Whether the Bush administration, after years of vicious attacks on anyone who would dare to mention timetables for the U.S. disengagement in Iraq, is caving in to Maliki’s demands and is now itself discussing timetables, is debatable. But what is not debatable is the pains the administration is taking to avoid giving the impression that it is in fact discussing timetables.

Just examine the words and the language: a “general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals,” “goal dates for transition of responsibilities,” They even resurrected “aspirational goals.” (It must have taken a lot of inspirational neocons to come up with this latest cliché)

This language gets about as convoluted and, pardon the expression, as tortuous as the language Bush and his minions have used and continue to use to both justify and deny that the United States of America uses torture: “Enhanced interrogation techniques,” “alternative interrogation methods,” “coercive interrogation methods,” “fairly robust interrogation program,” and this best-selling one:

An act that “is equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”

But, don’t worry, “We don’t torture.”

While we are on the subject of torture, it is “aspirational” to revisit President Bush’s statement of June 26, 2003, on the occasion of the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture (Remember, this was before the world saw the images of Abu Ghraib, and before we knew about “rendition,” waterboarding, etc.):

Statement by the President

United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture

Today, on the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the United States declares its strong solidarity with torture victims across the world. Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere. We are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law.

Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, ratified by the United States and more than 130 other countries since 1984, forbids governments from deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control. Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit. Beating, burning, rape, and electric shock are some of the grisly tools such regimes use to terrorize their own citizens. These despicable crimes cannot be tolerated by a world committed to justice.

Notorious human rights abusers, including, among others, Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Zimbabwe, have long sought to shield their abuses from the eyes of the world by staging elaborate deceptions and denying access to international human rights monitors. Until recently, Saddam Hussein used similar means to hide the crimes of his regime. With Iraq’s liberation, the world is only now learning the enormity of the dictator’s three decades of victimization of the Iraqi people. Across the country, evidence of Baathist atrocities is mounting, including scores of mass graves containing the remains of thousands of men, women, and children and torture chambers hidden inside palaces and ministries. The most compelling evidence of all lies in the stories told by torture survivors, who are recounting a vast array of sadistic acts perpetrated against the innocent. Their testimony reminds us of their great courage in outlasting one of history’s most brutal regimes, and it reminds us that similar cruelties are taking place behind the closed doors of other prison states.

The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy. I further urge governments to join America and others in supporting torture victims’ treatment centers, contributing to the UN Fund for the Victims of Torture, and supporting the efforts of non-governmental organizations to end torture and assist its victims.

No people, no matter where they reside, should have to live in fear of their own government. Nowhere should the midnight knock foreshadow a nightmare of state-commissioned crime. The suffering of torture victims must end, and the United States calls on all governments to assume this great mission.

I was skimming through this litany of complaints over the revised FISA legislation in The Indypendent and giving fresh thought to some of the major privacy concerns which occupy our national debate on the subject. We live in an era where advancements in technology give rise to fears that our government can now track our movements through our cell phones and, increasingly, the GPS compatible devices in our automobiles. Our conversations can be monitored, not only through voice communications, but text messaging and e-mail exchanges. Cameras, now found at stoplights, convenience stores and ATMs, follow our every move from the moment we step out our door. Fears have arisen that the government is assembling a national database of DNA samples - taken from the moment we are born - which will eventually allow every skin cell we shed during the day to lead the long arm of John Law straight to our stoop like Hansel and Gretel’s trail of bread crumbs.

The essence of the chief argument against this – and rest assured, I’ve used it myself – is, “if you’re not doing anything wrong you don’t have anything to worry about.” The government, police or “the authorities” in general are looking for The Bad Guys. They aren’t looking for “us.” We are The Good Guys and have nothing to fear.

One common and immediate rebuttal to this is that the real Bad Guys are the ones who will find ways to get around these surveillance efforts. They will use “burner” style disposable phones and find ways to disable GPS devices in vehicles. They will disguise their visage in public, which most of us would never do, and most of them probably don’t use computers anyway. As in the case of gun bans, the Good Guys will give up their guns while the Bad Guys keep theirs. (They’re not terribly interested in obeying local statutes in the first place, you see.) In the end, the government will simply wind up spying on and imposing restrictions upon the Good Guys while the Bad Guys flaunt the law.

