

DV.load(“//www.documentcloud.org/documents/690358-boston-bombing-complaint.js”,
width: 630,
height: 500,
sidebar: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-690358-boston-bombing-complaint”
);

Boston Bombing Complaint (PDF)

Boston Bombing Complaint (Text)

View original article:  

READ: Here Are the Federal Charges Against Boston Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on READ: Here Are the Federal Charges Against Boston Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Sorry, Lindsey Graham, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Is No "Enemy Combatant"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Update: White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday afternoon that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would not be held as an “enemy combatant.” President Barack Obama has previously stated that he “will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” The US Attorney’s Office-District of Massachusetts confirms that “Dzhokar Tsarnaev is charged with conspiring to use weapon of mass destruction against persons and property in the U.S. resulting in death.”

Before Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving suspect in the attack on the Boston Marathon, was even captured, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wanted the the 19-year-old be held in indefinite military detention as an “enemy combatant.”

“If captured, I hope the Obama Administration will at least consider holding the Boston suspect as enemy combatant for intelligence gathering purposes,” Graham tweeted last Friday. In an interview with the New York Times‘ Charlie Savage over the weekend, Graham, who is up for reelection in 2014, elaborated on his reasoning:

You can’t hold every person who commits a terrorist attack as an enemy combatant, I agree with that. But you have a right, with his radical Islamist ties and the fact that Chechens are all over the world fighting with Al Qaeda—I think you have a reasonable belief to go down that road, and it would be a big mistake not to go down that road. If we didn’t hold him for intelligence-gathering purposes, that would be unconscionable.”

Graham is wrong. The government cannot hold Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant. Under current law, the fact that Tsarnaev shares an ethnicity and religion with other extremists is insufficient grounds to detain him militarily. The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which Graham vocally supported, defines as eligible for military detention “a person who was a part of or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” There’s no evidence yet that the suspects in the Boston bombing acted with the support of or at the behest of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces. Unless that evidence emerges, it wouldn’t be legal to hold Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant, even if he and his brother were motivated by extremist religious beliefs.

“It’s actually not a close question,” says Ben Wittes, a scholar with the Brookings Institution and writer at the national security blog Lawfare who supports military detention under some circumstances. “‘Substantially support’ is a reference to providing some material aid to the forces of the enemy…It means giving active aid to the enemy forces, it doesn’t mean taking independent action that happens to be congenial for them.”

Even if evidence emerges that the suspects in the Boston bombing acted with the support of or at the behest of a foreign group, the Supreme Court has not settled whether the military can detain people who are apprehended in the United States. Both the Bush and Obama administrations dodged potential Supreme Court cases that would have decided that question, precisely because the odds are good that holding someone suspect of a crime who is arrested on American soil in military detention is unconstitutional. Having the military detain someone captured on US soil could also jeopardize prosecution: In the three cases where Americans or legal residents have been held in military detention, those suspects got lighter sentences than they probably would have otherwise, Wittes says.

Graham has said he wants Tsarnaev held in military detention so the suspect won’t “lawyer up.” In other words, Graham would like to deprive Tsarnaev of his constitutional rights before he’s even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one.

“We live in a system where there’s a Sixth Amendment,” says Wittes. “There’s a reason why we have that right, and I can’t do anything about it and I don’t want to.”

This article is from: 

Sorry, Lindsey Graham, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Is No "Enemy Combatant"

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sorry, Lindsey Graham, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Is No "Enemy Combatant"

Who Will Immigration Reform Help More? Republicans or Democrats?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The other day I was idly wondering whether immigration reform would be better for Republicans or Democrats. Politically, it’s a zero-sum game, so it can’t be both. And if, in the end, supporting immigration reform doesn’t improve GOP electoral prospects, why should they bother supporting it?

