Oil Equals Militancy in Bolivia

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/23-1

Torture Exemption 'Illegal'

CIA torture exemption 'illegal' *President Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA agents who used torture breaks international law, a UN expert says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/americas/8006597.stm

Lawyers Urge Bush Be Arrested

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/17/lawyers_group_urges_bush_be_arrested

Bush Shoe Thrower Seeks Asylum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7836816.stm

Change a Bit Earlier

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/opinion/22collins.html?_r=2

Bush Adm. Pushes More Deregs

* Bush Admin Pushes Through Last-Minute Deregulation that May Be Hard to Undo * The Bush administration is quietly trying to push through a wide array of federal regulations before President Bush leaves office in January. Up to ninety proposed regulations could be finalized, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment.
We speak to Matthew Madia of the watchdog group OMB Watch.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/13/bush_admin_pushing_through_last

$3 Million to Re-elect Elizabeth Dole

http://www.kayhagan.com/action/buyingherseat
[Dole has been ineffective in office, has been rubberstamping Bush policies, is now having to 'buy' her seat.
Elect Kay Hagan, endorsed by Democrats, conservationists, educators. And vote early!]

A Better Bail-out

http://www.truthout.org/092808D

King's Entire Dream Speech

http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html Please revisited the entire speech. We've been force-fed the easily digestible parts now for decades.
But many of us would gladly trade MLK JR. holiday for a shot at fulfilling the yearnings in King's magnificent dream, especially now, during reminders of how New Orleans has suffered and will suffer again under our current federal leadership.

Arizona Blogger on McCain/Katrina

http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/2008/04/the-day-the-lev.html

Moral Relativism in White House

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/404.html

Katrina Revisited--shameful

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/79.html

Bush Doctrine Meets Reality

http://www.regressiveantidote.net/Articles/My_Army_Went_To_Iraq_And_All_I_Got.html

Join Kucinich

http://www.kucinich.us/
one of our last patriots in Congress. . .

Chevron Lobbies White House--Again

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/5/chevron_lobbies_white_house_to_pressure

Let's Back Him Up

http://kucinich.us/
[The only member of Congress willing to address the various crimes of the Bush Administration. Will we help him stand?]

Assurances Notwithstanding

UK 'must check' US torture denial
The British government should no longer rely on US assurances it does not use torture, a parliamentary report says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7515517.stm

ACLU Sues Govt., July 10

Govt. sued over dragnet wiretapping law

Jul. 10- The American Civil Liberties Union filed a landmark lawsuit on July 10 to stop the government from conducting surveillance under a new wiretapping law that gives the Bush administration virtually unchecked power to intercept Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose ability to perform their work – which relies on confidential communications – will be greatly compromised by the new law.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by Congress the day before and signed by President Bush, not only legalizes the secret warrantless surveillance program the president approved in late 2001, it gives the government new spying powers, including the power to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans' international communications.

"Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power – and that's exactly what this law allows. The ACLU will not sit by and let this evisceration of the Fourth Amendment go unchallenged," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Electronic surveillance must be conducted in a constitutional manner that affords the greatest possible protection for individual privacy and free speech rights. The new wiretapping law fails to provide fundamental safeguards that the Constitution unambiguously requires."

In their legal challenge, the ACLU argues that the new spying law violates Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. The new law permits the government to conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to spy on, what phone lines and email addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, why it's conducting the surveillance or whether it suspects any party to the communication of wrongdoing.

Plaintiffs in the case are The Nation magazine and its contributing journalists Naomi Klein and Chris Hedges; Amnesty International USA, Global Rights, Global Fund for Women, Human Rights Watch, PEN American Center, Service Employees International Union, Washington Office on Latin America, and the International Criminal Defense Attorneys Association

"As a journalist, my job requires communication with people in all parts of the world – from Iraq to Argentina. If the US government is given unchecked surveillance power to monitor reporters' confidential sources, my ability to do this work will be seriously compromised," said Naomi Klein, an award-winning columnist and best-selling author who is a plaintiff in today's lawsuit. "I cannot in good conscience accept that my conversations with people who live outside the US will put them in harm's way as a result of overzealous government spying. Privacy in my communications is not simply an expectation, it's a right."

The ACLU's legal challenge, which was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York today, seeks a court order declaring that the new law is unconstitutional and ordering its immediate and permanent halt.

In a separate filing, the ACLU asked the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to ensure that any proceedings relating to the scope, meaning or constitutionality of the new law be open to the public to the extent possible. The ACLU also asked the secret court to allow it to file a brief and participate in oral arguments, to order the government to file a public version of its briefs addressing the law's constitutionality, and to publish any judicial decision that is ultimately issued.

"The new law allows the mass acquisition of Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "The administration has argued that the law is necessary to address the threat of terrorism, but the truth is that the law sweeps much more broadly and implicates all kinds of communications that have nothing to do with terrorism or criminal activity of any kind."

In 2006, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) to stop its illegal, warrantless spying program. A federal district court sided with the ACLU, ruling that warrantless wiretapping by the NSA violated Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, ran counter to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and violated the principle of separation of powers. The Bush administration appealed the ruling, and an appeals court panel dismissed the case. However, the court did not uphold the legality of the government's warrantless surveillance activity and the only judge to discuss the merits of the case clearly and unequivocally declared that the warrantless spying was unlawful. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case earlier this year.

