Culture, Justice, Politics

May Day, Immigrants Rights, and Moses: putting it together.

(cross posted at Jspot and The Riot Act)
4pm Eastern Time quickly approaches. Support immigrants rights, find a rally here or here, and attend it.
A common toast among Jews is may you live to 120. 120 being the ripe old age Moshe Rabeinu was when he looked out over the Promised Land without actually getting to enter it. The idea behind the toast is not just may you have the length of years of Moses, but also may those years be filled with some fraction of the knowledge, wisdom, significance, and action Moses had in his life. May our 120 years be lively, just, meaningful years.
During the 120 years of Moses’s life, we were immigrant workers, without rights, working in horrid conditions in return for meager resources. In the same way Pharoah didn’t want to have to dip into his gold reserves to pay us, these modern day Pharoahs would rather exploit people than pay the 2 to 5 dollars more an hour in payroll taxes and health benefits. And just like these workers now, we built that country while yearning to be able to build our own lives.
120 years ago today, workers across the United States and Canada embarked on a national strike to establish the 8 hour work day. Two years prior, in 1884, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (fore-runner of the American Federation of Labor), demanded that the work day, anywhere from 10 to 16 hours, be shortened to 8 hours, by May 1st, 1886. They tried negotiation, they tried legislation, but the bosses would not be moved. And so, word began to spread across the US and Canada that May 1st, 1886 would be a general strike for the 8 hour day.
On May 1st, 1886, over 340,000 workers in 12,000 factories across the US put down their tools and walked picket lines.The Knights of Labor didn’t join the call as a whole, but many members joined the strike. The epicenter of this massive strike was (yes, BZ) Chicago,where some 80,000 people, lead by Albert Parsons, head of the Chicago Knights of Labor, marched the streets carrying banners and singing. Unfortunately, in day three of the strike, police officers attacked and murdered two workers and injured more at the McCormick Harvesting Machine plant. A rally was called for Haymarket Square the next day, May 4th, 1886. The rally was peaceful until over 150 police, armed with repeater rifles, marched on the crowd, demanding they disburse. Someone threw a bomb, killing one policeman, and the police opened fire, killing 4 workers and injuring dozens more. While they had absolutely no evidence of who had done it, the city used this to round up union leaders and shut down labor newspapers. The federal government declared martial law, and local governments used this to beat down unions across the country.
Eight different labor leaders, some of whom weren’t even at the rally (Fischer was at a saloon), were tried and convicted. August Spies, Albert Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, Louis Lingg, Michael Schwab, Samuel Fielden, and Oscar Neebe were the labor leaders deemed guilty. Even the Chicago Tribune offered to pay the jury for a guilty verdict. All but Neebe wer sentenced to death. Illinois Governor commuted Fielden and Schwab’s sentences to life in prison after pressure from the international labor community. Lingg blew off his own head with a dynamite cap, and the rest were hung on November 11, 1887. In June of 1893, the new governor of Illinois, John P. Altgeld freed the living men and concluded all 8 were innocent. He condemned the whole trial and judicial system.
On May 1st, 1889, the International Labor Congress chose May 1st as International Labor Day.
I remind everyone about this with a purpose. 120 years ago, many segments of the population opposed the strike and the cause, but their kids and grandkids were able to enjoy the fruits of that struggle while the 8 hour day was slowly implemented over different sectors of work until finally, in 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act made the 8 hour day the law of the land, with overtime rates for work beyond it. So before you answer your slavish prejudices, think about how these hardworking sisters and brothers contribute to our country, and what building with them will mean for our future generations.
There are too many reasons for you to be out there, supporting the rallies tomorrow:
1) Because it is just.
2) Because you were most likely an immigrant to this country.
3) Because these people make huge contributions to our country.
4) Because they make these contributions under reprehensible conditions.
and, as I talked about over pesach (for myself, and some of the readership)
5) Because we were slaves in the land of Egypt.
for some of the other readership:
6) What you do unto the least of my brethren, you do unto me. (Matthew 25:40)
These are just the first six that come off the top of my head, and its been a long week, but surely I can produce more.
So, now, I put it to you. What have we, as a country, learned and lived in 120 years? Do we have the courage, the strength, the moral fiber to stand up for what is right? Will we march shoulder to shoulder with our sisters and brothers who are our reflection? Or do we, in this length of time equal to one lifetime of Moses, still remain on the outside of the Promised Land, looking in?