Today, Andrew Gelman points to a piece written a couple of months ago by Alex Engler that takes a look at just this question. Engler assumed a voter turnout of 42 percent and then examined the 20 congressional districts for each party that were most likely to switch sides based on shifts in the Hispanic vote:

Based on this data, a dramatic shift in Hispanic support toward Democrats would have yielded startlingly small gains in the House. Under the 42 percent Hispanic voting scenario, a 10 percentage point shift toward Democrats would net only one additional seat….Conversely, shifts away from Democrats by Hispanics could be devastating. Under the 42 percent scenario….a 10 percentage point shift to the right would have handed Republicans 12 seats.

The basic insight here is that Democrats already get such a high percentage of the Hispanic vote that another few points wouldn’t do them much good. But just the opposite is true for Republicans. The chart on the right shows this graphically. The area outlined in yellow represents congressional districts that are (a) heavily Hispanic and (b) in play. There are only a few currently in Republican hands, so even if immigration reform helps Democrats, it won’t do them much good. But there are about 20 currently in Democratic hands. If depriving Democrats of immigration reform as an issue hurts them, Republicans could make significant gains.

This doesn’t answer the question of which party immigration reform is likely to help. What it does say is that it’s a no-lose proposition for Republicans. Even if it turns out to help Democrats more, Republicans aren’t likely to suffer much because of it.

Of course, as Engler points out, the fact that immigration reform is likely to help the Republican Party doesn’t mean that it’s likely to help very many individual Republicans:

Most incumbent Republicans will not have a strong incentive to vote for an immigration bill containing a path to citizenship if a significant Hispanic population appears to be lacking in their districts. In fact, many conservatives may be far more concerned about primary challengers than Hispanic backlash.

On the other hand, the Republican Party as a whole has a tremendous opportunity to turn districts in their favor. If they can redefine themselves to the Hispanic population, starting with comprehensive immigration reform, they will be doing more than pouring water on the DCCC’s gunpowder—they will be stealing it for themselves.

This suggests that GOP party leaders probably should push hard to get Republican support for immigration reform. It also means that if they don’t push hard, it’s pretty likely to fail. It’s an interesting analysis.

View original post here: 

Who Will Immigration Reform Help More? Republicans or Democrats?

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Who Will Immigration Reform Help More? Republicans or Democrats?

5 of the Worst Reactions to the Boston Manhunt

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

p.mininav-header-text background-color: #000000 !importantMore MoJo coverage of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings


Deadly Shootout With Bombing Suspects Near Boston: One Suspect Dead, One Being Sought


Did Boston Bombing Suspect Post Al Qaeda Prophecy on YouTube?


What These Tweets Tell Us About Boston Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev


EXCLUSIVE: Wrestling Photo, Stunned Reactions From Former Classmates of Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev


These Soldiers Did the Boston Marathon Wearing 40-Pound Packs. Then They Helped Save Lives.

As of Friday evening, the manhunt for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was still ongoing. For legislators and pundits, however, it was already time to talk politics.

Seizing on the reported Chechen heritage and Muslim background of the alleged bombers, politicos used the attack in Boston to make points about everything from immigration reform to the use of drones on American soil. Although it’s totally appropriate to talk politics in the aftermath of a tragedy, talking politics doesn’t necessarily mean you’re making a good argument. Here are some of the worst reactions to the Boston bombing.

Let’s slow down immigration reform! Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Friday morning that the attacks should affect the immigration reform effort:

Given the events of this week, it’s important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system. While we don’t yet know the immigration status of the people who have terrorized the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out, it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system.

The two suspects in the Boston bombing appear to have come to this country legally, and there’s no indication yet that supposed “loopholes in the immigration system” that Grassley referenced are the reason the Boston bombing was not prevented.

Immigrants are terrorists. “It’s too bad Suspect #1 won’t be able to be legalized by Marco Rubio, now,” conservative pundit Ann Coulter tweeted Friday. She’s implying that unauthorized immigrants in the United States might be terrorists.

Time for spying on all Muslims. Former Homeland Security chairman Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) didn’t waste any time demanding that the Muslim community come under scrutiny, even though the motivations behind the bombing are not yet fully known.

