Must read: If MLK were alive today, his words would threaten most of those who now sing his praises

A radical man deeply hated and held in contempt is recast as if he was a universally loved moderate.

"The major threat of Martin Luther King Jr to us is a spiritual and moral one. King’s courageous and compassionate example shatters the dominant neoliberal soul-craft of smartness, money and bombs.

His grand fight against poverty, militarism, materialism and racism undercuts the superficial lip service and pretentious posturing of so-called progressives as well as the candid contempt and proud prejudices of genuine reactionaries. King was neither perfect nor pure in his prophetic witness – but he was the real thing in sharp contrast to the market-driven semblances and simulacra of our day.

"In this brief celebratory moment of King’s life and death we should be highly suspicious of those who sing his praises yet refuse to pay the cost of embodying King’s strong indictment of the US empire, capitalism and racism in their own lives."

Martin Luther King Jr was a radical. We must not sterilize his legacy by Cornel West (Guardian).

Peace Games: Part of the way with... oh, never mind.

"You all are combat troops not doing a combat mission, although it looks, smells and feels and hurts a lot like combat." -- Lt. Col. Andy Ulrich, Hawija, Iraq (August 31, 2010).

You may remember a time when Barack Obama was widely admired for a speaking style that was compelling and forthright. Even when you disagreed with him, as I did during his late run for the White House, you admired the clarity, directness and emotional uplift of his addresses. So you had to be disappointed with his uninspiring performance last Tuesday, even as you sympathized with the spot he's in. The chasm between the American self-image as the defender of freedom and justice and its true role as the enforcer of class and property rights around the globe has become so vast that no U.S. politician can be clear and forthright about anything.

The president's immediate problem Tuesday was that he was trying to paint the lipstick of withdrawal on the pig of our continuing occupation of Iraq. However you describe the actions of the 50,000 plus troops and many more thousands of "security contractors" who remain in Iraq, "it looks, smells and feels and hurts a lot like combat."

A mission statement is a form of marketing: it is meaningless without action. The new mission statement for Iraq can't alter reality; as Matthew Yglesias wrote yesterday on American Prospect, "there's simply no redeeming an irredeemable mission." All Obama's version of "mission accomplished" really offered was another opportunity for George Orwell to roll over in his grave.

The most chilling aspect of the speech was its unequivocal embrace of American militarism (the expenditure of "vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home," as he accurately put it). Even as he admitted that "our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work," the president had no concrete proposals to take us from making war to creating jobs.

Somehow in the past two years the Iraq war has mutated in Obama's mind from something illegal and "dumb" to the penultimate stop in an unbroken line of heroic actions "that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar," an "unbroken line" that the president presumably knows includes a barbarous civil war and almost continuous episodes of territorial expansion, genocide, colonial brutality, war crimes and unprovoked aggression. Khe Sanh, for pete's sake (along with the Tet Offensive, it was Khe Sanh that turned the tide of public opinion against the war in Vietnam).

Ultimately the speech was less about the conclusion of military operations in Iraq than it was a billboard for American militarism in general ("the steel in our ship of state") and in particular this Democratic administration's embrace of permanent war in Afghanistan ("As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us" -- all four or five dozen of them). The peace movement and the left in general have some tough decisions ahead. It is clear by now that taking sides reflexively with the Democrats in every fight ends with being taken for granted by the party's leaders on every front. There may be times when supporting a pro-military Democrat makes sense -- because he or she has been a reliable ally (in the fight for affordable, universal health care, say, or for equal rights under the law), but it is becoming increasingly difficult to take seriously on economic justice issues those Democrats that support aggressive militarism and runaway DOD spending.

The Democratic Party needs to learn that progressives are serious about change.

Are we?

Change Watch: ...plus c'est le même chose

Who made the following statement in response to criticism of U.S. counter-terrorism policies?:

“Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.”

a. John Yoo, assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel during the George W. Bush Administration
b. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States under George W. Bush
c. John Brennan, Barack Obama's Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

Answer: c.