Read the rest of this entry »

Wired’s David Kravets:

Sean Cairncross, the party’s chief counsel, wrote (.pdf) the Foster City, California online vendor that the GOP “takes infringements upon its trademarks seriously.”

“Please cease and desist from allowing vendors to utilize the federally registered trademarks of the RNC or we will be forced to consider a legal remedy,” Cairncross wrote CafePress.

CafePress attorney Paul Alan Levy, of Public Citizen, noted Thursday that some uses of the party’s trademarks are critical of the GOP, but many are not.

“The majority of the images over which the RNC has threatened to sue reflect positive opinions about Republicans,” he said. “Several designs simply put the elephant logo on a T-shirt, so that the wearer can walk around bragging about his or her adherence to Republicanism.”

Others, Levy pointed out, “make highly favorable comments on Republicanism, such as a design portraying a larger elephant trailed by two smaller elephants and the words, ‘I’m raising my children right.’”

You may have missed it, but over the 4th of July YouTube received a court order to hand over user viewing data from its database — including usernames and IP addresses — to Viacom in the ongoing $1 billion lawsuit against the video sharing service.

YouTube refused. Randy Picker at the University of Chicago Law Faculty Blog, and David Robinson at Freedom to Tinker considered the implications. Yesterday Google and Viacom reached an agreement.

TechCrunch:

The Google-Viacom showdown over the handover of YouTube user data appears to be over. The two sides agreed to changes in a previous ruling that would have required Google to hand over user id’s, IP addresses and a list of all viewed YouTube videos to Viacom in connection with their ongoing copyright infringement litigation.

After an online uprising against the order, Viacom tried to assert that they never requested personally identifiable information (they did), and later promised not to use the information to sue individuals. The value of that promise was questioned by us and many others.

Liz Gaines has this handy background on the latest skirmish:

First a federal judge ordered YouTube to hand over its user data to Viacom. Then Google asked to have user identifying information stripped out. Viacom denied it ever asked for that data (it did) and then said it didn’t want user information after all. Then it came out that Viacom wants YouTube employee user information. And now this latest order (which is on the YouTube blog already, but not the dedicated YouTube litigation section on Viacom’s site).

She notes that order includes a paragraph about employee viewer data. CNet has more on that:

Last weekend, two sources with knowledge of the negotiations between the companies told CNET News that Google was refusing to hand over to Viacom information about what videos YouTube employees have watched or uploaded to the site.

The sources said that the information could help Viacom prove that YouTube has turned a blind eye to the piracy on its site. Google is also likely to ask to see similar records about Viacom’s employees. That might show that while Viacom’s lawyers were demanding YouTube to remove it’s videos, Viacom’s marketing managers may have been among those that posted them.

The case is not scheduled to go to court until next year at the earliest.

RELATED: The real YouTube story this week probably should be Project Spaghetti. The WSJ on Google’s problems selling ads on YouTube.

This time, the terror watch list has picked up Clinton-era assistant attorney general, Jim Robinson. He is on this list despite having a recently renewed set of security clearances. It’s ok for him to have access to nuclear secrets, but not to get on an airplane without some serious extra hassle. He’s been quoted several places:

I suppose if I were convinced that America is a safer place because I get hassled at the airport, I might put up with it. But I doubt it. I expect my story is similar to hundreds of thousands of people who are on this list who find themselves inconvenienced.

While Chad Kolton, a spokesman for the Terrorist Screening Center, says there are only about 400,000 people on that list — and most of them are foreigners — other sources disagree. Back in April, there were estimated to be 700,000 names on that list, last October it was estimated at over 860,000, and today the ACLU thinks the list probably tops 1,000,000. That’s one million. One out of every 304 Americans — minimum, since the list only includes names rather than unique identifiers. Even if the list does serve its intended purpose, there are too many names on it to be truly efficient.

So why is it that we only hear about prominent critics of the way the Global War on Terror is waged, and prominent Democrats mistakenly ending up on this list? Why is it we never hear about Republicans like, say, Larry Craig ending up on the list? He at least is accused of doing something questionable in an airport.

If puberty happens in middle school, why shouldn’t we expect lgbt awareness would begin then too?

From today’s WaPo, Owning His Gay Identity — at 15 Years Old; Youths Coming Out Sooner, but Protections Against Harassment Lag:

Saro, who first said he liked boys to a classmate in sixth grade, is like many of today’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youths who openly discuss their sexual orientation and identity with friends, and sometimes family, before entering high school. In doing so, experts say, these youths are escaping the isolation of generations before them but also finding themselves vulnerable to harassment — or worse. A California eighth-grader who expressed interest in asking another boy to be his valentine was fatally shot in February in a case that drew national attention.

