Expert Advice On Dealing With A Prior Administration's Use of Torture

By John Dean

From The Archives:

By JOHN W. DEAN

Friday, June 12, 2009

No official announcement has been made that the Obama Administration is not going to prosecute anyone – other than a few low-level soldiers who photographed themselves and already have been prosecuted – for torturing detainees in our so-called war on terror. But it has become clear that President Obama's announced desire to look forward, not backward, embodies such a decision.

Still, we must all hope that the Obama Administration makes more than a non-decision type of decision, and does not merely resolve the matter by silence and inaction. There are, in fact, precedents, and studies, that illuminate the grave problems confronting a democracy in making a choice when faced with the options of prosecuting and punishing versus forgiving and forgetting. I discovered this material some years ago when studying authoritarian governance.

The Insights of Samuel P. Huntington

I provided evidence in my recent book Conservatives Without Conscience that the Bush/Cheney presidency was the most authoritarian in American history. When doing research for that book, I read a work by the late Samuel P. Huntington, the highly- regarded Harvard political scientist and former president of the American Political Science Association. More specifically, I was interested in Professor Huntington's survey of the transition to democracy, during the mid-1970s through the 1980s, of some thirty countries that had previously been under authoritarian rule, which Huntington wrote about in The Third Wave: Democratization In the Late Twentieth Century.

Professor Huntington, who once served as a foreign policy adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey, was respected across the political spectrum, as conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg noted on his passing. Huntington called it as he saw it, and few have studied more governments so closely throughout the world.

When writing The Third Wave, Huntington explained that rather than following his normal practice of detached political analysis, he would explain the implications of his findings at five points in the book, where he "abandoned the roles of social scientist, [and] assumed that of [a] political consultant." It was in this context that Huntington addressed how a democratic government should deal with torture that had occurred under the rule of an authoritarian predecessor.

Applying Huntington's Insights to the Obama Administration's Predicament

While the situations are far from directly parallel, Huntington's analysis strikes me as relevant to our current situation. Thus, in the following paragraphs, I have paraphrased or quoted his work, and occasionally transposed it from the context of a purely authoritarian government to that of the authoritarian-leaning democracy favored by many conservatives, and encouraged by Bush/Cheney, and to the situation now faced by the United States and by the Obama Administration.

In turning to Huntington's analysis, I am not, of course, equating the American conservative authoritarianism with the authoritarianism the professor examined under the Central American and Asian dictatorships, or the Greek military, and similar authoritarian regimes. Nor is the situation parallel when American voters rejected the policies of the Republican Party by electing President Obama.

By the same token, no one should be surprised that torture occurred when American conservatives ruled in an authoritarian manner. Nor, given the fact that Obama campaigned by opposing such authoritarian actions, it should not be surprising that many of his supporters, who voted the authoritarians out of power in Washington, now want him to prosecute and punish those involved.

I found Huntington's work both provocative and illuminating in the context of the current situation that Obama faces in dealing with the use of torture by his predecessor. Especially given the fact we have never faced this situation before in the United States, but similar situations have existed in many other nations, the professor's advice is instructive.

The Case for Prosecuting and Punishing the Use of Torture

Based on Huntington's analysis, which is applicable to our country as well as to a newly-established democracy, there are a number of arguments for holding a prior administration accountable for torture through prosecutions and punishments:

(1) "Truth and justice require it." The Obama Administration "has the moral duty to punish vicious crimes against humanity.

(2) "Prosecution is a moral obligation owed to the victims and their families."

(3) "Democracy is based on law, and the point must be made that neither high officials nor [the] military … are above the law." Citing a judge who was critical of a government amnesty proposal, Huntington added: "Democracy isn't just freedom of opinion, the right to hold elections, and so forth. It's the rule of law. Without equal application of the law, democracy is dead. The government is acting like a husband whose wife is cheating on him. He knows it, everybody knows it, but he goes on insisting that everything is fine and praying every day that he isn't going to be forced to confront the truth, because then he'd have to do something about it."

(4) "Prosecution is necessary to deter further violations of human rights by [future] officials."

(5) "Prosecution is essential to establish the viability of the democratic system." If the Republicans and Bush/Cheney apologists can prevent prosecution though political influence, democracy does not really exist.

(6) Even if the worst "crimes are not prosecuted, at a very minimum it is necessary to bring into the open the extent of the crimes and the identity of those responsible and thus establish a full and unchallengeable public record. The principle of accountability is essential to democracy, and accountability requires 'exposing the truth' and insisting 'that people not be scarified for the greater good…'."

The Case for Forgiving and Forgetting the Use of Torture

Huntington's analysis of the case for leaving a past government's torture in the past, and imposing no consequences, which is based on more extreme government authoritarianism, is not nearly as applicable as his arguments calling for prosecution. Thus, I have taken his core arguments against prosecuting and punishing, and restated them in a context that is more closely applicable to our country and the current situation:

(1) A working democracy calls for reconciliation between major factions in society, who set aside divisions of the past.

(2) There must be a tacit understanding in a democracy among those vying for power that there will be no retribution for past policies sincerely held by opponents. Democracies do not criminalize policy differences, and while the Obama Administration does not believe torture is an effective policy, and has rejected it, it understands that the Bush/Cheney Administration believed it necessary to protect Americans.

(3) Because many Democrats were aware of the use of torture by the Bush/Cheney Administration -- specifically, Congressional Democrats who were briefed on its use -- it would be unfair to prosecute Republicans but not Democrats.