Admit it. You're not surprised. With Bush-era policies that undermine civil rights and civil liberties continuing unchallenged and unabated by the administration of Barack Obama, it is hardly surprising to hear the president's minions repeating the same tired rationalizations employed by their discredited predecessors.

In an op-ed in USA Today today, 'We need no lectures': Administration disrupts terrorists’ plots, takes fight to them abroad, Brennan -- sounding like he's channeling Dick Cheney -- writes that politics "should never get in the way of national security. But too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe." This is the security state at its most transparent. No debate. No consideration by the citizenry of tactics, strategies, morality, common sense. Just shut up and do what we say. We need no lectures, indeed.

More: Obama's embrace of Bush terrorism policies is celebrated as "Centrism" by Glenn Greenwald (Salon 2009-05-15)

Clip File: 4 Supreme Court Cases That Will Say a Lot About the Direction of Our Country

Would a Human Sacrifice TV Channel be protected by the First Amendment? This and other key questions will be answered this term.

"As the Supreme Court kicked off its new season last week with a brand new justice on the bench, the cases on the docket provided a fascinating glimpse into the judicial soul of the country.

"In the first days alone, there were cases involving dog fighting, a controversial cross on public land, and a number of prickly criminal justice issues.

"The months to come will test laws on some of the most controversial issues of our time, including guns, sex offenders and the uniquely American question of whether teenagers can be sentenced to life without parole. The outcomes will tell us a lot about the future direction of the Roberts court, and what it might mean to have Justice Sonia Sotomayor on the bench."

The rest of the story: 4 Supreme Court Cases That Will Say a Lot About the Direction of Our Country by Liliana Segura (AlterNet 2009-10-12)

Civil Liberties: Repeal telecom immunity and roll back Bush-era abuses

Three key provisions of the USA PATRIOT act (a.k.a., the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism act -- you have to give the Right props for salesmanship) and related legislation, set to expire on December 31, are up for renewal in the House and Senate. The Obama Department of Justice has asked Congress to renew three sections, set to expire, that give the government the authority to access business records (the so-called library-records power);  to deploy roving wiretaps; and to conduct surveillance of “lone wolf” suspects with no known links to foreign governments or terrorist groups.

Sens. Dick Durbin, Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold, along with Sens. Jon Tester, Tom Udall, Jeff Bingaman, Bob Menendez, Jeff Merkley, Daniel Akaka and Ron Wyden, have introduced the JUSTICE Act (for the Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools in Counter-Terrorism Efforts act -- there, now the liberals are getting the hang of it) to use the reauthorization process to reverse laws passed in the aftermath of 9/11 that were designed to undermine civil rights traditionally considered to be protected by the Constitution.

The JUSTICE Act will completely repeal the provision of the FISA Amendments Act that immunized from civil and criminal liability the big telecom companies that illegally assisted in the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping activities. It will restore protections for the privacy of library and bookstore records. And it will add strong checks and balances to PATRIOT ACT provisions governing FISA orders, wiretaps, and national security letters.

Working Assets' CREDOaction is participating with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Campaign for Reader Privacy (which includes the American Library Association, American Booksellers Association, Association of American Publishers, and PEN American Center) in an effort to undo the worst of the damage of the PATRIOT fiasco. You can help by signing CREDOaction's petition to restore civil liberties stolen by the Bush administration in the wake of September 11:

"It's time to repeal telecom immunity for illegal spying," the petition reads, "restore privacy protection to library and bookstore records, and roll back the worst abuses of the PATRIOT ACT. I urge you to co-sponsor and vote for the JUSTICE Act, a bill introduced by Sens. Russ Feingold and Dick Durbin which reinstates much-needed safeguards to our constitutional rights."