“Police have to be in the community, they have to build up as many sources as they can, and they have to realize that the threat is coming from the Muslim community and increase surveillance there,” King told National Review, adding that “we can’t be bound by political correctness.” He also insisted he wasn’t just singling out Muslims (ellipses added by National Review): “We need more police and more surveillance in the communities where the threat is coming from, whether it’s the Irish community with the Westies an Irish-American gang in New York City, or the Italian community with the mafia, or the Muslim community with the Islamic terrorists.” Racial profiling for everyone!

Let’s ignore the Constitution. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is up for reelection in 2014, insisted that President Barack Obama ignore the Constitution and refuse to recognize Tsarnaev’s Miranda rights if he is captured. Graham tweeted that Obama should hold Tsarnaev as an “enemy combatant.” Tsarnaev is an American citizen and no direct links between the Tsarnaev brothers and an international terror group such as Al Qaeda have been established. But that didn’t stop Graham, a senator sworn to uphold the US Constitution, from insisting the government behave as though an American citizen’s constitutional rights don’t exist.

“America a battlefield because the terrorists think it is,” Graham said during an interview with Washington Post conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin later on Friday. “It sure would be nice to have a drone up there to track the suspect.”

Rubin added the brackets in Graham’s last sentence. Without the full context, it’s impossible to know whether Graham wanted the drone in the air for surveillance purposes as opposed to launching missiles or dropping bombs.

The Boston Marathon bombing is an inside job. Noted conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is insisting that the Boston bombing was a “false flag” operation carried out by the government. It seems unlikely that Jones’ bizarre understanding of the attack will catch on. But prominent politicians, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), former Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), and current Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), have appeared on Jones’ radio show. Perhaps these latest comments will finally convince lawmakers that it’s time to stop legitimizing Jones’ conspiracy-mongering.

Read More: 

5 of the Worst Reactions to the Boston Manhunt

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 5 of the Worst Reactions to the Boston Manhunt

Why Is the Toxic Dispersant Used After BP’s Gulf Disaster Still the Cleanup Agent of Choice in the US?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Great Britain, the home country of BP, has banned the stuff. So has Sweden. But BP says as long as the US allows it, they’ll use Corexit dispersant on their next oil spill. “If this vision becomes reality, long-term destruction to our health and environment will expand exponentially.” This according to a damning new report, Deadly Dispersants in the Gulf: Are Public Health and Environmental Tragedies the New Norm for Oil Spill Cleanups?, by the nonprofit Government Accountability Project (GAP).

The GAP report was issued today in advance of tomorrow’s three-year anniversary of BP’s monster debacle in Gulf of Mexico, the worst environmental disaster in US history, that killed eleven people and injured sixteen others. BP managed to hide most of the 4.9 million barrels of oil erupting from its maimed well from human eyes by flooding it with 1.84 million gallons of Corexit dispersant, both at the wellhead on the deep sea floor (a first) and at the surface.

That had devastating affects on human health, says the GAP, based on data they collected from extensive Freedom of Information Act requests and from evidence collected over 20 months from more than two dozen employee and citizen whistleblowers who experienced the cleanup’s effects firsthand.

BP oil spill clean-up worker near Grande Isle, LA, June 2010. © Julia Whitty

The report cites four major areas of concern: 1) existing health problems; 2) failure to protect clean-up workers; 3) ecological problems and food safety issues; 4) and inadequate compensation. Ongoing health problems from the “BP Syndrome” include: blood in urine, heart palpitations, kidney and liver damage, migraines, multiple chemical sensitivity, memory loss, rapid weight loss, respiratory system and nervous system damage, seizures, skin irritation (burning and lesions), and temporary paralysis, plus long-term concerns about exposure to known carcinogens.