21 thoughts on “May Day, Immigrants Rights, and Moses: putting it together.

  1. I resent the implication that underpaid immigrants are slaves. I wholeheartedly agree that they are treated unfairly, and I believe that certain laws should be changed to correct the inequity. However, calling their plight “slavey” is dishonest and disrespectful to all the people in the world who suffer from actual slavery (I don’t need to list the places, do I?)
    Also, the Jews weren’t slaves for all 120 years of Moshe’s life. Think about the narrative here.

  2. Hi DT,
    I know that we weren’t slaves during all of Moshe’s life, but we were slaves over the course of it. I’m sorry if that language wasn’t clear. And i suggest researching the horrendous deals many illegal immigrants make with smugglers (also known as coyotes) to get themselves over here before doubting their slavery. It’s true, they get paid. And it’s true that what they make, relative to sweatshop workers is substantively more. But I also think you’re missing the point if you’re going to argue with me about who’s more oppressed; we should be standing up to all oppression, and I plan to do for the strangers in my midst as well as the strangers outside of it.

  3. It was great to drive to work without dump trucks and landscape trucks throwing stuff out on my car. It was nice and quiet in my area too…no construction.
    I heard a dolt on the radio comparing letting Jews take off for Yom Kippor and Illegal Alien day. Sorry you idiot, Yom Kippor is a religion day…not a day we go to shul and beg to let people break the laws of our land.
    I am not slave in Egypt. Yes, I read the Haggadah very carefully this year about being kind to foreigners. I AM kind to visitors, and new citizens. I am not kind to people brekaing the law.
    It chaps me when I can get a ticket for going 5 miles over the speed limit, but the illegal alien gets nothing.
    I recently had a client who’s grown daughter had brain cancer. She was unable to work. The hospital would NOT care for her after she could not work and lost her insurance. WHY? because social security denied her, as they felt she really could work. And without being on SS the indigent care does not take effect. BUT…BUT across the street is a hospital built with our tax money that delivers illegal alien kids. So we pay for law breakers to have kids, but deny our own citizens.
    revolting.
    Until you have lived in Texas, like I do…untill you have been mentally raped, by having a Mexican pull up in his low rider to ask you directions, while what he is really doing is jacking off ( with his 3 yr old kid next to him)and wanting you to see him….until you have watched your parents house and neighborhood become a barrio when it was once the nice Jewish area to live….untill you are hit by an uninsured Mexican and they take off and you are left with the deductible to pay for…..
    don’t speak for us all.
    No I am not a racist. My daughter’s best friend is Mexican,,,,I patronize a taqueria across the street from me everyday where the wife is Mexican….so I have nothing but love for the LEGAL Mexican ..they live good, hard working lives. Teh iilegals mock them

  4. Sorry, your post was racist and you didn’t even know it. I can’t believe you put in a reference to your DAUGHTER’s best friend being Mexican. At least the antisemites claim that THEIR best friends are Jews.

  5. Hi Elaine,
    I don’t know about your hagaddah, but the text in the one my parents use quoted several passages from the tanach that talk about helping the stranger, widow, and orphan in your midst. And I’m pretty sure it doesn’t specify.
    It seems to me that a lot of your concerns should be addressed systematically, not merely by blaming individuals, or in your case, a nationality of individuals:
    1) I don’t know what neighborhood you live in in Texas, but construction going on when and where seems to be problems you should take up with your neighbors, your town zoning board, not the folks hired to do the work.
    2) The problem with your client’s daughter is not that other people got care. it’s that she didn’t get the care she needs. Our health care system in the US is completely screwed up. There are 46 million people uninsured, and I’m pretty sure the people you are angry about didn’t make those policy decisions or make millions of dollars off those policy decisions. Direct your anger at the people making money off the suffering of millions, not at people who got SOME of the vital care we need. If someone comes into a hospital, pregnant, dying, or in a lot of pain, shouldn’t they get care?
    I am sorry about the incident in the low rider you described above, but it seems like you’re blaming a whole group of people for one person’s actions, and using it as justification for your argument. he hit and run by the uninsured driver also is a shame, but I’m pretty sure driving without insurance and having hit and run accidents is ANYTHING BUT UNIQUE to Texas drivers. How do you know these folks were Mexican? How do you know whether they are the Mexicans you love or the Mexicans you hate? And come to think of it, how do you know whether or not the people working on construction were the people you claim to love or not? Here in NYC, many people, whether they were first, second, or thrid generations immigrants came out to support immigrant rights.
    As your parents’ nice jewish neighborhood, I think Amos addressed that one.
    It is truly sad you have so much hate in your heart for a whole group of people you don’t know, a people who have come here in a way not so different from your parents, or your grandparents. These folks often work for less than minimum wage, without workplace safeguards, or health benefits. You want to be mad at someone? Be mad at the people who exploit these folks, the people that would rather pocket anywhere from 2 to 5 dollars an hour for themselves, the people who can then treat their workers with impunity.

