Just a story

Nothing political - just a story.

Last night I was cleaning the bathroom of our house because we listed our home for sale. We actually listed it yesterday, and the same day someone expressed interest in seeing the house, so I was doing some last-minute scrubbing of the shower. Wendy, Maxine and Huck were taking a walk. It was around 7 p.m. or so.

As I was scrubbing, I heard Isabella, our African Grey parrot making a racket. She has a particular highly-agitated call she makes that expresses fear or excitement. Normally she does it when she gets a toenail stuck in her rope swing or something. So I went to check on her, and sitting on the floor of our kitchen right below Isabella's cage was a hawk. A big(ish) hawk just standing there. It had just landed on the floor after dropping off Isabella's cage when I walked in. She (I have no idea if it was male or female, but I'm calling her a girl) just turned and calmly looked at me. I was stunned. Not what you expect to see in your kitchen. I actually said out-loud, "What the hell are you doing here?" She was totally calm and unperturbed by me.

I leapt into action - closing the door to Maxine's room, closing the door to our bedroom, grabbed a broom, and taped a towel over the opening to the living room (as there is no door there to close.) This limited where she could go and left only the door outside open. If you've been to my house, you know there is a little jog to get from the back door to the kitchen, so she had to have flown in the back door (that was standing open) and around the corner and into the kitchen. She must have heard Isabella and thought there was an easy snack available.

Luckily, Isabella's cage doors were closed, so the hawk couldn't get in. She was scared, but not overly freaked out. Obviously when Isabella had been screaming, the hawk was grabbing at the cage.

So once I got the hawk limited to the kitchen, I put on some leather work gloves and grabbed the broom, and started to shoo her toward the back door. She fluttered around the cage, freaking out Isabella again, then flew to the back door. After a little confusion with the mirror, she flew outside and sat on our gate.

By this time I could tell she was young. Probably just a few months old. She was gorgeous, and still not scared of me. Big clear bluish-yellow eyes, and bright yellow feet with three toes in the front with one in back. Long, thin, black talons. Long yellow beak tipped in black. Brown feathers with striped tail feathers like a turkey. White chest with brown spots. Her feathers were ruffled, but like a baby bird, not like she was dirty or sick. She was just sitting on our fence, and I walked over and stood right next to her. I mean inches from her. She just looked at me expectantly. So I went inside and got her a piece of smoked turkey sandwich meat. I dropped it on the ground OUTSIDE the gate into the driveway, and she dropped down on top of it like it was prey. She covered it with her wings and stepped on it to protect it, and then stood there eating it. I opened the gate and squatted next to her and watched her. I was within inches of her the whole time.

Eventually, I picked up some of the bigger pieces of turkey she had missed, and invited her over. She jumped up on my hand and ate the turkey from my hand! I actually held her for a few minutes. I fully expected to get cut by her obviously sharp claws, or bit, but she was very gentle, relatively speaking. Not a scratch. She got a little excited when I picked her up and her claw got hooked in my glove, but she got free quickly and settled back down on the ground next to me.

She hung out for a long time - Wendy came home and had to walk around the block again to keep Huck and the baby away. She settled on the neighbor's roof for a while. Wendy had seen her earlier on her walk in the next block and remarked about how close the bird let her get.

So I looked it up online, and she is a Cooper's Hawk. That's what the picture is of. She looked just like that. I got some pictures of her on the roof, and I'll post those later.

I've been saying I wanted to get closer to nature, and it came closer to me.

Censorship versus Free Speech

Okay, it has been way too long.

Having not exercised my right to free speech on this blog in a while, I thought I'd take the opportunity to share my thoughts on free speech and censorship.

In a nutshell, I like the First Amendment. I've said it before, a framed copy hangs on my wall (along with the rest of the Bill of Rights). The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall pass no law . . . Abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." It's very simple. The United States Congress has no power to pass any law telling me what to say or what not to say.

According to the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution reserves to the states or the people those rights not delegated to the federal government and not prohibited to the states. In other words, if the Constitution doesn't give the power to the federal government, and doesn't specifically say the states can't regulate it, it is fair game for the states to regulate. So according to the original bill of rights, the states - our state legislatures - had the power to abridge our free speech. If we didn't want our states to abridge our right to free speech, we had to pass state constitutions reserving that right to ourselves.