Failure to protect clean-up workers began with BP and the government misrepresenting known risks by asserting that Corexit was low in toxicity—this contrary to warnings in BP’s own internal manual—says the GAP. They cite other problems:

Interviewed cleanup workers reported they either didn’t receive any training or didn’t receive the federally required training.
Worker resource manuals detailing Corexit health hazards were not delivered or were removed from BP worksites early in the cleanup, when health problems began.
Divers were allowed to enter the water after assurances it was safe and additional protective equipment was unnecessary, despite government agency regulations prohibited diving during the spill due to health risks.
BP and the federal government publicly denied any significant chemical exposure to humans was occurring, though of the workers the GAP interviewed, 87% reported contact with Corexit while on the job, and subsequent blood test results revealed high levels of chemical exposure.
BP and the federal government believed that allowing workers to wear respirators would not create a positive public image and the feds permitted BP’s retaliation against workers who insisted on wearing this protection. Nearly half of the cleanup workers interviewed by GAP reported that they were threatened with termination when they tried to wear respirators or additional safety equipment on the job. Many received early termination notices after raising safety concerns on the job.
All workers interviewed reported that they were provided minimal or no personal protective equipment on the job.

As for compensation: “BP’s Gulf Coast Claims Fund denied all health claims during its 18 months of existence.”

© Julia Whitty Living mollusk trying to escape BP oil spill:

Among the ecological damage in the report the GAP notes: “The FDA grossly misrepresented the results of its analysis of Gulf seafood safety. Of GAP’s witnesses, a majority expressed concern over the quality of government seafood testing, and reported seeing new seafood deformities firsthand. A majority of fishermen reported that their catch has decreased significantly since the spill.”

I’ve written extensively about ongoing problems regarding Corexit emerging from the science: overview here; dispersant made spill 52 times more toxic here; dispersant allowed oil to penetrate beaches more deeply here; fish hammered by oil and dispersant here; the decline of microscopic life on oil-and-dispersal-tainted beaches here, and horrific and ongoing whale and dolphin deaths here and here.

The GAP report demands that both BP and the government take corrective action to mitigate ongoing suffering and to prevent the future use of this toxic substance, including: a federal ban on Corexit; Congressional hearings on the link between the current public health crisis in the Gulf and Corexit exposure; immediate reform of EPA dispersant policy, specifically to determine whether such products are safe for humans and the environment prior to granting approval; establishment of effective medical treatment programs run by medical experts specializing in chemical exposure for Gulf residents and workers; funding by the federal government of third-party independent assessments of both the spill’s health impact on Gulf residents and workers, and such treatment programs when established.

More here: 

Why Is the Toxic Dispersant Used After BP’s Gulf Disaster Still the Cleanup Agent of Choice in the US?

Posted in Brita, Citizen, Dolphin, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Is the Toxic Dispersant Used After BP’s Gulf Disaster Still the Cleanup Agent of Choice in the US?

The First—And Last—Hearing on Keystone XL Environmental Impact

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

State Department officials trekked to Grand Island, Nebraska today to hear statements from ranchers, geologists, construction workers, oil executives, and a colorful cast of other characters in the only public hearing on the Department’s latest Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL pipeline.

Speakers for and against the pipeline began lining up at 7 a.m. amid frigid cold and snow for a chance to get three minutes on the soapbox at the Heartland Events Center. There was the blustering, hoarse representative of the local Cowboy-Indian Alliance who exhorted Transcanada to “ship your toxic crap to Asia and India” instead of the US; the moody, varsity jacket-wearing teenager who recited an angst-ridden poetic diatribe against the pipeline (“The earth shudders beneath our feet / we are tectonic”); the welder with Pipeliners Local 798 who argued that moving oil through a pipeline was “greener” than using trucks or trains; and the members of a local Sioux tribe who sang prayer songs into the record.

During the three-hour afternoon session, sixty speakers stood before a weary-looking State Dept. panel and lobbed by-now-familiar arguments: jobs and the inevitability of development on one side, and water contamination and climate change on the other. Anti-pipeliners, many dressed in matching red and white t-shirts, held the clear majority, and alternated between sitting stony-faced with upheld power fists, and guffawing and booing when suit-clad oil reps and fleece-jacketed blue collar union leaders voiced their support for the project. The usual suspects from both camps were on hand: Transcanada VP Corey Goulet, and activist Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska, who described the mood in the room as relatively friendly considering the high, longstanding tensions between the two factions.