Take action: CREDOaction petition
CREDOaction
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Campaign for Reader Privacy
American Library Association
American Booksellers Association
Association of American Publishers
PEN American Center

Change Watch: Bush's Search Policy For Travelers Is Kept

Obama Officials Say Oversight Will Grow

"Under the policy begun by Bush and now continued by Obama, the government can open your laptop and read your medical records, financial records, e-mails, work product and personal correspondence -- all without any suspicion of illegal activity." -- Elizabeth Goitein, liberty and national security project, Brennan Center for Justice.

The Obama administration will largely preserve Bush-era procedures allowing the government to search -- without suspicion of wrongdoing -- the contents of a traveler's laptop computer, cellphone or other electronic device, although officials said new policies would expand oversight of such inspections.

The rest of the story: Bush's Search Policy For Travelers Is Kept by Ellen Nakashima (Washington Post 2009-08-29)

The Senate Caves In Again to Bush on FISA

But the House shows a little moxie

The FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248), an "updating" of the 30-year-old law that authorized a secret court to oversee intelligence operations by federal agencies, sailed through the "Democratically-controlled" Senate on Feb 12.

Intended to "modernize and streamline" provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, "and for other purposes" (italics added), the act includes a section authorizing warrantless wiretaps of foreign-to-foreign communications and retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the administration to spy on Americans. The bill also states that the government will not need a warrant for foreign-to-American communications, with no privacy protections on the American end, and will allow the government to install monitoring stations in telephone and internet facilities inside the U.S., also without judicial review.

In effect, the statute provides retroactive immunity to government officials as completely as to the telecoms.

You could be forgiven for thinking that the Democrat's narrow majority was diminished by the defections of a few conservatives like Lieberman and Salazar, but you'd be wrong. The vote wasn't even close.

Sixty-eight senators voted for the bill; only 29 said nay. To put it another way, 19 Democrats -- 40% of the Democratic delegation -- joined Lieberman and the Republicans in voting to gut the Constitution.

Three senators couldn't be bothered to vote at all. One was Lindsey Graham. No loss there. But the others were the two liberal champions who seek to be the leader of their party: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

It's no wonder that millions of American feel disenfranchised by the current system. In the absence of party discipline, there is no downside to lying about who you are or what you'll do once you're in office. Voters pull the lever for a Democrat and wind up with a senator or a representative allied with the GOP and supporting a corrupt, incompetent and fascistic president. Why wouldn't they vote for Ralph Nader the next time, or just stay home? It shouldn't be a shock that more people vote for American Idol than for president; at least you can count on the likes of Kelly Clarkson, Ruben Studdard, Fantasia Barrino, Carrie Underwood and Taylor Hicks to deliver as promised.

The problem with Washington is not that it is narrowly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Nor is Federalism the problem. The problem is that the government -- all branches -- is firmly and utterly in the hands of conservatives. Nothing is changed by dispatching someone to the District for no more compelling reason than that s/he labels self a Democrat. We have to start choosing people who actually will take on the military-industrial complex, engage in the fight against poverty, expand democratic government, protect the environment, and rebuild the country's tattered infrastructure, regardless of party. We have to stop letting conservatives use the Democratic Party to camouflage their dominance of policy. There are no liberals in the Republican congressional delegation; why should conservatives be allowed to hide out among the Democrats? Party labels are just another way of keeping us from figuring out what's really going on.

Instead of sucking up to right wingers in order to cop the choice corner suites in the Senate office buildings, the Democrats should toss traitors like Joe Lieberman out on their Dumbo-sized ears. What has been gained by taking "control" of the Senate, beyond winning for the Democrats a share of the responsibility for the failures of George W. Bush and of the conservative majority that truly controls the legislative agenda? We would have a far more responsive, effective and democratic government if our elected officials were organized along ideological instead of partisan political lines.

With the White House already lost to the center-right, liberals, progressives, peace advocates, environmentalists, labor activists and such can more effectively deploy their time, talent and legal tender to reorienting the Congress than worrying over who's going to be president. Not that there aren't reasons to choose among them, but McCain, Clinton and Obama are more alike than they are different: none of them is going to tackle the radical adjustment in priorities needed if this is to become a just and democratic country. There should be no rush to choose one over another without getting concrete policy commitments in return.

