Gyroscope

If you’ve only followed the lobbying scandal in what passes for our national journals, you might be forgiven for thinking of it a Congressional scandal, or one that may have hit the Republicans, but also the Democrats.

The truth is that this is a 100% Republican bribery scandal. No Democrats are involved. Not one Democrat took money from Abramoff. Not one Democrat took money directly or indirectly from him.

And why would Democrats get any money? He was a Republican lobbyist. Tom Delay called him one of his “closest and dearest friends.” Abramoff was a member of the inner circle of Bush contributors.

Yet, the media (especially including the decayed fools who comment on the Sunday gasbag shows) are working hard to convince you otherwise. One talking point is that “Abramoff’s clients contributed to 80 Democrats.” Sounds bad, but isn’t. Many organizations contribute to both Republicans and Democrats, hedging their bets. Some organizations, including Indian tribes, were big donors to Abramoff but also gave to Democrats. That doesn’t prove that Abramoff directed money to the Democrats, it doesn’t even imply it.

In fact, a recent study sponsored by the American Prospect (a progressive organization) and done by Dwight L. Morris and Associates shows that, if anything, contributions to Democrats decreased after an organization became an Abramoff client. No one has surfaced with any information that a Democrat did what Abramoff told them to do.

And what is Bush doing? Well, apparently there are a number of pictures showing Bush with Abramoff. These photos have ‘disappeared’ – they’ve even been disappeared from the archives of the organization that took them, so reports Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo.

Of course, the Democrats are corrupt in their own way. But Abramoff is a totally, 100% Republican scandal.

For more information see:
Sourcewatch
Political cortex
American Prospect

Posted by John Nordin at 02:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When I read that Jan. 25th headline in the New York Times, I confess I read it as “White House Declines to Provide Storm Troopers.” What ever could I have been thinking?

Yes, it is true, apparently, the White House is so frustrating the investigation of the bad intelligence that suggested that Katrina did not have a weapon of mass destruction, that even Sen. Joe Lieberman, who seldom finds a bad word to say about Bush, is upset.

And what could possibly be the reason for this? We don’t want hurricanes to know what we know? We’re afraid that if hurricanes know how we fight them that they will change their tactics? Congress authorized all presidential action when it passed the bill for the weather service?

On the other hand, the President wants unlimited knowledge of you. Search in Google and the President wants to know. Yes, it may be the case that the request for Google results is a request for general data to support evaluation of Google’s filters, but still, the words ‘fishing expedition’ were designed for this.

NPR says there are only six operating emergency rooms in all of New Orleans – today, months after the storm. But then, electricity production in Iraq isn’t going very well either. Bush is fighting a plan to rebuild New Orleans, at least he’s doing that openly, in Iraq he just appears to have given up.

Posted by John Nordin at 09:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Why will the administration not let Tariq Ramadan into the United States? When asked, a spokesperson for the Homeland Security department in Aug. 2004 referred to a section of the Patriot Act that bars anyone who would “endorse or espouse terrorist activity or persuade others” to do so.

Well, I don’t much want that sort of person here either. But – Mr. Ramadan says he has never supported terrorism. The executive director of the American Academy of Religion, a very respected scholarly association, refers to Mr. Ramadan as “one of the most respected scholars of Islam working today.”

He has been invited repeatedly to address academic gatherings in the United States, but his applications for a visa have been turned down multiple times.

Well, what is the government’s case for refusing? Who knows. Like so much of what Bush does, he hasn’t said, isn’t saying, doesn’t think he needs to say. No explanation has ever been given. And the state of our laws are such, in regard to non-citizens, that it isn’t clear the government has to explain. So now the ACLU and others are suing over this.

So much reports the New York Times, January 26, p.A1.

Of course, conservatives don't think Mr. Ramadan is so moderate. Campus Watch dismisses Mr. Ramadan with a series of arguments that sound alarming, but don’t really hit the target: Ramadan’s father founded the extremist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Ramadan only calls fellow Arabs “my bother” and just uses last names to refer to non-Arabs, he’s never said anything nice about Christianity, he is anti-Semitic because he excoriates Jewish intellectuals who supported the Iraq war, he wishes the death of Israel, etc. What about terrorism? Well, Ramadan, apparently, was a little squishy in the days after 9/11 about who did that crime, he may sit on the board of directors of an organization with “links” to terrorists, he has a lot of friends with “links” to terrorists, his brother is “linked” to a bank that might be used by al Qaeda.

Daniel Pipes has a similar list of offenses, that argue on the theme that this man has been seen with a lot of shady people.

Tariq Ramadan has a website, of course, with writings that sound pretty moderate. Time Magazine named him one of the world's 100 leading thinkers. The Chicago Tribune decryed his visa situtation.

What is the truth? Without spending a hundred hours in research, I don't know. But I know this: in a democracy the government has to be accountable for its actions. It has to defend its decisions and people affected by the decisions have to be able to object and appeal. The real problem here is that the process is secret and instead of their being ready ways to appeal, those concerned have to find ways to pry open the process.

Posted by John Nordin at 10:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

After 9/11 hundreds of noncitizens were arrested on visa violations and put in detention centers. They were not charged with any crime, nor were they deported for their visa violations. They were, according to their lawyers, beaten, abused, kept in chains and humiliated. The government eventually decided they had no connection to terrorism and sent them home.

Now six are back, suing the government over their treatment.

And, despite the government saying they are not involved with terror, they are being treated harshly: in the custody of marshals and cannot make contact with any friends here. Yet, their faith in American justice, reports Nina Bernstein in the January 23, 2006 NYT (p. A1) is touching to say the least. “I am sure justice will be served because peoples of U.S.A. are justice-loving people regardless of race and religion.

One can hope. If the Bush administration loved justice they would apologize. Fat chance.

The defendants are represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights which charged that among other things, the defendants were slammed into walls, left shackled for hours and stepped on their leg chains as they were walking in order to make them fall down. That there is some truth to this, at the minimum, is shown by the fact the Federal Bureau of Prisons has disciplined some of the guards. Like Abu Garib, however, no one appears to be looking very hard at how the “few bad apples” were allowed to abuse prisoners with impunity for so long.

More to the point is why these people were even jailed. The Bush administration and its apologists like to claim that in the war on terror, you must work quickly and investigate very lead. But some of these detainees were kept in jail for months after the federal government had decided they had no links to terrorism. So how does that advance the war on terror? It doesn’t. Further, we have accepted without question that a “balance” must be struck between civil liberties and national security. But as this story illustrates, often there is no connection between restricting our liberties and keeping us safe.

You can also read about this story here:
Salon: The prisoner-abuse scandal at home
Democracy Now: Brooklyn's Abu Ghraib

Posted by John Nordin at 10:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This is the newly revived Gyroscope. It is reappearing as a full-fledged blog. One big improvement from my point of view is the chance for all of you to comment on the entries. Welcome, and I hope you like it.

Posted by John Nordin at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)