(4) Torture was only used because it was sincerely believed it was necessary to deal with terrorism, and, whether wisely or unwisely, it was done to protect the United States.

(5) Many Americans share in the guilt of the use of torture by the Bush/Cheney Administration. Recent polls indicate that only 29 percent of Americans believe torture should never be used, and the rest have varying degrees of toleration for its use. Similarly, not even half of Americans polled want an investigation into this matter.

(6) Prosecuting and punishing those involved in the use of torture would provoke a bitter and divisive public debate, which would detract from the government's ability to deal with more pressing problems like the economy, healthcare, and America's dangerous budget deficits. It is more important to guarantee the human rights of people today and tomorrow, than to seek retroactive justice that could compromise the ability to deal with more immediate and difficult issues.

Professor Huntington's Advice

It is unfortunate that Samuel Huntington is no longer available to share his wisdom for addressing this situation facing the nation, and the Obama Administration. Clearly there are strengths and weaknesses in the arguments on both sides of this issue. Nonetheless, as I noted, Huntington did give his advice to those who were forming new democracies -- advice which he based on how the democracy was formed:

(1) When the transition to democracy occurred through a process of transformation ("when the elites in power took the lead in bringing about democracy"), or through what he called transplacement ("when democratization resulted largely from joint action by government and opposition groups"), then Huntington advised those in power, "do not attempt to prosecute authoritarian officials for human rights violations. The political costs of such an effort will outweigh any moral gains."

(2) If replacement – not transformation or transplacement -- occurred (that is if "opposition groups took the lead in bringing about democracy, and the authoritarian regime collapsed or was overthrown"), and if those in power felt it was "morally and politically desirable," then Huntington advised that they should "prosecute the leaders of the authoritarian regime promptly (within one year of your coming into power) while making clear that you will not prosecute middle- and lower-ranking officials."

(3) Regardless of how the transition occurred, Huntington advised that those in power ought to "[d]evise a means to achieve a full and dispassionate public accounting of how and why the crimes were committed."

(4) Throughout his analysis, Huntington points out, "on the issue of 'prosecute and punish vs. forgive and forget,'" that "each alternative presents grave problems, and that the least unsatisfactory course may well be: do not prosecute, do not punish, do not forgive, and, above all, do not forget."

Huntington's advice, notwithstanding how the transition occurred during our last election, still appears very relevant to our democracy, which is the most advanced in the world. Personally, I find his arguments for prosecution stronger than those against it when those arguments are applied to the Bush/Cheney Administration. But since it appears the Obama Administration is not going to take such action, at a minimum the Administration should follow Huntington's counsel to find "a means to achieve a full and dispassionate public accounting," and should make certain that the means chosen is not understood as forgiving, which would allow the nation to quickly forget.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Republicans Blackmail Holder

  
As independents, we don't give a flying rats arse under which political party crimes, like torture or renditions to nations known to torture, were committed. We want it all to come out. The sooner the better!

Posted: Thursday, May 07, 2009 12:16 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Republicans, Pete Williams

From NBC's Pete Williams

At a hearing today with Attorney General Eric Holder, Republican members of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee suggested that any potential criminal investigation into the CIA's harsh interrogation methods might not easily be contained.


Both Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Richard Shelby of Alabama pressed Holder on the CIA's "rendition" program that moved terrorism suspects from one country to another. 

Didn't that happen during the Clinton administration? 
 

Yes, Holder said. 

"How many did you approve?" they asked. 
 

Holder said he'd check the record.

The clear suggestion was, if any criminal investigation is opened, Republicans would push to get it expanded beyond events during the Bush administration. Alexander, for example, asked several times whether members of Congress, who were told about the interrogation methods, should also be investigated.

As for a potential investigation of the lawyers who wrote the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opinions approving harsh interrogation methods, Holder said -- as he has several times now -- that he remains skeptical. 

"We're not trying to do anything that would be perceived as partisan,” he said. “We want to move forward to the extent we can."

Today's hearing also provided another avenue for members of Congress to tell the Obama administration they're very worried about bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees into the U.S., where they might be released. Holder said no one who was dangerous or a threat to the community would be released anywhere in the world. 

[EDITOR'S NOTE: An earlier version of this post incorrectly identified the committee Holder testified before as Judiciary. This version corrects that, pointing out that it was an Appropriations subcommittee.]

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Hey GOP! Just go the hell away....for a long time.

Just when you think it can't get any worse.....

A romp through the Republican ... budget?
 


P.M. Carpenter  Friday, March 27. 

I'll also offer Republicans a little sincere advice: Go away. Just go away for a long, long while. Grab whatever cash you have in the RNC account and hasten thee to a faraway exotic spa, or go on a year-long drunk, or simply hide yourselves at home, shutter the blinds, and shut the f*ck up. It's not your critics doing you harm. It's you and your non-budgeting budgets which advocate spending freezes during a deep freeze. It's Dick Cheney running around defending torture and denouncing social progress. It's Sarah Palin babbling about deficiently prayerful McCainites. It's your Cantors and Pences and Boehners looking and sounding so insufferably goofy. It's Michael Steele strategizing with God but genuflecting before Rush. For those fond of reifying brevity, it can even be just two words: Michele Bachmann.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Civil War on the Right

This is one time a circular firing squad is in order!

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, October 24, 2008; A19

Conservatives are at each others' throats, and here's what's revealing about how divided they are: The critics of John McCain and the critics of Sarah Palin represent entirely different camps.

Surprise, surprise!

One set of critics, skeptical social conservatives, are precisely the people McCain was trying to mollify by picking Palin as his running mate. This includes the faithful of the religious right who remember McCain as their enemy in 2000 and parts of the gun crowd who always saw McCain as soft on their issues.