In the matter at hand, for example, here is the list of nominal Democrats who voted with the Republicans to give the president the added power he craves: Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Conrad (ND), Inouye (HI), Johnson (SD), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Mikulski (MD), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Rockefeller (WV) -- the bill's sponsor, Salazar (CO), Pryor (AR), Webb (VA) and Whitehouse (D-RI). I'm not saying protecting your rights as citizens should be the only thing on your mind when you vote, but at least it ought to be a consideration.

Besides, many of these names -- Baucus, Casey, Conrad, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, the Nelson boys, Lincoln, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar -- come up over and over again as stalwart defenders of corporate interests and opponents of economic reform. Put a hand on your wallet and look around for a progressive alternative the next time they come conning for support in your precinct.

The list should give us pause in other ways. It turns out that a candidate's opposition to the war du jour may be an insufficient reason to endorse him if his objection to the conflict is that it has been mismanaged, the position of many corporatist Democrats, Jim Webb apparently among them. By the same token, it is hard to see what was gained by replacing the last liberal Republican, Lincoln Chafee, with the conservative Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse (another possible warning flag to keep in mind this particular election season: the Rhode Island Democrat's campaign slogan was "Change the Senate").

In 2006, the Democratic Senate and House election committees systematically supported conservatives against candidates who ran on such issues as peace and economic justice. With many more progressives in primary races this time than last, activists need to be on the alert for a reappearance of similar tactics in upcoming contests.

The news isn't all bad.

Although the president was at his fearmongering worst last week, in a rare demonstration of backbone, the leadership in the House, balking at shielding phone carriers from privacy lawsuits and at warrantless and unwarranted surveillance of American citizens by their government -- took a two-week Presidents' Day vacation without reauthorizing last summer's temporary domestic wiretapping law.

"By blocking this piece of legislation, our country is more in danger of an attack," Bush said of the House's presumption. "By not giving the professionals the tools they need, it's going to be a lot harder to do the job we need to be able to defend America."

The temporary provisions are set to expire at midnight tonight, but Democrats argued that the basic law will remain in effect and that the president wittingly manufactured the confrontation by threatening to veto a short-term extension that was intended to permit the Senate and House time to deliberate responsibly on revising FISA permanently. "He knows that the underlying 'intelligence' law and the power given to him in the Protect America Act give him sufficient authority to do all of the surveillance and collecting that he needs to do in order to protect the American people," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told The New York Times on Thursday.

In response to Bush's accusation that Democrats are imperiling the nation's security, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer accused the president of "fear mongering."

"After refusing to extend current law, the president repeated today his untenable and irresponsible claim that our national security will be jeopardized unless the House immediately rubber-stamps a Senate bill," Hoyer said. "In fact, a wide range of national security experts has made clear that the president and the intelligence community have all the tools they need to protect our nation."

"This is not about protecting Americans," added Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, head of the House Democratic Caucus, on Friday. "The president just wants to protect American telephone companies."

If the bill is so vital, some Democrats wondered, why not sign the measure without the telecoms' "Get Out of Jail Free" card and let the phone companies off the hook with separate legislation?

Whether the rare display of gumption by House leaders is evidence that the Democrats are ready at last to take on the worst excesses of the president remains to be seen. But so low are our expectations by now that it was gratifying to see them display even the faintest profile of courage, notwithstanding that to do it they had to get out of town.

Countdown Special Comment on FISA: President Bush Is A Liar And A Fascist by Keith Olberman (CrooksAndLiars.com, 2008-02-14)
Putting the president above the law (International Herald Tribune, 2008-02-10)
Bush Says Congress Putting US in Danger (AP/NYTimes, 2008-02-15)

Update: House Democrats reject telecom amnesty, warrantless surveillance

The House approved a new FISA bill that denies retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecoms and which refuses to grant most of the new powers for the President to spy on Americans without warrants. It passed comfortably, by a 213-197 margin. (Salon.com, 2008-03-14)

Our Battered Constitution: FBI Prepares Vast Database of Biometrics

One billion dollar project to include images of irises and faces.

by Ellen Nakashima (The Washington Post, 2007-12-22)

Clarksburg, West Virginia - The FBI is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world's largest computer database of peoples' physical characteristics, a project that would give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals in the United States and abroad.