The 14th Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court changed that by including in the rights preserved to the people the first amendment rights. In other words, the 14th Amendment effectively prohibited state governments from abridging our freedom of speech.

So now, no government in the U.S. can abridge our right to free speech. Within limits. Government retains to power to regulate non-speech and to preserve the peace (hence, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Unless there's a fire.)

All this boils down to a simple rule: the GOVERNMENT cannot tell me what I can or can't say. But OTHER PEOPLE can.

So when I say I like the First Amendment, that's what I mean. We should be free from government censorship. We should also be subjected to private censorship. That's what keeps our society civil and sane. You can say what you want, but the rest of us have the right to put pressure on you to shut up if we don't like it. Your boss can fire you for what you say. The newspaper has the right to refuse to run your letter. We can exert peer pressure to make you straighten up and act right. That's what our Constitution protects. It protects us from an overly powerful government, and it relies on a powerful civil society to police itself to preserve order and tranquility.

The web and TV and the papers are awash in cries of attacks on our right to free speech. Papers refuse to run the Danish cartoons of Muhammed and people complain that this is censorship. Comedy Central refuses to air an image of Muhammed on South Park, and people cry foul and say our rights are being eroded. But these are not instances of first amendment rights being attacked. These are instances of private censorship that are now and have always been protected by the First Amendment, not prohibited by it.

Private censorship is fine. True, it raises another concern, which is corporate censorship. That's the concern that access to the media is held by the few and withheld from the rest. But it does not help to confuse that concern with First Amendment rights.

So here's my take. I like non-governmental censorship because it is protected by the First Amendment as free speech. Non-governmental censorship is free speech to the person doing the censoring. If it is my paper, or my network, and I censor the content, I am exercising my right to say what I want and to refuse to say what I don't want. That's free speech.

Death Penalty-2, Life-0

Its been a pretty bad couple of weeks for death penalty opponents. First, reports last week that Roger Keith Coleman, who was executed in Virginia in 1992, was in fact guilty. Despite his insistence he was innocent, and a TIME magazine cover story questioning his conviction, DNA evidence confirmed he did it. Governor Mark Warner of Virginia ordered the DNA test to set the record straight, and it confirmed his guilt.

As a death penalty opponent, I don't want to see anyone killed by the state. One of the reasons for abolishing the death penalty is the possibility that an innocent person will be killed. If you jail an innocent person, you can't give the time back, but you can free him or her. If you kill an innocent person, you can give nothing back. So in a weird "I-don't-really-want-this" kind of way, death penalty opponents were kind of hoping that Coleman was innocent. The death of one innocent man could have increased opposition to the death penalty. Now that we know he was innocent, his death was meaningless. It did nothing to deter crime, and it did nothing to deter future executions.

In fact, it did the opposite. For the first time, I heard a death-penalty-supporter-politician try to use all the recent exonerations of convicted death-row inmates as justification for the death penalty. He argued that all the exonerations show that the system works. (Pure BS - it takes extraordinary effort to even get the courts to consider looking at new evidence when there is a conviction. In Coleman's case, all the courts said no to reviewing the DNA evidence, and the governor had to order the test.)

Anyway, bad news number two is the execution of Clarence Ray Allen scheduled for tonight. Allen is 76, blind, confined to a wheelchair, and has diabetes. You'd think he'd be a poster-child for anti-death-penalty activists. Except for the fact that he is on death row after being convicted of ordering the executions of three people who were going to be witnesses against him. And the kicker - he ordered these deaths from behind bars. He is a perfect counter to the anti-death-penalty argument that life without parole ("LWOP") is a good alternative to death. In Allen's case, he remained a menace to society even from behind bars. Arguably, death is the only thing that can keep this guy from killing again.

Neither of these two things shake my convictions that the death penalty is an abomination. I oppose the death penalty on fundamental grounds - it is wrong to kill. But these two guys took away two arguments that are easy sells to those who favor the death penalty. And that's a shame.

How do you feel about torture?

Here's how I feel about torture: don't do it.

Simple, huh?