  6. No I am not a racist. My daughter’s best friend is Mexican,,,,I patronize a taqueria across the street from me everyday where the wife is Mexican….so I have nothing but love for the LEGAL Mexican ..they live good, hard working lives. Teh iilegals mock them
    Wow, were you trying to be funny, or are you just this ignorant? FYI — that’s racism, right there.

  7. Ruby,
    Thanks for the cogent and historically insightful analysis of what is not only a matter of singular political urgency, but one with compelling moral implications for the progressive Jewish community. I have to confess to a good deal of defensiveness, as I’d read DT’s comment before finishing the article, and was ready to join his objection to the apparent assertion of equivalence between the conditions of our slavery in Egypt, and the impoverishment and exploitation of illegal immigrants in the United States. Oppression is not merely in the eye of the beholder, but is distinguishable by type and intensity, and to claim otherwise is to justify such grotesque claims as the “high-tech lynching” of oily sex predator Clarence Thomas, or the “mental raping” of our own charming poster, Elaine.
    To my surprise, then, I discovered that your article suggested no such equivalence, but metaphorically contrasted our bitter oppression as slaves with the plight of U.S. immigrants today. That contrast reinforces our obligation to address the oppression and exploitation of the powerless, not least of all when such oppression derives from their status as strangers in a strange land.
    The current attempts at immigration “reform” have met with a backlash of surprising militancy and commitment. The reason for the intensity of that backlash, I think, is the recognition that the “enforcement only” proposals of the Republican Right and their allies display no interest whatever in addressing the political, economic, social and cultural complexities of genuine immigration reform. Instead, such measures have a single, narrow purpose, i.e., the immediate transformation of 11 million immigrants into felons and fugitives. Such criminilization is the product of precisely the same lust for power that brought us the Patriot Act, secret rendition, indefinite detention, and state-sanctioned torture, all of which serve as the foundation on which the Republican police state grows ever more formidable.
    As to Elaine’s observations, my feelings are somewhat ambivalent. First, I’m not entirely convinced she’s for real (and, needless to say, would prefer to believe not). Alas, assuming she means it, while I’m not so arrogant as to dismiss her as irredeemable, I unfortunately lack the humility to respond to her screed with anything other than unmitigated disgust. Accordingly, though I commend Ruby wholeheartedly for refuting Elaine’s bigotry on a point-by-point basis, I simply can’t bring myself to regard her smug self-satisfaction as anything other than the product of mind-numbing ignorance, bovine stupidity, and a bottomless capacity for self-delusion.
    While I personally feel that there is no need or value in responding to Elaine’s visceral racism, there is a more substantive objection to immigrant amnesty that does compel such a response. As an excerpted letter in yesterday’s New York Times stated, “Let’s not forget that these immigrants are illegal. We do have immigration laws, and they broke the laws.” While this objection is undoubtedly sometimes used as an excuse by those motivated by racism, there are also those who are genuinely concerned with “rewarding” unlawful conduct. There are two principal arguments that militate against this objection. First, when a substantial portion of a nation’s population begins to openly flout or evade a particular law – such as Prohibition – and society’s prominent institutions – political, religious, business, etc. – acquiesce or collaborate in that evasion, the appropriate course of action is to discard or modify that law, not stubbornly adhere to its rigid and unjust application out of a fear of “sending the wrong message.” Alas, such adherence is all too frequently the result of a tendency to “fetishize” the law without regard to proportion and context, forgetting that the ultimate purpose of the law is to achieve justice, not to insure obedience for its own sake.
    Additionally, it needs to be kept in mind that our legal system itself recognizes circumstances in which disobedience of the law is encouraged, or at least tolerated. Thus, conscientious objectors are excused from service in the military; victims of a flood or blizzard are excused from laws against theft in order to insure their survival; robbery and rape victims are permitted to protect themselves with deadly force, committing acts that would otherwise constitute murder; social activists are praised for committing acts of civil disobedience, refusing to comply with such immoral laws as the Fugitive Slave Act or Jim Crow. Finally – as with the above-cited example of Prohibition – there comes a point that the only reasonable course of action is to acknowledge that certain laws have failed and must be abandoned. The continued enforcement of such laws in defiance of public indifference results not in greater respect for the law, but in widespread contempt for the legal system itself.