The rest of the story: The Washington Post.

Déjà Vu: The return of HUAC

A little over a half century ago, the Feds held hearings around the country in an effort to uncover, expose and punish "disloyal" Americans. The most irresponsible of these vigilantes were the members and staff of the House Un-American Activities Committee. If the current, Democratically controlled House has its way, a similar operation will be at work in 2008.

by Peter Erlinder

...Under media radar, the Democrat-sponsored "Prevention of Violent Radicalism and Homegrown Terrorism" bill (H.R. 1955) passed the House at the end of October by a vote of 404 to 6. The bill was tagged as noncontroversial by the House leadership and is pending before the Senate. For those senators and citizens who remember history, the bill should be controversial, indeed.

Promoted as a relatively innocuous public safety measure, the bill directs money to the Department of Homeland Security for research on homegrown terrorist-Americans in our midst. While this may seem to make sense, the way the bill describes the "hidden enemy," and the powers inherent in the 10-member investigative commission it establishes, should raise concerns among Americans who remember history, no matter what their political leanings.

According to the bill, "homegrown terrorists" can be anyone who " intimidate(s) or coerce(s) the United States government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social belief," a definition broad enough to include Americans who organize mass marches on Washington to "coerce" changes in government policy."

The rest of the story: CommonDreams.Org

The Law: the abdication of consitutional responsibility by the judicial branch

Law Is Everywhere (pdf) by Owen Fiss is a remarkable essay from the Yale Law Journal on the ability -- and the necessity -- of the courts to uphold the rule of law in the face of attempted usurpations of power by the executive, based on the experience of Israel, a country far more threatened by terrorism than the United States. <http://yalelawjournal.org/117/2/fiss.html>

Activism: Our Tattered Bill of Rights

Here is a timely new action:

The Campaign for Our Constitution is a coalition of Southern Californians working to bring attention to our country’s Constitutional crisis and restore America’s values....

What We Want:

Revive habeas corpus, the basic right to hear the charges against you
Restore FISA, the check on warrantless wiretapping
Close Guantanamo
Bring back checks and balances

Read more about our goals

How We'll Get It

Expand the Community: Meet others online and at events
Refine the Message: Talk strategy with other activists, bloggers and
Constitutional experts
Make Some Noise: Get the word out to local media
Take Direct Action: Put pressure on California’s members of
Congress to restore our civil liberties

Read more about our strategy -- from the website.

<http://aclu-sc.org/ourconstitution/>

A challenge to Bush's grab for power

A group of conservatives is confronting abuses of power by the Bush administration. Under the banner of the American Freedom Agenda, they have proposed a series of statutes designed to rein in the executive branch. They hope to make restoration of liberties mandated and protected by the Constitution central to the 2008 campaign for president and to the deliberations of Congress in the coming months. This is from the organization's website (I've added some bolding for emphasis):

The American Freedom Agenda’s (AFA) mission is twofold: the enactment of a cluster of statutes that would restore the Constitution’s checks and balances as enshrined by the Founding Fathers; and, making the subject a staple of political campaigns and of foremost concern to Members of Congress and to voters and educators. Especially since 9/11, the executive branch has chronically usurped legislative or judicial power, and has repeatedly claimed that the President is the law. The constitutional grievances against the White House are chilling, reminiscent of the kingly abuses that provoked the Declaration of Independence.

The 10-point American Freedom Agenda would work to restore the roles of Congress and the federal judiciary to prevent such abuses of power and protect against injustices that are the signature of civilized nations. In particular, the American Freedom Agenda would:

* Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;
* Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
* Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President’s say-so;
* Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
* Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President’s say-so in violation of federal law;
* Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
* Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
* Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
* Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
* Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.