“Within any given school system, there may be a very accepting crowd and a very hateful crowd,” said Robert-Jay Green, executive director of the Rockway Institute in San Francisco, a national center for LGBT research and public policy. “You have to find a way to avoid the people who will hurt you and keep close to the group that will accept you.”

In recent years, 110 Gay Straight Alliance clubs, which are common in high schools nationwide, have sprouted in middle schools, including nine in Maryland and Virginia. Kevin Jennings, the founder of the first club, said he “never anticipated” they would also form in middle grades. His organization, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, is creating age-appropriate pamphlets to respond to the trend.

This year, students in 1,046 middle schools took part in the Day of Silence, a protest against LGBT intolerance, organizers said, double the participation level of the previous year.

“Unlike people of my generation, where there was very little visibility and a great sense of sadness, these kids know gay people are out there,” Jennings said. “They have a language now to understand their feelings.”

And there’s this:

The first time Saro said aloud what he had always felt — that he liked boys — came when he lived in Prince George’s County. The words tumbled out, Saro said, as he and another sixth-grader were walking home. The boy shrugged it off with a “So?”

Later that year, that boy called him an anti-gay slur. When Saro ran to tell the teacher, according to a letter his parents wrote to the school, he was told: “Well, you act like one, so you should be used to it by now.”

The issues are difficult and complex — for parents and for kids. The article is sensitive and complete. Please read it.

The 7th Circuit has held that a condo association rule which prevents Jews from putting up Mezuzot does not violate the Fair Housing Act. The opinion and dissent are here, my thoughts on the case are here.

The rule, of course, was defended on the grounds that it was “neutral” (it banned all objects on doors, not just Mezuzot). I just call that a data point for the insufficiency of “neutrality” to protect religious liberty for minority faiths in America.

On the other hand, I’ll have plenty of opportunity to discuss the decision: both the author of the majority and dissenting opinions teach at Chicago law school.

A couple of days ago, in “Cheney’s office tried to alter greenhouse gas testimony, former official says,” the LA Times reported that,

Vice President Dick Cheney’s office worked to alter sworn congressional testimony provided by a federal official in order to play down the threat of global warming and head off regulation of greenhouse gas emissions…according to a former government official.

The former government official…

Jason K. Burnett, a former Environmental Protection Agency official, cited the behind-the-scenes efforts by unnamed officials in Cheney’s office in a letter to congressional investigators regarding testimony in January by his former boss, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson.

And,

For Cheney, the new accusation, coming as he winds down his time in Washington, is similar to criticism he faced early in his vice presidency over private meetings he held to shape national energy policy. Then, as now, the White House refused to turn over documents sought by congressional investigators.

Finally, Senator Barbara Boxer said, according to the LA Times: “History will judge this Bush administration harshly for recklessly covering up a real threat to the people they’re supposed to protect.”

With all due respect, Senator, I don’t think we’ll have to wait for “history” to judge this administration for its rampant corruption. I believe we only have to wait about six more months.

You see, this latest revelation of Cheney’s shenanigans, is just another drip-drip that is slowly washing away the veneer hiding the corruption and lawlessness of the Bush administration. The full torrent of exposés will flow when this administration finally leaves office–very soon–and people can come freely forward, without the threats of retaliation or of having their reputations besmirched.

Once again, the American taxpayer appears to be footing the bill for rampant corruption and mismanagement within the Iraqi government.

This article from Iraq’s Kitabat newspaper relates charges that Iraq’s finance minister, with the connivance of Iran, had billions in counterfeit Iraqi currency trucked into Iraq and exchanged for American dollars.

Khadir Taahar writes for Kitabat:

“In a grave conspiracy against the Iraqi economy, Minister of Finance Bayan Jabr Solagh exploited his position and influence over the Iraqi Central Bank by exchanging billions of dinars in counterfeit Iraqi currency with American dollars. … The details, which were leaked from within the corridors of the Ministry of Finance, are that the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council [Iraq’s most powerful political party ] had for a time transported by truck, large sums of counterfeit Iraqi currency printed in Iran into Iraq, to the Iraqi Ministry of Trade, and that this counterfeit currency was then replaced with American dollars.”