  8. Please let me follow up to give you a recent example of how mean and racist I am….
    When I had to have a new roof put on over the summer, who do you think the roofing comapny send out to do the job?
    Yes…illegal aliens.
    But heres how mean I am…I had BAGS of clothing, nice stuff, that my daughter wore once or not at all and put in the give away pile. OK..I could have just taken them to Sal Army…
    But the meanie in me, spoke to the forman in Spanish and I asked if any of the workers had girls, and that I had nice clothes if they wanted them. Yes, they did and they were so excited by these clothes..I am talking a pickup truck full. ( I guess you are thinking…”well that saved her a trip to Sal Army” not really…I took what they did not want there anyway)
    And let’s see…if I was mean and racist I would not care about them, or the tree people….nope sorry …I actually take out cold drinks and food to them. They are so grateful for COLD things.
    So yes, in a way I am mean…I am employing them, I am feeding them and I am clothing some kids…
    re-read all my comments deeply….
    EVEN though I am against people standing up for breaking the law, I am not evil and in fact go out of my way to do mitvzahs for people who I can tell are good at heart, but I do them without fanfare.
    Why is it if you speak your mind, have an opinion, you are instantly flamed a racist? Amazing!
    To the poster above, yes I am real.
    My grandmother from Berlin had to leave the USA during Hitler and be sent back to Germany as her student Visa expired! Guess what she did?
    She fled to MEXICO, came through Nuevo Laredo and had to WORK to become a citizen. I have her immigration card, I have her citizenship papers..it took a while but SHE did it. If she could ANYONE can!
    The sad fact is , if you read my comments ,that illegal aliens break the OTHER laws too, as they do not get arrested and if they did they don’t show up for court. Our police are NOT to ask about your immigration status. And also to the other poster, yes all the miserable experiences I listed that have happened to me or people I love, HAVE been Hispanic..yes Mexican. Too long to explain, plus it would sound racist but it is easy to tell the difference between Hondourans ( and their great MS13 gangs) and Guats and Mexicans. We have NO Puerto Ricans here.
    A Mexican guy on the news , who helps people study for citizenship said that the reason the people DON’T want to become citiznes is that they don’t want to learn the English that is required to take the test ( history part). He is Mexican and said that, not me!
    And BTW “mexican” is not racist. This is how my good freind across the street describes herself. She is proud of that! And I am for her too.
    Maybe I am too old for blogging on this board!

  9. Elaine,
    Whether or not your presence on this blog is appropriate is entirely up to you, but let me assure you that the question has nothing whatever to do with your age.
    Though you now seem to object to being perceived as a racist, your earlier post seemed to be intentionally written to convey precisely that impression. Your comments not only came across as deliberately snide and hostile (“dolt,” “idiot,” “revolting” “jacking off,” “uninsured Mexican,” etc.), but appeared to revel in stereotypes designed to show how politically incorrect and iconoclastic you are.
    If you really care, you should review Ruby’s earlier responses, who went out of her way to treat your observations with dignity and respect. As for me, I consider the few most offensive of your comments to consist of the following:
    ….No one has ever been “mentally raped,” and this incident doesn’t come within miles of making you the first. There’s simply no way to adequately convey the monstrous insensitivity of comparing the brutality inflicted on a rape victim to unpleasantness of having some guy jerk off in the next car over. Even a Mexican.
    ….You’re nice to everyone, except those “breaking the law of the land.” It’s worth noting that before their extermination in the Holocaust, the Jews of Europe were exploited and ostracized for years during which they were guilty of “breaking the laws of the land” on a virtually daily basis. The Nuremberg Laws. The point is that whatever the basis of your contempt for and discrimination against Mexicans, you’ll have to find some better justification than the fact that their presence in the United States violates the law.
    ….My sister died of brain cancer, and the notion of using her illness as an excuse to deny medical care to sick immigrant children is obscene. Incidentally, the man who stood by her side every day of her sickness, who never missed a night in her hospital room over the course of five separate brain surgeries in six years, happens to be an immigrant from Ecuador, as well as a tzaddik.