"A democratic system depends on the rule of law, and not even the president or Congress can authorize a law that violates core constitutional principles," said Christopher Dunn, Associate Legal Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "The only thing compromised in this so-called 'compromise' law is the Constitution."

We Are Wile E Coyote

http://allalongtheedge.blogspot.com/2008/07/kunstler-whew-man-can-write.html

Conservation Insider Bulletin, July 11

Conservation Insider Bulletin
Published weekly for the Conservation Council of North Carolina
Conservation News to Peruse & Use
Editor: Dan Besse, cib@conservationcouncilnc.org

July 11, 2008

Bush punts greenhouse gas regulation over to the next administration, plus legislative and judicial news, this week in CIB:

--Washington Watch: No Responsibility on His Watch

--Legislative Watch: Watered-down Drought and Stormwater Bills Advance; Farmworker Protection Approved; Beach Hardening Continues to Lurk

--Judicial Watch: Appeals Court Throws Out CAIR

Washington Watch: No Responsibility on His Watch

In another stunning display of arrogant irresponsibility, the Bush White House has successfully forced a protesting EPA to stall off action on regulating greenhouse gases to the next administration. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson announced today that the agency would release its draft "advanced notice of proposed rulemaking" together with the explanations from higher Administration sources for its rejection of that draft.

This action is remarkable in that the U.S. Supreme Court declared in April 2007 that (contrary to the Bush Administration's assertions) the EPA has the authority and duty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Pursuant to that directive, the EPA last December sent to the White House a report laying out the technical support for a draft rule, which concluded that greenhouse gas emissions clearly represent a threat to human welfare and further that it is economically justified to regulate them. The White House uber-bureaucrats charged with overseeing the EPA refused to receive the report, which languished in political limbo while other Administration officials prepared their rejection of its reasoning.

In plain language, what the Bush Administration has done is this: tell the Supreme Court that it doesn't like its decision, won't implement it, and by the time anybody can do anything about the refusal, they'll be gone. Here's a link to today's complete Washington Post story laying the matter out in more detail: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071101703.html?hpid=topnews.

CIB encourages our readers to check it out: It's breathtaking...pun intended.

Legislative Watch: Watered-down Drought and Stormwater Bills Advance; Farmworker Protection Approved; Beach Hardening Continues to Lurk

Watered-down Drought and Stormwater Bills Advance: CCNC's Director of Governmental Relations Dan Crawford reports that stakeholder negotiations have produced a classic compromise on stormwater rules (i.e., a deal with which no one is happy). Under the compromise bill, which has passed the Senate and been recommended by the House Environment and Natural Resources Committee, coastal stormwater rules would be strengthened from the status quo—but not by as much as the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) rules would have done. In the short run, CCNC is backing the compromise. In the longer run, Crawford says to state policy-makers, "We need to let them [the EMC] do their job!"

Drought management legislation has also been brought forward for consideration in compromised form. HB 2499, "Drought/Water Management Recommendations", would specify the governor's emergency powers during water shortages, and increase the authority of the N.C. Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to impose restrictions on local water systems during drought. However, the compromise bill fails to include specific mandatory minimum water conservation measures, and is therefore viewed as a major "missed opportunity" by conservationists.

Farmworker Protection Approved: SB 847, "Prevent Agricultural Pesticide Exposure", has been approved by the legislature and sent to the governor for his signature. Toxic Free NC (formerly the Agricultural Resource Project) hailed the bill as a victory for farmworkers, who will gain explicit protection against retaliation for reporting pesticide safety problems. The bill also strengthens pesticide use record-keeping requirements by employers.

Beach Hardening Continues to Lurk: Rumors continue to circulate that some unspecified "compromise" approach may emerge late regarding SB 599, the so-called "Inlet Stabilization Pilot Program" bill. This legislation represents the latest attempt by a small group of wealthy beachfront property owners to carve out exceptions to North Carolina's anti-hardening policies on its ocean shore. The deceptively-named "pilot programs" authorized by the bill are the same old rock groins which have long been conclusively discredited as beach protection tools. These oceanfront hard structures act only to accumulate sand in front of one spot at the expense of down-current areas. Coastal conservationists vigorously oppose this legislation, which passed the Senate last year and has been held in the House since that time. By barring new oceanfront seawalls, groins, and jetties, North Carolina has protected much of its natural beach shoreline for more than 20 years. This is no time to retreat from that sound policy.

Judicial Watch: Appeals Court Throws Out CAIR

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit this week unanimously struck down the Bush EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). CAIR is a controversial rule which requires 28 states (mostly Eastern states) to reduce air pollutant emissions which travel interstate and affect smog and soot levels elsewhere. Some environmental groups defended the EPA's approach, while others challenged it as too slow and overly reliant on a "cap and trade" pollutant-trading approach.

In its ruling, the Court found that the EPA had exceeded its authority, and ordered the entire rule scrapped. The practical impact of the Court's decision will be to delay final rulemaking on the subject matter until the next presidential administration. As of CIB press time today, most environmental groups' comments on the ruling were not available online, although some were reportedly calling for Congressional action in response. Several North Carolina-based groups had criticized CAIR in 2006 as insufficiently protective of North Carolina's air.