Read the rest of this entry »

This piece of legislation — and what Congress has done to the fourth amendment—which protects the privacy of ordinary citizens from unreasonable invasion by the government —  matters. 

Those who defended the telecoms for breaking federal law at the request of the Bush administration kept talking about the telecoms’ subjection to  ‘the heavy hand of government.’  This was always spurious argument in the case of the telecoms, who had no more obligation than you or I to comply with an unlawful demand to break the law (none) and the same obligation as you or I would have to refuse to comply. And in fact, not all telecoms chose to go along with the demand.    

FISA, on the other hand, unleashes ‘the heavy hand of government’ against ordinary citizens.

Read the rest of this entry »

RJ Matson, Roll Call

Once again, from the Daily North Korea of South Korea, an interview with someone who is said to actually live in the Hermit Kingdom. According to the newspaper, which is staffed in part by North Korean defectors, this member of the ‘North Korean Elite class,’ says he is fully aware of the mass protests in South Korea over U.S. beef, and in his words:

“I can speak not only for myself. No North Korean citizen, apart from on holidays, ever eats meat. When I see protests against the import of U.S. beef, I only wish it could be sent to the North.”

When the interviewer - clearly opposed to the protests over U.S. beef - asks what it would be like if a North Korean protested in such a fashion, the man, using the name An Chul-jin, replies:

“I can’t even imagine a citizen beating an agent of the People’s Safety Agency. Even if it’s just a verbal attack, such a person would be automatically sent to the Labor Training Corps. As a consequence, citizens never speak out against them, even if the agent is at fault. If they physically assault an agent, they are taken to a reeducation camp. They’re the ones with the power, so citizens are automatically captured, and sometimes subject to terrible acts.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Daily Roundup of Civil Rights and Related News

A new study confirms that having gay members in the military doesn’t damage unit cohesion, or have any negative effects whatsoever.

Elie Wiesel testifies in case of assailant. He feared he was being kidnapped — the perpetrator has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

A Turkish Studies Institute has been roiled by charges that its Turkish funders seek to suppress inquiry into the Armenian genocide.

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales raised eyebrows the other day with an editorial on what Latinos want this election cycle. Attorney Raul Reyes wrote a response today that bears notice.

I was prepared to laugh at this editorial complaining of “age discrimination” in retirement mega-communities, but the author actually raises some valid points.

Rosa Brooks has a message: the constitution “doesn’t contain any footnotes that say, “Note to our descendants: This Constitution is intended for easy times only. At the first sign of trouble, feed this document to your dog.”

Tolerance of minorities: it’s not just more just, it’ll also make you happier!

It’s something crits have been urging for years, and social service workers in Orange County are finally getting: different communities require different tactics if you want your services to reach the people.

The LA Times says that between 271 and 433 illegal immigrants are enrolled at the University of California. I say, if you’re good enough to make it into the UC system, you’re welcome in my community — legal or illegal.

A controversy is brewing in Texas about a Mexican comic book whose main character is eerily reminiscent of the “Sambo” image of Black people. The local Black community is outraged that these comics are being sold in Wal-Mart; while some leaders in the Mexican community have responded that the Sambo image does not exist in Mexican culture. Even if that’s true (and I’d be interested in asking the Black population in Mexican about it), I think one Mexican immigrant parent they interviewed had the right line: he read it as a kid in Mexico, but he wouldn’t want his own kids reading it. Different things have different meanings in different places — pluralism means adjusting our behaviors accordingly.

Also in Texas, a Catholic Church has had its statues and religious icons knocked over several times. What was originally assumed to be vandalism is now being investigated as a hate crime after a message was left: “You have been warned: don’t worship idols.”

The military is reforming its response to sexual assault reports. Given some of its past behavior in this field, I’m glad to hear it.

Woman arrested at public McCain event for holding McCain = Bush sign. She was reportedly standing on city property when she was arrested for “trespassing.”

Jeweler settles lawsuit for discriminating against a former employee who wears a headscarf.

A rural Maryland town is being sued after it blocked a Muslim organization from building a temple and retreat within its borders.

Advocates are fighting for illegal immigrant day-workers cheated out of their wages. Under federal law, they have the same right as any other worker to sue for unpaid back wages.

Cross-posted

After his disgraceful tenure as U.S. Attorney General and his humiliating resignation, I did not expect to hear from Alberto Gonzales for at least the number of years John McCain says we will be in Iraq.