  10. Hi David,
    Thank you for your kind words. Glad you dug the post.
    Hi Elaine,
    I want to try again here, because I think you’re missing my point. Why do you get angry about the poor people who are breaking the law in an effort to feed their families, and not at the people breaking the law exploiting those poor people? If you’re serious about this issue, make the already available work visas easier to get for working people, and make the fines for employing someone illegally $10,000 and the punishment 10 years for every person day.
    if you’re going to get caught up in the patriotism of the usa, don’t be mad at the people who are living, breathing examples of “the american dream” but be mad at the vampires who would suck them dry all to avoid paying minimum wage, payroll taxes, and health benefits. Be mad at the people who’s greed has made this possible.
    Also, one Mexican person saying “people don’t want to be citizens because they don’t want to learn english” doesn’t make it correct, or any less of a sweeping generalization. Unless he helps tens of thousands of people, he doesn’t even have a 1 percent sample for his opinion.

  11. Ruby K –
    I believe that to some degree, we must argue about “who is more oppressed” – because it influences how we deal with the oppressors. Someone who employs illegal immigrants is, in my opinion, doing something wrong. But it’s not the same amount of wrong done by an actual slaveholder, or by a coyote, for that matter.
    It’s like the temptation to call everyone with whom you disagree a facist. Coyotes are doing something very bad, but they are not committing genocide. There have to be gradations of evil in order to have gradations of punishment.
    For the record, I do not believe in amnesty for all illegal immigrants. I believe in making citizenship easier to obtain, especially for those who pay taxes.

  12. Hi DT,
    You said:
    “I believe that to some degree, we must argue about “who is more oppressed” – because it influences how we deal with the oppressors. Someone who employs illegal immigrants is, in my opinion, doing something wrong. But it’s not the same amount of wrong done by an actual slaveholder, or by a coyote, for that matter.”
    I’m going to quote my brother ZT, the distinguished gentlman from Philadelphia, on this one:
    Rabbi Brant’s second question was “why should we invest our energy in Darfur? Aren’t there more people being killed elsewhere? Why not Congo or Burma?”
    His answer was that it is foolish to view human rights work as a zero-sum game. Spending energy on one thing which is wrong does not make you less likely to spend time on something else. Action breeds action not inaction. Working to fight injustice of any sort leads us to fighting in other ways on other issues, taught Brant. He called on us to fight things that we see as wrong and reject the argument of the apathetic that we should be inactive until we find the perfect approach to the best issue.

    Are they committing genocide? No. But they are profitting off some of the poorest people among us, which is repugnant to me. And in this time of criminalizing hardworking people, I’d love to see that anger flow towards the actual evil going down in this scenerio.

  13. “No one has ever been “mentally raped,” and this incident doesn’t come within miles of making you the first. There’s simply no way to adequately convey the monstrous insensitivity of comparing the brutality inflicted on a rape victim to unpleasantness of having some guy jerk off in the next car over. ”
    Very true. We should all try to express ourselves carefully and not exaggerate. We should especially avoid statements like
    “Such criminilization is the product of precisely the same lust for power that brought us the Patriot Act, secret rendition, indefinite detention, and state-sanctioned torture, all of which serve as the foundation on which the Republican police state grows ever more formidable. ”
    I think perhaps someone needs to experience, or at least consider, what a police state actually is.

  14. J,
    with secret wiretaps, thousands of warantless information claims, president that thinks at least 750 laws passed by Congress simply don’t apply to him, where the government can charge you with being a terrorist and put a gag order on you indefinitely (which you can appeal after a year and still be denied if you’re deemed a security risk), we may not be the worst case scenerio of a police state, but we’re certainly headed that way. And I’m sad to say you’re fooling yourself if you don’t think so.

