An American Catholic bishop has forbidden his flock from participating in the war against Iraq, on pain of mortal sin. Bishop John Michael Botean, head of the diocese of St. George in Canton, Ohio, said in his lent address that a military assault on Iraq does not fit the criteria of the just-war tradition. “Thus,” he argued, “any killing associated with it is unjustified and, in consequence, unequivocally murder.”
An American peace activist has been killed by an Israeli bulldozer driver who was demolishing a Palestinian home. Contrary to the official Israeli story and reports in several news media, Corrie did not run in front of the bulldozer. In fact, photos taken at the scene demonstrate that she was clearly visible, wearing a bright orange jacket, and speaking to the driver through a megaphone at the time. She was run over twice.
Corrie was killed trying to stop a war crime, one more reason that the U.S. should support creation of an International Criminal Court.
Update: The Israeli army has prevented an ambulance carrying her body from leaving the Gaza Strip.
A traveler who flew from Seattle to San Diego earlier this month found a note in his luggage from the federal Transportation Security Administration, notifying him that his bags had been searched, and criticizing his “anti-American attitude” to boot. Apparently the TSA inspector didn’t approve of the “No War With Iraq” signs in his suitcase.
you can listen to this fine piece from NPR on the inscrutable logic of our latest war, which should be starting any minute now.
The Israeli government, which provides gas masks free to its own citizens, has been caught selling gas masks to foreign workers. Not only did the foreign workers pay more, they got less: the kits contained drugs that were past their expiration date.
The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal challenging a restrictive Georgia election law that creates special hurdles for third party candidates. Richard Winger, a long-time ballot access activist, had this to say to the Court.
Dear Justice Kennedy, the Court’s refusal to hear Cartwright v Perdue, 02-1082, is shameful. In that case, the 11th circuit had upheld Georgia’s ballot access requirement for minor party and independent candidates, a petition signed by 5% of the number of registered voters. 304 F 3d 1138 (2002).You said on page one of your concurrence in Cook v Gralike, 531 US 510, “A state lacks the power to impose any conditions on the election of Senators or Representatives, save neutral provisions as to the time, place, and manner of elections”. Georgia’s law is not neutral. Any Republican or Democrat can run for Congress simply by paying a filing fee. In the November 2002 election, no Republican ran in the 2nd and 5th districts, and no Democrat ran in the 10th district. Any Georgia registered voter age 25 and above could have appeared on the general election ballot as a candidate for congress, if he or she had paid the fee to run in any of those three districts. Victory in the primary in any of those three districts would have been automatic, since in actuality, no one ran for those nominations.
Yet a Libertarian or a Green couldn’t place his or her name on the general election ballot in Georgia, without fulfilling a task that is so difficult, no one has ever done it in any state. How obvious can it be that Georgia’s procedures are not “neutral” as to political party?
Sadly, the justices have already shown themselves unable to feel shame.
NPR ran a fine commentary Thursday about the history of the Crusades and why so many Muslims are reminded of them when they watch America preparing to not just attack and defeat Iraq, but occupy Iraq militarily for an indefinite period.
This blog has been pretty sparse of late. Let’s see if I can correct that. Some of the stories I’ve run here are still in the news, in one way or another:
The rolling blackouts in California continue to be the source of much legal wrangling, with power companies denying they acted in concert to screw California ratepayers, even though some of the executives responsible have already confessed.
With the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, there is renewed speculation that terror suspects will be tortured by U.S. officials. The United States so far hasn’t bothered to deny it. And don’t look for the Democrats to make an issue of it.
My spouse was recently emailed a copy of an urban myth about how soldiers and sailors love George W. Bush so very much, which is strange considering that Dubya remains AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard.
While ostensibly we refuse to be terrorized, the promotion of fear by the White House continues apace. Get some duct tape. Wait, no, don’t.
On the other hand, there’s relative silence in the media about corporate crime, which must be good news for the Bushies who don’t want you to think too carefully about Halliburton getting a piece of the postwar Iraqi oil business.
Most people in the Middle East think a war on Iraq is part of a crusade against Islam, despite all the Bush propaganda to the contrary.
We keep hearing how Saddam Hussein might use chemical weapons against American invaders, as he did against Iranian invaders, but we never hear that the Iraqis were themselves subjected to chemical attack at the hands of the British.
NPR reported February 8 that large numbers of Pakistanis are leaving the U.S. for Canada, fearing anti-Arab repression and seeking asylum. The Canadian government, to their shame, is sending them back. This results in refugees being delivered into the hands of the very government they were fleeing, and hundreds have been detained.
Another Bush loyalist is enjoying his reward. Miguel Estrada has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals after his work as a legal strategist for George W. Bush’s in the 2000 Florida election dispute at the Supreme Court, which made it possible for Bush to steal the electionC in broad daylight. Much has been made of his lack of any written legal opinions (he’s never served as a judge), but it’s not as if we don’t know what he’s hiding. The People for the American Way point out that Miguel Estrada has worked to defend anti-loitering laws “which have been demonstrated to disproportionately harm African-America ns and Latinos. Federal and state courts, including the Supreme Court, have inva lidated a number of these provisions as violating the First Amendment and the du e process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including in several cases that Es trada has worked on.” His former former direct supervisor in the Solicitor General’s office, Paul Bender, told the Los Angeles Times that Estrada is so “ideologically driven that he couldn’t be trusted to state the law in a fair, neutral way,” and that he is a “right-wing ideologue” with “an agend a that’s similar to Clarence Thomas”. Miguel Estrada doesn’t believe the courts have any role in striking down unconstitutional laws.
Senator Grassley (R-IA) has defended Estrada, saying that for the Senate to refuse to confirm Estrada “would be to shut the door on the American dre am of Hispanic-Americans everywhere.” Strange talk from a Republican who has voted against affirmative action in the past. Maybe Trent Lott changed Grassley’s mind on that.