But, lo-and-behold, on July 2, Alberto Gonzales published an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times. That alone is surprising. But what is even more remarkable is the subject of his piece.

In “What Latinos want from their president,” the disgraced former Attorney General, a Latino, has the audacity to purport to speak for the Latino community in the U.S. and to offer advice to the presidential candidates on how to court, attract and capture the Latino vote.

In his piece, Gonzales says

Pew’s numbers now show that Latino voters are heading back into the Democratic fold, but the message in these voting patterns and in the demographic projections is that neither party can afford to take the Latino vote for granted.

What a condescending piece of advice from a person who took the American people, the Constitution, the law, etc., for granted, and worse.

When discussing the issues that “resonate” with Latinos, Gonzales says:

Among them, of course, is immigration. Latino support will swing to the political party that has the courage and fortitude to put forward a specific immigration solution that is effective and efficient in securing our borders, that supports the economic interests of the nation and that is compassionate in a way that is consistent with the character of a nation of immigrants.

What did you do, Mr. Gonzales, to put forward or champion a “specific immigration solution” during your tenure?

And

…although we know that America strives to be a fair country, the harsh reality is we are not one nation with liberty and justice for all. And yet equal opportunity — to a job, to capital and to credit — is a cornerstone of American success. The promise of equal opportunity is what drew our parents and grandparents and what still draws immigrants to the U.S., and it is what firmly knits them into the country once they are citizens.

“The harsh reality is we are not one nation with liberty and justice for all.”? As the people’s lawyer, this is one area you could have really helped improve, Mr. Gonzales. Instead we got illegal, warrantless wiretapping of American citizens and other horrors.

“…equal opportunity — to a job”? How about the eight fired U.S. attorneys, including one of your own, David Iglesias.

Now, some may call this “reverse stereotyping,” but it is Mr. Gonzales himself who puts his Latino heritage at play when he says, “We must also consider the divide between the majority from another group, one that I happen to belong to: Latinos.” By the way, I am a Latino, too.

A letter to the editor writer in today’s LA Times, Julio Zamarripa, perhaps says it best:

I was certainly hoping never to hear from Gonzales again; however, since he decided to appoint himself as some kind of a spokesman for the Latino community, I feel the former attorney general needs help on his convenient lack of recollection about some important issues that were intrinsic to his duties as the highest law enforcement official in the land.

During his watch, the scandal of the political firing of 11 U.S. attorneys reached all the way to Congress, where Gonzales demonstrated contempt for the very laws he had taken an oath to uphold. He became an embarrassment to the entire nation. His lack of integrity hardly gives him moral authority to speak on behalf of any racial, political or religious group.

Columnist Steven Greenhut writes:

Syndicated columnist Bob Novak, writing about the surprising number of conservatives who are backing Democrat Barack Obama rather than Republican John McCain for the presidency, captured their widespread sentiment when he quoted one "Obamacon" with impeccable GOP credentials: "The Republican Party is a dead rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of ‘Weekend at Bernie,’ handcuffed to a corpse." These Obama supporters hold no illusions about Obama’s liberalism, but they are so angry at the GOP, Novak writes, that they seek a "therapeutic electoral bloodbath."… [I]n a two-party system, when one party screws up royally, the voters reward the other party.’
(OC Register; emphasis added)

It’s actually quite affirming that some conservatives have decided to rebel against what the Bush administration and its abettors and enablers and are prepared, in the best traditions of democracy, to throw the rascals out.’

Because ‘conservative’ sure doesn’t mean what it used to. It doesn’t actually even mean ‘conservative’ anymore.

Read the rest of this entry »

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

An inspiring story in the Boston Globe of a graduate of one of Boston’s struggling public schools. The Globe also has the story of a teen mother from the same school who is heading off to college.

Chicago is bracing for challenges to its gun ban in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Heller decision.

The Washington Post reports a new surge in law students studying immigration. Anecdotally, when I’ve asked folks attending law school what they want to study, immigration law has in fact been a surprisingly common response. Most of these folks are liberals — I wonder if its a counter-mobilization to recent conservative demagoguery on the issue?

A new trend sweeping American states is to try and keep illegal immigrants out of college. Apparently, we’re so blinded by rage in this issue that we actively want to make gang life the only salient option for these kids. I, for one, support meritocracy — it’s not like we have a surplus of smart people out there.