That McCain felt a need to make such an outlandishly risky choice speaks to how insecure his hold was on the core Republican vote. A candidate is supposed to rally the base during the primaries and reach out to the middle at election time. McCain got it backward, and it's hurting him.

A Pew Research Center survey this week found that among political independents, Palin's unfavorable rating has almost doubled since mid-September, from 27 to 50 percent. Whatever enthusiasm Palin inspired among conservative ideologues is more than offset by middle-of-the-road defections.

Even on the right, she hasn't done the job. In The Post tracking poll released yesterday, Barack Obama drew 22 percent of the vote from self-described conservatives. That's a seven-point gain on John Kerry's 2004 conservative share.

Yet the pro-Palin right is still impatient with McCain for not being tough enough -- as if he has not run one of the most negative campaigns in recent history. This camp believes that if McCain only shouted the names "Bill Ayers" and "Jeremiah Wright" at the top of his lungs, the whole election would turn around.

Much more of the religiously insane and I would vote for Bill Ayers!

Then there are those conservatives who see Palin as a "fatal cancer to the Republican Party" (David Brooks), as someone who "doesn't know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin" (Kathleen Parker), as "a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics" (Peggy Noonan).

These conservatives deserve credit for acknowledging how ill-suited Palin is for high office. But what we see here is a deep split between parts of the conservative elite and much of the rank and file.

For years, many of the elite conservatives were happy to harvest the votes of devout Christians and gun owners by waging a phony class war against "liberal elitists" and "leftist intellectuals." Suddenly, the conservative writers are discovering that the very anti-intellectualism their side courted and encouraged has begun to consume their movement.

The cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity -- and Sarah Palin. Reason has been overwhelmed by propaganda, ideas by slogans, learned manifestoes by direct-mail hit pieces.

And then there is George W. Bush. Conservatives once hailed him as creating an enduring majority on behalf of their cause. Now, they cast him as the goat in their story of decline.

The conservative critique of Bush is a familiar rant against his advocacy of big government and huge deficits -- now supplemented by horror over his embrace of actual socialism with the partial nationalization of big banks. And, yes, a fair number of conservatives were never wild about the adventure in Iraq.

Things are so bad that the internecine warriors on the right have begun copying the rhetoric of the old left. In a Washington Times column this week upbraiding dissidents such as Brooks and Noonan, Tony Blankley, the conservative writer and activist, fell back on an old left slogan, asking them: "Whose side are you on, comrade?"

This is a revelatory question. It arises when a movement has lost its sense of solidarity and purpose, when the "sides" are no longer clear. There is no unified "right" or "center-right," which is why we are no longer a conservative country, if we ever were.

Conservatism has finally crashed on problems for which its doctrines offered no solutions (the economic crisis foremost among them, thus Bush's apostasy) and on its refusal to acknowledge that the "real America" is more diverse, pragmatic and culturally moderate than the place described in Palin's speeches or imagined by the right-wing talk show hosts.

Conservatives came to believe that if they repeated phrases such as "Joe the Plumber" often enough, they could persuade working-class voters that policies tilted heavily in favor of the very privileged were actually designed with Joe in mind.

It isn't working anymore. No wonder conservatives are turning on each other so ferociously.

postchat@aol.com

Read more from E.J. Dionne on washingtonpost.com's political opinion blog, PostPartisan.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Do U.S. Elections Matter?

Linda makes some very good points. There was a a time I would have agreed with her on even more of them. That was before 2000. Can anyone really say that election 2000 didn't matter? If Al Gore had won that election would we be embroiled in Iraq and nearly bankrupt, morally as well as economically? If Al Gore had won the election, would there have even been a 9/11? I guess we'll never know with any certainty about the last question.

I would bet that we would be well on our way to more eco-friendly life-styles and less dependent on middle-east oil. Instead, we're just getting started with the long hard slog of finding better ways of producing energy, in earnest. Never mind that we have known what the continued use of fossil fuels would eventually do to the planet and our health since the early 70s.

Well paid lobbyists will kill us all if we don't change this lousy, corrupt system in Washington and on Wall Street.

Instead, many of us saw no difference in Gore and Bush. Bush was the compassionate conservative, remember? By now all but the most intellectually challenged among us know what an oxymoron that is, but it's way too late.

It's true that no matter who is elected this November it will take years to clean up the mess Bush, Cheney and a Republican majority have made. It is also true that that process won't even begin if we are, as a nation, insane enough to elect them again.

So, I would beg, plead and cajole...vote for Obama/ Biden and give them a congress they can work with and then, as Linda says, raise hell about the issues you care about. If the Democrats can't get the job done, let's organize a third party. As a matter of fact, why not start now? When a third of the eligible voters are too disenchanted or disgusted to bother to vote, something is very, very wrong. Part of what's wrong is the corrupt duality of the two party system.

Maybe this year will be the turning point. It's for sure that Barack Obama has excited the electorate to a degree I haven't seen in my lifetime of close to 60 years.


100 million nonvoters send a stinging message of disenchantment

By Linda Averill


October 22, 2008 "FSN" - -Legions of people opt out of voting in the U.S. But they are not civic slackers. They’re on to something. Whether disinterested or disgusted, they are casting a vote of no confidence in the electoral system. And it is entirely justified.


The real point of elections is to get enough people voting to legitimize the authority of politicians. Then, they can drag us into wars, bail out bankers in the middle of an economic meltdown, and “earmark” tax dollars to their biggest donors. It happens at every level of government, from City Hall to the White House.