“Folks that have been dealing with this for four years now aren’t holding back,” Kleeb said, but “we had a lot of union guys say they agree with our concerns about the environment, but just want to get jobs for their guys.”

“Every time citizens get an opportunity to address the government on the pipeline is good,” Kleeb said. “It brings all of us together in one place.”

Today’s hearing was the first and last time for the public to comment in person on this EIS; written comments will still be accepted through April 22. President Obama is expected to make a final decision on the project by September.

This article is from:

The First—And Last—Hearing on Keystone XL Environmental Impact

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on The First—And Last—Hearing on Keystone XL Environmental Impact

Obama Wants Conservatives to Know that Immigration Reform Won’t Be a Rerun of 1986

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

What are the odds that immigration reform will pass? Opposition has already started to mobilize from, among others, Arkansas Sen. Richard Shelby, who noted the other day, “We’ve seen this movie before — 27 years ago, remember?” Ed Kilgore comments:

Shelby, of course, is alluding to a “scandal” that most people outside conservative activist circles are at best dimly aware of: the 1986 immigration law that sold “amnesty” under the false flag of reform.

I guess this is true: most people who are neither conservative activists nor political junkies don’t really remember the 1986 immigration bill. But make no mistake: it’s profoundly driven the approach toward immigration reform from both left and right. Among tea partyish conservatives, the 1986 bill is universally considered one of the great betrayals of all time. They were promised tougher border security in return for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but in the end they got only a wave of newly legalized immigrants flooding into their town and schools. The tougher border security was a mirage, discarded almost immediately, which naturally led to yet another new wave of Mexicans crossing the border illegally and yet another call for a path to citizenship for them. As far as conservatives are concerned, they were played for suckers in 1986, and they’re not going to fall for this con again.

President Obama has done his best to blunt this anger by spending his first term getting tough on undocumented immigrants. E-Verify has been ramped up; deportations have become harsher and more intensive; fences have been built; and funding for the border patrol has been increased. Liberals have been incensed with much of this, but the result—with a big assist from the recession—has been a sharp decline in illegal immigration over the past few years. Generally speaking, Obama’s entire strategy with immigration reform has revolved around proving that he doesn’t plan a rerun of 1986. This time, he’s saying, there really will be tougher border security and tougher employer checks to go along with the path to citizenship.

Will this work? Conservatives have not been notably willing to credit Obama with much good faith in the past, and even Marco Rubio can only do so much to change that. Nevertheless, this has been the plan all along, and now we get to see if it works. If Obama can convince enough conservatives that he’ll be tougher than Reagan on border security, then immigration reform has a chance. If not, it will probably fail.

View the original here: 

Obama Wants Conservatives to Know that Immigration Reform Won’t Be a Rerun of 1986

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Obama Wants Conservatives to Know that Immigration Reform Won’t Be a Rerun of 1986

10 Reasons the Background Check Bill Means Victory for the NRA

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) have been forced this week to consider further retooling their bill for expanded gun background checks, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters on Tuesday still lacks the 60 votes it needs to overcome a filibuster. The National Rifle Association and senators opposed to the bill continue to argue that it would unfairly burden lawful gun owners while doing nothing to prevent future tragedies like the one in Newtown.

In fact, the bill does an awful lot that should please the pro-gun lobby. Which helps explain why, on Sunday, the gun-rights group Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms endorsed the bill and the “numerous advances for our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms that it contains.” (Even the NRA, consulted during the compromise talks, initially called the bill a “positive development,” as opposed to the stricter gun-control plan initially proposed by Sen. Chuck Schumer; the NRA later backtracked, saying the compromise bill would violate the Second Amendment.)

So, how much would the Manchin-Toomey bill actually expand gun rights? Quite a bit, in its current form. While broadening background checks to some degree, the bill also:

Continue Reading »

Credit – 

10 Reasons the Background Check Bill Means Victory for the NRA

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on 10 Reasons the Background Check Bill Means Victory for the NRA