Immigration reform isn’t being sunk because it offers amnesty. It’s being sunk because it’s being wrongly characterized as offering amnesty.

Wal-Mart lost another multi-million dollar lawsuit regarding its wages-and-hours practices. As Lindsay Beyerstein points out, though, the settlement amounts to less than $3.25 per violation.

Like Hilzoy, I have refrained from blogging on Sen. Jesse Helms death because it seems unseemly to speak ill of the dead. But also like Hilzoy, I am stunned at the degree to which the right is claiming Helms as an exemplar of their movement, given that he was — how to put this gently? — an unabashed force for evil in the world. Yet there they are. Jim Lindgren clearly protests too much. Also, it is amusing that in the wake of this out-pouring of admiration for a open-and-shut racist, Republicans will indeed probably attempt to reach out to Black voters once again — and then wonder why they fail.

A discrimination lawsuit against the Minneapolis police force is moving forward after a Latino veteran of the force was turned down from a position with an elite anti-gang unit.

Pam’s House Blend calls gay bars one of the “worst offenders” with regard to anti-trans discrimination. Yay, solidarity!

Wal-Mart blocks an HIV-prevention and testing awareness event to be held on its site under pressure from “pro-life” groups (Planned Parenthood was running the show). How life-affirming.

Cross-posted

Obama has clarified his supposed opposition to allowing a woman to have a late term abortion in circumstances when the pregnancy causes the mother mental distress. (The Swamp)  He does not think mere ‘mental distress’ is a reason to permit such an exception.

According to Linda Douglass, the Obama campaign’s senior spokesperson, the senator from Illinois was making a distinction in the magazine interview between medically diagnosed mental illness and the kind of mental distress that an unwanted pregnancy causes many a pregnant mother.  (The Swamp)

He does think such an exception should be permitted in circumstances in which there is medically diagnosed mental illness — a position that still doesn’t please either side of the abortion argument. (The Swamp) 

Read the rest of this entry »

If the title of this post has you befuddled, you are not alone, but please bear with me.

My hometown newspaper this morning carried a story by Eunice Moscoso, on whether Senator John McCain is a natural born U.S. citizen, and whether he is eligible to be U.S. president.

This is not the first time that this issue has been raised and, I am sure, it will not be the last time.

At the heart of this “controversy” lies the fact that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone–not within the 50 United States–and that the Constitution restricts the presidency to “natural born” citizens.

Among other factors, pro and con, playing a role are, according to Moscoso:

1. Whether the Panama Canal Zone was part of the United States at the time (1936) when McCain was born there. Some scholars, such as law professor Jonathan Turley claim that “military installations, such as the one in Panama, were sitting on leased land and were never part of U.S. Soil.” Others, such as Harvard’s Laurence Tribe and former Solicitor General Theodore Olson claim that there is “substantial legal support”–including a 1986 Supreme Court opinion–that the United States “exercised sovereignty” over the Panama Canal Zone.

2. The fact that both of McCain’s parents were American citizens and that, according to Tribe and Olson, the framers never intended to exclude children of military officers serving outside the continental United States from the presidency.

3. The fact that “Federal law defines a natural born citizen in various ways, including one that clearly includes children of military officers overseas.”

Overarching all this, the fact that the framers of the Constitution never defined the term “natural born.”

Personally, I don’t think this needs to be such a big issue. Especially when there are so many other issues–such as qualifications, character, ability, judgment, etc.–that are much more important when assessing candidates for the presidency.

Also, I am somewhat biased on this issue. You see, my daughter was born on an American military installation in Germany. Both her mother and I are, and were, U.S. citizens. And–I know this is a loving father talking and hoping–should she ever want to run for the highest office, I would not want to see her disqualified just because her father was, as we say, serving his country overseas at the time of her birth.

Now, back to the title of this story, “Can Egyptian Born McCain Be President?“

Actually, that is the title eventually given to a translated article that appeared in March of this year at “Watching America.” The article was translated from Russian and from the on-line Pravda, Pravda.ru.

The literal translation, according to Watching America translators is: “The McCain Incident–An Egyptian May Be the President of the U.S.”

Now, I don’t speak Russian, but I know the “Watching America” Russian translators are very good at what they do, so I don’t doubt the accuracy of their translation. Furthermore, when one “googles” the Russian article and requests “translate this article,” one gets this translation for the title, “Kazus McCain: President of the United States could become ‘Egyptian‘” While some of the Google foreign language translations are fair, they are by no means perfect. But one can readily tell that there is something “funny” about the title–and perhaps the story.