Just as riot is the language of the unheard, abstention has become the vote of the unrepresented. In a debate on voter apathy, blogger Bud Wood put it this way: “It just doesn’t make much difference who or what gets into office. The results are more of the same.”


Whose democracy? There are 100 million nonvoters in the U.S., and they are overwhelmingly people who are economically disenfranchised. They are poor, young, disabled, unemployed and foreign-born, especially Asian and Latino.


Only 48 percent of folks in the bottom income bracket go to the polls. Compare this to 77 percent among those with annual incomes above $50,000. Those earning over $100,000 per year make up 15 percent of eligible voters, but 19 percent of actual ballot-casters. And this percentage rises on up the wealth ladder.


But even active voters are turned off. A study called the “Vanishing Voter” showed disenchantment among voters and abstentionists alike. More than 75 percent felt that “candidates will say almost anything to get elected.” Over one third agreed that “most politicians are liars or crooks.” The only statement that doubled in support among nonvoters was that “Republicans and Democrats are alike.”


It’s true. Big bucks dictate the agendas of both parties. In 2008, Obama and McCain will set new records for spending —over a half billion dollars. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, champions of banking and investment deregulation, are top donors to Obama and Biden, a darling of credit card sharks. Exxon and Chevron back McCain and Palin, a proselytizer for drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge.


Even new Democrats and Republicans find it difficult to enter government. In 2006, 407 House seats were up for reelection, with 383 held by incumbents. Of these incumbents, 94 percent prevailed, because they got all the money and media. A good many ran unopposed! This helps explain why turnout drops well below 40 percent during midterm elections.


Meanwhile, workingclass voters are kicked to the curb. Take Latinos for example. Voter forums showed that their concerns include basics such as “buying gas or buying food,” insufficient medical care, soaring war costs, and immigration. So what do both parties offer? Nothing.


In June, the Senate voted 92 to six for $257.5 billion in unrestricted war funds. The House vote was 416 to 12.


On healthcare, McCain and Obama leave untouched the sacred profits of the medical/pharmaceutical industry. On immigration, they offer more crackdowns.


It’s rigged! Actually, many abstainers would vote if they could. Other countries give people a day off to go to the polls, but not the U.S.


In 2004, 45 percent didn’t vote because they were too busy or exhausted, disabled or ill. Another 12 percent were stopped by registration problems, inconvenient polling locations and transportation issues. Translation? This means millions of workingclass voters face insurmountable obstacles, from electoral incompetence to outright dirty tricks on the part of politicians.


In Florida, the notorious ballot software is still flawed, and polls close by 7 p.m. A county in Virginia recently misled students to believe they could lose dependent tax status — and the benefits that bestows — if they registered to vote at their school address. In Wisconsin, the attorney general wants to cross-check every voter who registered since January 2006. This means long voting lines and disenfranchisement for those who can’t resolve discrepancies, including typos.


The list goes on. And systemic, undisguised racism explains why the overwhelming majority of those denied the vote each election are workingpeople of color.


Another 4-5 million are disenfranchised by states that deny the vote to ex-felons, 36 percent of them African American. Non-citizens have no representation, even though they are affected by everything the government does and may have lived here for years.


Minor parties? With such a gap between politicians and people, third parties should flourish. Instead they are blockaded by the money and might of the Democrats and Republicans. Election laws, written by the major parties, make it extremely difficult for minor parties even to appear on the ballot.


Outrageous rules, media censorship, private financing of campaigns, and sheer thuggery have marginalized political parties that compete with labor’s fake friend, the Democratic Party. This includes even parties like the Greens, who simply want to reform capitalism.


It’s not people who vote socialist or Green who throw away their votes. The system does it! U.S. elections are “winner take all.” If a socialist gets 20 percent of the vote, a Green gets 15 percent, and a Democrat gets 51 percent — all votes go to the Democrat.


Things weren’t always so sewn up. At the start of the 20th century, socialists ran on explicitly pro-labor, anti-capitalist platforms. And they won seats — more than 1,200 offices nationwide.


To eliminate the threat this posed, the Democrats and Republicans launched a political witch-hunt. Socialist party offices were raided, pro-labor representatives were denied their seats, radicals were tossed in jail, and restrictive ballot laws were passed.


Raise hell, whoever wins! After this country revolted against the English king, only a few white men with money and property could vote. The fight to gain the franchise by workers without land and Blacks and women was long and brave. It presumed that voting equals democracy and is the path to making society better.


If only it were true. Instead, wealth has concentrated into the hands of fewer people, alongside political power.


The economic elite write the laws to meet their needs. Karl Marx called it bourgeois democracy: by and for the capitalists. Its opposite is democratic socialism: the economic and political rule of the majority, the working class.


Today, politicians may look and sound more like ordinary working people; history is being made with the first Black Democratic presidential nominee and female Republican vice-presidential candidate.


But the empire under the make-over hasn’t changed.


Both parties put on quite a spectacle during elections to persuade voters of how different they are. Election 2008 is no exception. And true, there are minor differences. But whoever wins, things keep getting worse for working and poor people — whether they vote or abstain.


The answer is ringing in a whole new social system, and the way to get there isn’t at the ballot box. The route is through mass radical action that will settle for nothing less.


But your vote isn’t worthless. Send a message — use it to protest your false choices and demand real ones!



Then follow the advice of union organizer Mother Jones. More than a century ago, she declared, “I have never had a vote, and I have raised hell all over this country. You don’t need a vote to raise hell! You need convictions and a voice!”