The mission of the AFA is explained further here

To advance this agenda during the 2008 campaign, the AFA has proposed a 10-point "Freedom Pledge" it hopes the candidates will agree to:

I, (candidate), hereby pledge that if elected President of the United States I will undertake the following to restore the Constitution’s checks and balances, to honor fundamental protections against injustice, and to eschew usurpations of legislative or judicial power.These are keystones of national security and individual freedom:

1. No Military Commissions Except on the Battlefield. I will not employ military commissions to prosecute offenses against the laws of war except in places where active hostilities are ongoing and a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony and to prevent local anarchy or chaos.

2. No Evidence Extracted by Torture or Coercion. I will not permit the use of evidence obtained by torture or coercion to be admissible in a military commission or other tribunal.

3. No Detaining Citizens as Unlawful Enemy Combatants. I will not detain any American citizen as an unlawful enemy combatant. Citizens accused of terrorism-linked crimes will be prosecuted in federal civilian courts.

4. Restoring Habeas Corpus for Suspected Alien Enemy Combatants. I will detain non-citizens as enemy combatants only if they have actively participated in actual hostilities against the United States. I will urge Congress to amend the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to permit any individual detained under the custody or control of the United States government to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal courts.

5. Prohibiting Warrantless Spying by the National Security Agency in Violation of Law. I will prohibit the National Security Agency from gathering foreign intelligence except in conformity with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and end the NSA’s domestic surveillance program that targets American citizens on American soil for warrantless electronic surveillance.

6. Renouncing Presidential Signing Statements. I will not issue presidential signing statements declaring the intent to disregard provisions of a bill that I have signed into law because I believe they are unconstitutional. Instead, I will veto any bill that I believe contains an unconstitutional provision and ask Congress to delete it and re-pass the legislation.

7. Ending Secret Government by Invoking State Secrets Privilege. I will not invoke the state secrets privilege to deny remedies to individuals victimized by constitutional violations perpetrated by government officials or agents. I will not assert executive privilege to deny Congress information relevant to oversight or legislation unless supreme state secrets are involved. In that case, I will submit the privilege claim to a legislative-executive committee for definitive resolution.

8. Stopping Extraordinary Renditions. I will order the cessation of extraordinary renditions except where the purpose of the capture and transportation of the suspected criminal is for prosecution according to internationally accepted standards of fairness and due process.

9. Stopping Threats to Prosecuting Journalists under the Espionage Act. I will urge Congress to amend the Espionage Act to create a journalistic exception for reporting on matters relating to the national defense. As a matter of prosecutorial discretion, until such an amendment is enacted I will not prosecute journalists for alleged Espionage Act violations except for the intentional disclosure of information that threatens immediate physical harm to American troops or citizens at home or abroad.

10. Ending the Listing of Individuals or Organizations as Terrorists Based on Secret Evidence. I will not list individuals or organizations as foreign terrorists or foreign terrorist organizations for purposes of United States or international law based on secret evidence.

I will issue a public report annually elaborating on how the actions enumerated in paragraphs 1-10 have strengthened the ability of the United States to defeat international terrorism, secure fundamental freedoms, and preserve the nation’s democratic dispensation.

______________ (signed: Hillary Clinton? John Edwards? Barack Obama? Bill Richardson? Al Gore? Mitt Romney? Rudy Giuliani? Sam Brownback? Fred Thompson? Newt Gingrich?)

These are matters crucial to our ability to conduct ourselves as a democracy. It is encouraging to see conservatives joining the fight to save the Constitution. And, although it's good to have them on board and all, it is a little discouraging to this progressive that even with a Democratic majority in Congress it should be necessary to look to the likes of Bruce Fein, Bob Barr, David Keene and Richard Viguerie for defense of our freedoms.

American Freedom Agenda:
<http://www.americanfreedomagenda.org/>