Is this a great country? Seriously. What makes a country great? Personally, I think the things embodied in the U.S. Constitution are a pretty good start. The preamble says that we the people established the Constitution in order to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." That is something that makes a country pretty great - that the very document establishing the government acknowledges that one of the primary motivating factors is to ensure liberty will be enjoyed by those founding the country as well as all future generations.

The Bill of Rights contains some things that are pretty great, too. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Freedom to assemble. Freedom to petition the government for redress of our grievances. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Those things could make a country great. What else? How about shying away from torturing people? Sure, avoiding something evil doesn't make you a great person. You don't get any points in my book just because you managed to get through the day without killing anyone. But when applied to a government, it is pretty important to know that the government will not engage in evil acts - no matter how noble the intentions. Those are reasons we used to justify invading Iraq, after all. After his WMD argument dried up, Bush claimed another good reason for invading was to end the torture and rape and killings Saddam inflicted on his people. So if those things are justification for invading another country, avoiding those things sounds like something a great country ought to do.

There are some things we must avoid. Torture is one of them. Nothing, not even preventing another 9/11, justifies torture. We are better than that. We value some things too highly to allow them to occur, even if we think lives might be saved if we allowed them.

Is it possible we could uncover a terrorist plot to kill Americans if we tortured a suspect? Some people argue the effectiveness of torture, but it probably works in some cases. Torture might save lives. What about rape? Could we convince a suspect to talk if we used rape as a tool? Maybe a terrorist doesn't care about his personal well-being. Maybe he would care about seeing his mother raped. Or his children. Maybe a terrorist would talk if we raped his kids in front of him. Or tortured them. Or killed them. Maybe genocide could prevent a terrorist attack. Maybe they would stop killing us if we just killed them all off first. If torture is okay to save lives, why not rape? Why not murder of innocents? Why not genocide? Why not every evil thing we can think of?

How do you feel knowing we, you and me through our duly-elected president, are laying the foundation for a legal justification for torture? What else are we doing we don't know about?

How do you feel about torture?

Torture Away!

Bush said his wiretapping of people in the U.S. without warrants was legal because of his inherent Constitutional powers as commander in chief. He said he was allowed to violate federal law that specifically prohibits wiretapping people in the U.S. without warrants because the Constitution gives him that power. Maybe you were thinking that wiretapping isn't so bad. Maybe a few people get their privacy invaded and the government listens in on their personal phone conversations, but that's not so bad in the grand scheme of things. Isn't fighting terror worth it? Maybe you think these things. I don't, but that's just me. I think our personal liberties are worth protecting from terrorists as well as from the government.

But maybe you disagree with me and can't get too worked up about a little "harmless" snooping. Well, on December 30, the president signed the law containing the McCain Anti-torture provision. This is the law that says, "No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." When Bush signed this law, his official signing statement says he will "construe Title X in Division A of the Act [the anti-torture section], relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks." So Bush claims the same power that lets him completely ignore the anti-wiretapping law also applies to this anti-torture law. He is saying in no uncertain terms that he is free to ignore the anti-torture law.

Bush is saying in no uncertain terms that he is going to allow torture.

Notice he also says he will construe the law in a manner consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power." What does this mean? The same thing it means with regard to the anti-wiretapping law. He isn't going to allow anyone to challenge his actions in court. He is saying we, the American people through our executive branch, will torture people and we will not allow them access to any court to challenge our actions.

So maybe a little wiretapping is okay. How do you feel about torture?

Impeach! v. 2.0

After driving in to work the other day listening to Bush admit to having authorized wiretaps of people in the U.S. without obtaining warrants over 30 times - and promising to keep doing it, I suggested he should be impeached. I have since had some time to cool down, reflect, and do some research. Bush claims what he did was legal under the Constitution and under Congress's authorization of use of force in Afghanistan. So I re-read Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution regarding the President's powers (Article 2) and Congress's powers (Article 1). I read the authorization of the use of force. I also read the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) found at 50 U.S.C. 1801-11.

Now that I've had a chance to think about it, I'm even more frustrated and disgusted. Bush has to be impeached.

I've already discussed the "Commander-in-Chief" clause of Article 2 and the use-of-force authorization, and explained why they do not give the president the legal right to wiretap people in the U.S. without a warrant. (Even if they did, they would be superceded by the 4th Amendment, which prohibits warrantless searches.) So the next question is, did Bush commit a crime when he exceeeded his authority?