Linda Averill, a bus driver and union activist, has twice run for Seattle City Council on the Freedom Socialist Party ticket. Email her at LindaEAverill@peoplepc.com .


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

More Democrats Casting Early Ballots, Data Show

A thought occurred to me, after McCain's amazing comeback in the primaries. Is it possible that the Bush machine wanted the GOP to lose this year, dumping all Junior's problems in Democratic laps while planning to run Jeb in 2012?

---

October 22, 2008

By MICHAEL LUO and RON NIXON

With as many as one-third of voters expected to cast their ballots before Election Day, preliminary data from several key battleground states show more Democrats than Republicans have voted early.

While the information should hardly be considered predictive of how the election may turn, accounting for just a fraction of the vote, it does offer a window into the loyalties of this growing segment of the electorate. The early tabulations of party affiliations seem to bolster polling that shows Senator Barack Obama’s campaign on the electoral offensive in states that President Bush won in 2004.

Significantly more Democrats than Republicans have cast ballots at this early stage in Iowa, North Carolina, New Mexico and Ohio, according to data analyzed by The New York Times.

Information from counties representing more than 90 percent of Nevada’s population show Democrats also holding a commanding advantage in early voter turnout.

In Florida, however, Republicans appear to hold the upper hand, while in Colorado, early voting is about evenly split among Republicans and Democrats. Mr. Bush won all those states in 2004.

The dates when early voting begins and ends vary by state. Experts cautioned that the full impact of early voting cannot be known until the choices of those without party affiliations become more clear on Election Day.

In years past, however, early voting has tended to favor Republicans, according to voting experts. Mr. Bush won the early vote in 2004 in his race against Senator John F. Kerry, 60 percent to 40 percent. Mr. Bush won early voters by a similar margin in his 2000 run against Vice President Al Gore. As a result, the preliminary data from some states has surprised certain experts.

“In the past, what you’ve seen is early voters tend to be older, had higher incomes and lean more Republican and that trend has held over the past elections,” said Paul Gronke, executive director of the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College in Oregon. “But what we are seeing now when you look at the numbers is that they are more African-American, Hispanic and the young. I look at this and I go, ‘Wow!’ This is quite different. It is a lot different from what we’ve seen before and it has to raise concerns for the G.O.P.”

The early voting is part of a broader transformation in the way Americans vote. In the past, absentee voting was reserved mainly for those unable to make it to the polls on Election Day, whether because of sickness, business or military service. Now more than 30 states allow voters to cast early ballots either in person or by mail without requiring an excuse.

In 2004, 22 percent of voters cast an early presidential ballot; in 2000, 16 percent voted early. But a national poll of 2,500 registered voters conducted from Oct. 16 to 19, released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center, indicated the number could grow in 2008, with 24 percent saying they planned to vote before Election Day and 7 percent indicating they already had.

Both figures were up significantly from a survey conducted in the same period in 2004. The poll found Mr. Obama held a commanding advantage among early voters, which Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew center, said could be problematic for Senator John McCain.

“If one candidate has the momentum at an early stage before Election Day, it’s going to favor that candidate,” Mr. Kohut said. “If there’s a last minute surge because of some event to the trailing candidate, well, the train has left for an awful lot of people these days.”

Some of the most detailed early voting data examined by The Times came from North Carolina, a state Republicans have rarely had to defend but Mr. Obama is vigorously contesting. More than 481,000 ballots have been cast in the state, a significant increase from this time in 2004.

At this point, 56 percent of the early voters in North Carolina are Democrats, compared with 27 percent who are Republicans and 16 percent unaffiliated. Democrats also had a slightly larger share of white voters and represented more than 90 percent of the black vote, which could help turn the tide in a state that last voted for a Democrat for president in 1976.

“From our perspective, it looks very good,” said Jerry Meek, chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party.

Michael McDonald, a voting expert at George Mason University, who has examined early voting data in several states, said the data from North Carolina was stunning.

“North Carolina, in particular, is off the charts,” Mr. McDonald said. “This is outside of what we expected.”

In Iowa, meanwhile, more than 200,000 ballots have already been received by the state. Democrats have returned about 52 percent of them compared with 20 percent for Republicans.

But Caleb Hunter, executive director of the Iowa Republican Party, played down the disparity, pointing out more Democrats than Republicans voted by absentee in 2004 but President Bush still won the state. He said Democrats in the state have tended to focus more on early voting than Republicans.

“A bit of it is culture,” Mr. Hunter said. “Our voters like to go to the polls on Election Day. That’s part of their citizenship, filling out the registration, standing in the line, so we focus a lot of our efforts and time and energy on that program.”

In New Mexico, the breakdown so far has been: Democrats 55 percent, Republicans 35 percent, independents 11 percent. In Ohio, it has been: Democrats 46 percent, Republicans 24 percent and independents 30 percent.

In Colorado, Republicans represented 40 percent of the combined early vote, while Democrats had 38 percent.

In Florida, more than 785,000 ballots have been cast, with Republicans accounting for about 47 percent of them, compared with 39 percent for Democrats and 11 percent for independents.

“We are essentially implementing the same successful program that Bush-Cheney used to win Florida in 2004,” said Buzz Jacobs, the southeast regional campaign manager for the McCain campaign.

In a conference call with reporters on Tuesday, Mike DuHaime, political director for the McCain campaign said the Republican candidate was working to turn out early voters across the country by sending them mailings, calling their homes and directing canvassers to their doors.