  15. Now what did the Kinks say about paranoia…? I’m not 100% thrilled with everything in the Patriot Act myself, but we’ve faced a tradeoff between greater freedom and greater security since the beginning. The recent expansions on the side of security are, in the grand scheme of things, modest. Now why don’t you point out who may be wiretapped? (Ooh, SECRET: yeah, the not-secret wiretaps just weren’t doing it.) Which types of information can be obtained without a warrant?
    As for the President and Congress, you’ll have to focus on a debate that goes beyond a one-line rabble-rousing rant or glib charges of criminality. Why would you assume that that the President must follow any law from Congress in the first place? If that were so, the President (any President) would soon be little more than a figurehead. Congress could pass laws arrogating to itself Executive power (which it is forbidden to do under the Constitution, but that doesn’t necessarily stop it). If the President can make a credible argument that Congress is doing that, and the Judicial branch hasn’t ruled on it, why is Congress “better” than the President? Or to put it another way: what if the President had the administrative agencies start creating laws that were contradictory to Congress’? Would Congress have to accept it? Does whoever hits first win?
    “where the government can charge you with being a terrorist and put a gag order on you indefinitely ”
    Presumably you don’t have a problem with the charging part (what government can’t charge?). Why don’t you tell us about the gag order -who and what is being gagged, and why? Is there judicial scrutiny?
    Maybe we should also consider that if the country is being turned intoa police state, who is behind it and what’s the motive? Bush and Cheney and the rest of the Administration are out in less than three years (except those that President McCain keeps on) (just kidding, don’t have a coronary). Do you think they’ll try to stay on longer? Run the country from behind the scenes? Or is it someone else? Shadowy figures? (The guys from the Oliver Stone movies? The Israel lobby? KAOS? Magneto?)
    And here’s the final irony: you complain about a “police state”, but if such measures against terrorism weren’t taken and there was another Sept. 11 -type attack, you’d be the first one to make hay out of it. Come to think of it, if Bush is responsible for New Orleans, where the local and State governments had primary responsibility, he must be even more responsible for preventing terrorism, primarily a Federal concern. It’s been more than 4 1/2 years now since Sept.11. What odds could you have have gotten right after Sept. 11 that there wouldn’t be another major attack for 4 1/2 years? Clearly the President is doing a spectacular job.

  16. Hi J,
    Here’s a bunch of sources on the different scary big brother tactics I was talking about. I understand that you don’t take me at my word (and you shouldn’t), and forgive me for assuming this stuff was already pretty public knowledge:
    http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/16920
    talks about how the NSA under Bush, started warentless wiretapping and datamining BEFORE September 11th, and the NSA was so scared they’d get sued and lose that they destroyed the records. This also talks about how even though Bush doesn’t believe he’s bound by FISA, he sent GA Ashcroft to loosen the FISA rules. There is no excuse for wiretapping without a warrant, especially when FISA allows THREE DAYS to get retroactive approval. This is not about suspects, they already had the ability to monitor terror suspects, this is about casting a wide enough net to give off the appearance of doing something (and collecting an awful lot of sensitive and private data about the citizenry in the process). If you’d like more stories on the wiretaps, please let me know, I’m happy to post or send you more links.
    Now, you said:
    As for the President and Congress, you’ll have to focus on a debate that goes beyond a one-line rabble-rousing rant or glib charges of criminality. Why would you assume that that the President must follow any law from Congress in the first place?
    Uh, because its the checks and balances provided by the Constitution? The President has executive powers, but the powers to make the binding laws of the land lay with Congress. It’s true, that congress trying to make itself the executive branch is unconstitution. SO IS CLAIMING YOU’RE NOT BOUND BY THE LAWS MADE BY CONGRESS.
    And so you think I’m not being glib or offering a one line argument, here are a few pieces on the more than 750 pieces of legislation he’s claiming do not apply to him, his writing of signing statements which DIFFER from the congressional intent of the laws being passed, and on the senators who are (hopefully) taking him to task for this:
    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/03/hearing_vowed_on_bushs_powers/?rss_id=Boston%20Globe%20-%20Front%20Page
    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
    Now, you said: Why don’t you tell us about the gag order -who and what is being gagged, and why? Is there judicial scrutiny?
    Gladly. I talked about this about three months ago when the Patriot Act was renewed after pressure from Chucklenutz from the Senate to capitulate. This is from Senator Chuck Hagel’s press release on the deal made by the Senate:
    From Hagel’s press release (Durbin’s page isn’t opening, perhaps out of sadness), here’s the text of the changes:
    Attached is a summary of the changes negotiated on the Patriot Act. Summary of Changes to Patriot Act Conference Report Announced Today
    Judicial Review of Section 215 Non-Disclosure order Explicit judicial review of a section 215 non-disclosure order.
    No Recipient may challenge non-disclosure order after one year of receipt. Judge may overturn the non-disclosure order if the judge finds that there is no reason to believe that disclosure may endanger the national security of the United States, interfere with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interfere with diplomatic relations, or endanger the life or physical safety of any person. If the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, an Assistant Attorney General, or the Director of the FBI certifies that disclosure may endanger the national security of the United States or interfere with diplomatic relations, such certification shall be treated as conclusive, unless the judge finds that the certification was made in bad faith.
    And this is my own text from my blog:if you’re subpoenad under the Patriot Act, you’re also not allowed to discuss the case (under judicial order). Our new and exciting, civil liberties saving version of the Patriot Act is to allow you to challenge the gag order… AFTER A YEAR. Wow. i feel secure.
    The idea that you cannot defend yourself FOR A YEAR, and they STILL do not have to drop it even then, is ridiculous. All the people around you know is that you’re a terrorist. Great way to destroy someone’s life. And forgive if, during the time of these illegal wiretaps, I’m a little skeptical.
    There is some judicial scrutiny, but all someone needs to say is that it will affect national security if the gag order is lifted, and the gag order remains in place.
    You can mock the present administration’s power grab all you like, and you can mock me for keeping an eye on it all you like. But as they keep telling Congress their laws don’t count, i think its much closer than you care to think.
    The real irony is: Bush started all these wiretaps and these NSA programs before September 11th, and he still got it wrong. Bush had a report August 5th, 2001 and he still got it wrong. Now we’re in Iraq for no reason and turning every bit of goodwill we had after 9/11 into hatred.