And lo and behold, once we get into the translated text (the article discusses the presidential primaries battles between McCain, Clinton and Obama), we read the following:

A new issue has arisen. The issue is that John McCain was born in Egypt. To run for the presidency of the US, one must be born in the United States, but both the father and mother of the senator were citizens of the United States. Therefore it is unlikely that the circumstances mentioned above will hinder McCain in any way.

And, in a question and answer session between Pravda and “the president of the Institute of Strategic Rankings and Analysis, professor of the Department of the Applied Political Sciences of the Higher School of Economics, professor MGIMO Alexander Konovalov.”:

Q: There is some news coming from the press that McCain, as a candidate, may be hurt by the fact that he was not born in the US, but in Egypt. Is it true that this fact could be a hindrance to his campaign or is it simply gossip that is a part of all campaigns?

A: In principle Obama may have a bigger problem because he is a son of a Kenyan student and a white American woman. Then the Kenyan student left for Kenya and abandoned his girlfriend (sic) with little Obama. After that she married an Indonesian and they left for Indonesia for a prolonged period of time.

I don’t remember how the Constitution stipulates this, but I do know that a child born into a military family becomes an American citizen. McCain has a “winning” biography. He spent five years as a POW in Vietnam; he was tortured; he spent five years in a hole. Actually, as he was tortured by the Vietnamese, he heard Russian speech in the next room. And in his words, these people periodically recommended to the Vietnamese how best to torture McCain.

He’s twice married; his second wife is Miss Arizona. He has seven children; three of which are adopted. Therefore, I find it unlikely that with such an excellent resume, the fact that McCain was born in Egypt will play any role in the election.

I have no reason to think that the Russian article is a hoax. I have suggested to both my hometown newspaper and to the New York Times that they may want to look into how prestigious Pravda could make such a monumental mistake (and some other smaller ones), but they have not.

I have come up with my own explanation for the mystery surrounding McCain’s birth place, Egypt or Panama.

As many remember, the British controlled zone of the Suez Canal was also known as the “Canal Zone,” just like the Panama “Canal Zone.“ Perhaps the writers of the “McCain an Egyptian” article, and others, had read that McCain was born in the “Canal Zone” and automatically assumed that it was the Suez “Canal Zone.” Coincidentally, the year that McCain was born (1936) is the same year that Britain, after having “protected” the “neutral canal zone” since 1888, signed a treaty with Egypt retaining control over the canal.

As a footnote, had McCain been born in the Suez Canal Zone, it might have been an even stickier case to prove that he is a “natural born” U.S. citizen. Furthermore, the present “anti-anything remotely resembling/associated with Muslims” climate might not have helped him either–as is sadly the case with the other presidential candidate.

I happen to think the FISA bill is a terrible piece of legislation — and not just because of the telecom issue — but I am pretty sure it’s going to pass.  That’s not what this is about.

What this is about is the reasons I’m hearing from various highly-placed public officials why I and America need this so-called compromise. Do they take me for a fool?  Yes, they take me for a fool.  Either that, or they are banking on the entire American public being as civics-impaired as rumored.  In any case, we’re being played, possibly in the hope that if they say enough soothing things about why America needs FISA because national security requires it we’ll get bored with the whole thing or frightened and drop it.  (I mean, who really believes anymore that we have any privacy?  Not me.) 

Read the rest of this entry »

In the United States there has been quite a bit of criticism of John McCain’s visit to Latin America for being ill-timed - although his partisans argue that the trip will shore up his foreign-policy credentials.

So what do Colombians think of the Republican candidate’s visit and the effusive welcome he received from Colombian President Uribe? For Colombia’s top-selling newspaper El Tiempo, Oscar Collazos writes in part:

“Uribe is depositing a symbolic vote for the Republican candidate in the ballot box - a very risky card to play. … Despite the ambiguous efforts of Uribe’s government to imply that the visit doesn’t rule out a future visit by Barack Obama - that’s the message which has been sent. … the fact that we received a presidential candidate who doubles as a clone of the present occupant of the White House with such excessive honors, makes clear our position of inferiority - a position accepted with servility by Colombia’s Chief of State.”

Read the rest of this entry »