The Obama campaign has also worked to capitalize on early-voting laws. Pitching early voting has become a mandatory part of Mr. Obama’s message, which he employed as he campaigned Tuesday in South Florida.

“Whoever comes and sits in that chair, tell them to early-vote,” Mr. Obama told the proprietor of a barbershop he visited in Fort Lauderdale. “No excuses.”

The Obama campaign has built databases on all of their supporters, focusing specifically on encouraging early voting among people who have long commutes or children or other potential obstacles to voting on Election Day. “The early data,” said Jim Messina, chief of staff for the Obama campaign, “says we have been even more successful than we had hoped.”

Jeff Zeleny and Michael Cooper contributed reporting.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

GOP's Huge Failure Of Leadership

David Gergen excoriates the GOP’s “huge failure of leadership” for failing to get more than 1/3 of their caucus to vote for the bailout bill and calls them “poor babies” for using the Nancy-Pelosi-hurt-my-feelings excuse.

Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather)

It’s really the house of Republicans whom I think bear it especially tonight. Two-thirds voted against it. You did have - to be fair to the Republicans, it was a Republican president, a republican Treasury Secretary who supported this, who pushed it, but it was House conservative Republican members who derailed it.

Now, they have strong reasons why they voted against it. But let there be no doubt that if we pay a huge price as we paid today, if we basically continue to pay a huge price in the next couple of days, lost a 1$.2 trillion as you said in equity value a day and it may get worse tomorrow and in the days following. Let there be no doubt it was the house Republicans who derailed this. They were against it from the beginning. They made that clear.

This business about Nancy Pelosi making a speech. Yes, she shouldn’t have said that and yes that was inappropriate. But the fact that they changed their minds because of that, oh poor babies, she has a few words and the House Speaker, you know, made them run back to their partisan corners. You know, forget that nonsense.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Blunt reaches out to Hoyer

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt is reaching to House Democratic leaders, hoping to reignite talks on the bailout bill.

Aides confirmed that Blunt spoke to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Rep. Barney Frank by phone Monday afternoon after the bailout failed to pass the House.

Aides said Blunt did not discuss specific changes to the bill. However, some Republicans are calling for a change in mark-to-market accounting rules as a possible way to attract GOP support.

“You can’t do things that drive yes votes away, either on our side or the other side,” Blunt told Roll Call.

Blunt also told Roll Call he thought he had 75 votes going on to the House floor before the vote, but they fell well short of that.

“They knew that’s what I thought we had,” he said.

(Do we smell sabotage? Gopper sabotage against gooper? WTF?)


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Compromising The Constitution

Hey Congress, Just Say No!!!!

July 8, 2008

Editorial, NYT

Congress has been far too compliant as President Bush undermined the Bill of Rights and the balance of powers. It now has a chance to undo some of that damage — if it has the courage and good sense to stand up to the White House and for the Constitution.

The Senate should reject a bill this week that would needlessly expand the government’s ability to spy on Americans and ensure that the country never learns the full extent of President Bush’s unlawful wiretapping.

The bill dangerously weakens the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. Adopted after the abuses of the Watergate and Vietnam eras, the law requires the government to get a warrant to intercept communications between anyone in this country and anyone outside it — and show that it is investigating a foreign power, or the agent of a foreign power, that plans to harm America.

The FISA law created a court to issue those warrants quickly, and over 30 years, the court has approved nearly 20,000 while rejecting perhaps a half-dozen. In any case, the government can wiretap first and get permission later in moments of crisis.

Lawmakers are already justifying their votes for making major changes to that proven regime by saying that the bill is a reasonable compromise that updates FISA technologically and will make it somewhat harder to spy on Americans abroad. But none of that mitigates the bill’s much larger damage. It would make it much easier to spy on Americans at home, reduce the courts’ powers and grant immunity to the companies that turned over Americans’ private communications without a warrant.

It would allow the government to bypass the FISA court and collect large amounts of Americans’ communications without a warrant simply by declaring that it is doing so for reasons of national security. It cuts the vital “foreign power” provision from FISA, never mentions counterterrorism and defines national security so broadly that experts think the term could mean almost anything a president wants it to mean.

Supporters will argue that the new bill still requires a warrant for eavesdropping that “targets” an American. That’s a smokescreen. There is no requirement that the government name any target. The purpose of warrantless eavesdropping could be as vague as listening to all calls to a particular area code in any other country.

The real reason this bill exists is because Mr. Bush decided after 9/11 that he was above the law. When The Times disclosed his warrantless eavesdropping, Mr. Bush demanded that Congress legalize it after the fact. The White House scared Congress into doing that last year, with a one-year bill that shredded FISA’s protections. Democratic lawmakers promised to fix it this year.

Bush decided that along before 9/11. He just needed 9/11 to get away with crime after crime and a limp-wristed congress who is either scared to stand up for the people or who are conspirators after the fact. Let the trails begin.

Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy, Russ Feingold, Christopher Dodd and Jeff Bingaman plan to offer amendments to do that, but there is little chance they will pass. The Senate should reject this bill and start over with modest legislation that makes the small needed changes and preserves Americans’ fundamental protections.

Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee for president, has supported the weakening of FISA. Senator Barack Obama vowed in January (when he was still fighting for the Democratic nomination) that he would filibuster against immunity. Now he says he will vote for an “imperfect” bill and fix it if he wins. Sound familiar?

Proponents of the FISA deal say companies should not be “punished” for cooperating with the government. That’s Washington-speak for a cover-up. The purpose of withholding immunity is not to punish but to preserve the only chance of unearthing the details of Mr. Bush’s outlaw eavesdropping. Only a few senators, by the way, know just what those companies did.