FISA is the federal law enacted in 1978 to help address abuses of the NSA. FISA prohibits wiretapping without a warrant when at least one of the parties is in the U.S. FISA specifically applies to terrorist suspects. FISA allows wiretaps to be placed before a warrant is obtained in emergencies. That way, there is no fear that the process of getting a warrant will take too long. But warrants have to be obtained eventually. FISA even sets up secret "FISA Courts" with judges selected by the Chief Justice of the United States who will handle these warrant requests so that national security is protected. In other words, FISA is designed to handle EXACTLY the situation that is going on now. And most importantly for any discussion of impeachment, FISA makes it a crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison for anyone to intentionally authorize wiretaps in violation of the procedures established by FISA. The president admits to intentionally authorizing wiretaps in violation of the FISA requirements. He admits he committed a felony.

There is one more part of FISA that doesn't apply here, but that speaks volumes about what Bush did: FISA has a special section dedicated exclusively to the issue of the the president authorizing wiretaps without a warrant. 50 U.S.C. 1811 specificly allows the president to authorize wiretaps in the U.S. without obtaining a warrant - but only for 15 days after a declaration of war by congress. Just to be 100% clear, Bush has been doing it for more than 2 years and congress has not declared war.

When Clinton was impeached, Republicans claimed they were not doing it for political reasons. They claimed to be doing it to vindicate the rule of law - to show that no one is above the law. We are about to get our proof positive that Republicans in the House and Senate are liars and hypocrites with no dignity, morality, or shame. Because they will not impeach Bush. They will show us that they care nothing about the law, the citizens of the U.S., or anything else besides power.

I have never been so ashamed of my country.

Impeach!

Why is our president not currently being impeached? That is a rhetorical question, but the answer is simple: politics. A Republican House of Representatives will never vote articles of impeachment against a Republican president.

Bush gave a speech yesterday and this morning in which he admitted to personally authorizing the NSA to intercept telephone conversations in the U.S. The president's own Attorney General just this morning admitted that this violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA"). Congress debated in 1978 what the process should be for intercepting foreign conversations and made it clear - the NSA is free to spy on foreigners overseas, but if any of the people involved in the conversation are in the U.S, the government must get a warrant.

Bush clearly violated the law. He claims he is justified to do so by the Constitution and Congress's authorization for him to use force against Afghanistan.

Let's look at the Constitution. I have a framed copy on my wall. Article 2 says, Section 2 says, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Being Commander in Chief does not mean having free rein to conduct war in any manner conceivable. Article 2 makes the president the person who will act as Commander in Chief - but it does not allow him to ignore the rule of law. Article 2 is not the most powerful portion of the Constitution. We know it is limited by any amendments that were enacted after it. The 4th Amendment in our Bill of Rights says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Next, it almost goes without saying, but when Congress authorized use of foce against Afghanistan after 9/11, it never said anything about intercepting telephone conversations in the U.S. Congress never gave the president this power. Even if it had, such an act would be unconstitutional as a violation of the 4th Amendment. In fact, FISA makes pretty clear that Congress expressly chose not to give the president this power. YOU NEED A WARRANT TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE'S PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS IN THE U.S.!

The president's only two bases for claiming he acted within the law are completly inapplicable. He broke the law. He committed a high crime. He admits it. What does the Constitution say about the president committing high crimes? Article 2, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Article 1, Section 2 gives the House "the sole Power of Impeachment," and Article 1, Section 3 gives the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments." Notice it says "shall be removed." Not "may" or "should" or "if it is politically attractive."

What are we waiting for? Why is the House not voting articles of impeachment this very second? I have never been so angry with my own country. We impeach Clinton for perjury when he lied to an independent prosecutor about getting a blowjob, but we won't impeach Bush for illegally ordering wiretaps in the U.S. in clear violation of both FISA and the 4th Amendment.

Despite all the things Bush has done - despite how much I disagreed with him - I have never called for his impeachment until now. He has been stupid and wrong and evil throughout his presidency. Now he is also a criminal. Now, our Constiution requires that he be impeached.