  17. I’m short of time, but I wanted to respond, since you took the time out to write such a long post.
    I asked those questions not because I was clueless about the answers but because too often I see words or phrases thrown around that are meant to look ominous and novel when in fact the underlying ideas or events are neither.
    My general approach regarding these issues is this:
    First, ask two questions. 1) Is it constitutional (yes, no, arguable). 2) Is it a good idea (based on cost-benefit).
    Regarding those accused of crimes: Relative to what we generally accept within the criminal justice system, how does any innovation in procedure
    provide the protections of right to an attorney, speed of resolution, and judicial oversight? How far should the danger of terrorism allow us to stretch these (and I do believe that we can reduce the protections generally afforded, to a degree – think of Lincoln during the Civil War).
    Re the wiretaps, do you have any more mainstream sources? I’m a bit leery re obscure websites.
    Re Bush’s bypassing of legislation, as I said before, and as your articles also show, it’s not cut and dried that a President must always obey Congress. This is part of a long-running constitutional debate. For each piece of legislation, we would have to examine them individually to see th estrengths of the argument on each side. Probably in some cases I would disagree with Bush’s position. But even then, there’s no crime involved, and a President being aggressive about his powers is not the same aa a potential police state or coup de’tat.
    Re the gag order, I think you are making too much of it. Agreed, it’s not a great experience being thought of as a terrorist and being unable to speak publicly about it, but the main issues in criminal prosecution, and the greatest concern for the accused, are the speed and fairness of the process, including independent judicial oversight and right to defense. Gag orders may be something we have to tolerate in order to defend ourselves.
    “You can mock the present administration’s power grab all you like, and you can mock me for keeping an eye on it all you like.”
    I don’t think the point for the Administration is power. Even where I don’t agree with what they do, the motive is more likely ass-covering from unfair criticism (like, for example, “Bush had a report August 5th, 2001 and he still got it wrong.” – you know that the contents of that report were far too vague to justify any concrete action -cheap shot). While expanding powers for the purpose of ass-covering is not ideal, it’s a far cry from creating a “police state”.
    And I don’t mock you for keeping an eye on all this. Not at all. I do, and I think we always should, regardless of who’s in office and whether we like him. I mocked you for giving (some) credence for the notion that the government might be heading toward police state status. You can criticize policies ( I might even join you sometimes) without resorting to paranoid exaggeration.
    “Now we’re in Iraq for no reason and turning every bit of goodwill we had after 9/11 into hatred. ”
    A whole ‘nother can of worms. But the notion that the world’s sole superpower has need of “goodwill” (or that such goodwill really exists in any practical sense) generated by victimization is very troubling. Sounds like more Holocaustism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.