Restoring some of the protections taken away by an earlier law while creating new loopholes in the Constitution is not a compromise. It is a failure of leadership.

Amen!

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

On Days Like These....It's Hard To Find Hope

The only really good news is that this corrupt, evil, oppressive corporate empire is about to fall to pieces. Now, that is very good news.

The bad news? An awful lot of ordinary folks here and over seas will be hurt very badly before this is all over and the people who ought to be, won't be, unless the people decide to make them hurt, and I don't see that happening.


The Empire -- A Status Report

By William Blum

07/06/08 "ICH" -- - There are a number of expressions and slogans associated with the Nazi regime in Germany which have become commonly known in English.

"Sieg Heil!" -- Victory Hail!

"Arbeit macht frei" -- Work will make you free.

"Denn heute gehört uns Deutschland und morgen die ganze Welt" -- Today
Germany, tomorrow the world

But none perhaps is better known than "Deutschland über alles" -- Germany above all.

Thus I was taken aback when I happened to come across the website of the United States Air Force -- www.airforce.com/ -- and saw on its first page a heading "Above all". Lest you think that this refers simply and innocently to planes high up in the air, this page links to another -- www.airforce.com/achangingworld/ -- where "Above all" is repeated even more prominently, with links to sites for "Air Dominance", "Space Dominance", and "Cyber Dominance", each of which in turn repeats "Above all". These guys don't kid around. They're not your father's imperialist war mongers. If they're planning on a new "thousand-year Reich", let's hope that their fate is no better than the original, which lasted 12 years.

The events of recent years indicate that the world is wising up to and becoming less intimidated by Washington's overarching ambition for world dominance. Latin America is increasingly attempting to escape the empire's clutches. Leaders keenly aware of how US imperialism works and determined to keep it out of their own country are in power in Venezuela, Uruguay, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, and perhaps the latest addition, Paraguay.

And now Africa has turned down Washington's offer to be part of the imperial family. African governments have refused to host Africom, the US Africa Command. The Washington Post reported that "worry swept the continent that the United States planned major new military installations in Africa", and despite the promise of new development and security partnerships, many Africans concluded that Africom was primarily an extension of US counterterrorism policy, intended to keep an eye on Africa's large Muslim population. The United States "equates terrorism with Islam," said a senior Kenyan diplomat, and few African governments wanted to be seen as inviting US surveillance on their own people. [note from your editor: It would be more instructive to equate anti-American terrorism with American foreign policy, including building military bases in other people's countries.]

When Bush visited Africa in February, he was told by the Ghanian president: "You're not going to build any bases in Ghana." US-funded aid groups protested plans to expand the American military's role in economic development in Africa, sharply objecting to working alongside US troops. Said an Africom officer: "[Africom] was seen as a massive infusion of military might onto a continent that was quite proud of having removed foreign powers from its soil."[1]

There's also the oil factor. The US imports more oil from African nations than from Saudi Arabia, and the continent has huge unexplored areas. This undoubtedly is a major motivation behind Washington's desire for an expanded military presence in the region. The United States is not about to take Africa's rejection of Africom as the last word; indeed, some of the tough rhetoric by African officials may be for public consumption, for the US already has somewhat of a military presence on the continent. It will be interesting to observe the ongoing tug of war between Washington and African nationalists/anti-imperialists over expansion of the American presence.

Democracy American Style. You gotta problem wit dat?

Here's White House spokeswoman Dana Perino at a recent press briefing:

Reporter: The American people are being asked to die and pay for this, and you're saying that they have no say in this war?

Perino: I didn't say that ... this President was elected --

Reporter: Well, what it amounts to is you saying we have no input at all.

Perino: You had input. The American people have input every four years, and that's the way our system is set up.[2]

In 1941, Edward Dowling, editor and priest, commented: "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it."

Can we look forward to Perino's memoir after she leaves the White House in which, like her predecessor Scott McClellan recently, she confesses that she was part of a "permanent campaign" mode to deceive the American public? I'm prepared to welcome her into the fold as I have McClellan. I have a soft spot in my heart for political late bloomers. I used to work for the State Department when I was a good, loyal anti-communist.

Washington's grand and noble new ally in the Free World

Scott McClellan has been criticized for not expressing his reservations about Bush administration policies while still at the White House. This would have indeed taken a measure of courage few people have, and likely meant his job and career committing suicide. I'm reminded of Carla Del Ponte, the Swiss diplomat who in 1999 became Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, located in The Hague, Netherlands. In accordance with her official duties, she looked into possible war crimes of all the participants in the conflicts of the 1990s surrounding the breakup of Yugoslavia and the NATO (read the United States) 78-day bombing of Serbia and its province of Kosovo, where ethnic Albanians were trying to secede. In late December 1999, in an interview with The Observer of London, Del Ponte was asked if she was prepared to press criminal charges against NATO personnel (and not just against the former Yugoslav republics). She replied: "If I am not willing to do that, I am not in the right place. I must give up my mission."

The Tribunal then announced that it had completed a study of possible NATO crimes, declaring: "It is very important for this tribunal to assert its authority over any and all authorities to the armed conflict within the former Yugoslavia."

Was this a sign from heaven that the new millennium (2000 was but a week away) was going to be one of more equal international justice? Could this really be?

No, it couldn't. From official quarters, military and civilian, of the United States and Canada, came disbelief, shock, anger, denials ... "appalling" ... "unjustified". Del Ponte got the message. Her office quickly issued a statement: "NATO is not under investigation by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. There is no formal inquiry into the actions of NATO during the conflict in Kosovo."[3]

Del Ponte remained in her position until the end of 2007, leaving to become the Swiss ambassador to Argentina; at the same time writing a book about her time with the Tribunal -- "The Hunt: Me and War Criminals", published two months ago but available at the moment only in Italian. It hasn't been much reported yet what del Ponte has said about NATO, but the book has already created a scandal in Europe, for in it she reveals how the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) abducted hundreds of Serbs in 1999, and took them to Kosovo's fellow Muslims in Albania where they were killed, their kidneys and other body parts then removed and sold for transplant in other countries.

The KLA for years has been engaging in other equally charming activities, such as heavy trafficking in drugs, trafficking in women, various acts of terrorism, and carrying out ethnic cleansing of Serbs who have had the bad fortune to be in Kosovo because it's long been their home. Between 1998 and 2002, the KLA appeared at times on the State Department terrorism list; at first because of its tactic of targeting innocent Serb civilians in order to provoke retaliation from Serbian troops; later because Mujahadeen mercenaries from various Islamic countries, including some tied to al Qaeda, were fighting alongside the KLA, as they were in Bosnia with the Bosnian Muslims during the 1990s Yugoslav civil wars.[4] The KLA remained on the terrorist list until the US decided to make them an ally, in some measure due to the existence of a major American military base in Kosovo, Camp Bondsteel. (It's remarkable, is it not, how these bases pop up all around the world?) In November 2005, following a visit there, Alvaro Gil-Robles, the human rights envoy of the Council of Europe, described the camp as a "smaller version of Guantanamo", referring to the detainees there at the time from Washington's various wars, including the so-called War on Terror.[5]

On February 17 of this year, in a move of highly questionable international legality, the KLA declared the independence of Kosovo from Serbia. The next day the United States recognized this new "nation", thus affirming the unilateral declaration of independence of a part of another country's territory. The new country has as its prime minister a gentleman named Hashim Thaci, described in Del Ponte's book as the brain behind the abductions of Serbs and the sale of their organs. The new gangster state of Kosovo is supported by Washington and other Western powers who can't forgive Serbia-Yugoslavia-Milosevic -- "the last communists of Europe" -- for not wanting to wholeheartedly embrace the NATO/US/European Union triumvirate, which recognizes no higher power, United Nations or other. The independent state of Kosovo is regarded as reliably pro-west, a state that will serve as a militarized outpost for the triumvirate, which is intent on further encircling Russia and pushing it out of Europe.

In her book, Del Ponte asserts that there was sufficient evidence for prosecution of Kosovo Albanians involved in war crimes, but the investigation "was nipped in the bud", focusing instead on "the crimes committed by Serbia." She claims that she could do nothing because it was next to impossible to collect evidence in Kosovo, which was swarming with criminals, in and out of the government. Witnesses were intimidated, and even judges in The Hague were afraid of the Kosovo Albanians.

In April, the Swiss Foreign Department issued a statement that Del Ponte's book "contains statements which are impermissible for a representative of the government of Switzerland", ordered her to return to her ambassadorial post in Argentina, and prohibited any further appearances promoting her book. The Swiss have officially recognized the independence of Kosovo and established an embassy in the country. Kosovo appears likely to remain a highly controversial issue in Europe and Washington for some time to come.[6]

Reason number 3,468 to yearn for the lifting of the capitalist weight from our souls

My phone company, Verizon, recently raised the monthly charge for my international call plan by 30 percent. I phoned them to find out the reason for this and was told that their competitors had raised their charge for the international plan and so Verizon was doing the same. "To stay competitive", the earnest young man told me. I thought I must be misunderstanding him. We've all been raised to believe that one of the beauties of capitalism is that it provides a competitive environment which induces businesses to lower their rates so as to lure away customers from their competitors. In the end, the consumer benefits from lower prices. And this makes sense, at least within the capitalist framework. (Although there have of course been numerous cases of large companies lowering prices to force a small company -- which initiated the price cuts -- out of business, after which the large companies raise their prices back up.) But now? Now we're told that competition leads to price increases. What, pray tell, is there left of the system for us to believe in?

Supply and demand? Like in Burma, following the recent devastating cyclone? Prices for food and other essentials have risen significantly since the disaster. As they should, according to the revered and beloved law of supply and demand, inasmuch as things are obviously in short supply in Burma and people's needs are plainly much greater than usual. What could make more sense under circumstances of human desperation than to raise prices?

Yet, though questioning the law of supply and demand is normally regarded in the same light as being skeptical of the law of gravity, I have to do so, and refer to things I've expressed before: The price of gasoline in the United States has been increasing on a regular basis for a rather long time now, but there's no shortage of supply. There are no lines of cars waiting hours at gas stations trying to fill up before the pumps run dry. And there's been a considerable fall in demand as less-than-rich drivers cut back on car use. It does not require total cynicism to wonder whether the law of supply and demand has been repealed. Or can it be that what is known as "supply and demand" is not really any kind of immutable "law", but rather (choke, gasp) "corporate policies"?

The oil companies are currently spending big bucks to convince the American public that the super-high gasoline prices are not the companies' fault. "The industry," reported the Washington Post, "is trying to convince voters -- who, in turn, will make the case to their members of Congress -- that rising energy prices are not the producers' fault and that government efforts to punish the industry, especially with higher taxes, would only make pricing problems worse."[7]

Do the oil companies think they're being misunderstood? The next time you run into a friendly oil company executive ask him this: "If you lowered prices to what they were two years ago, would consumers stage protests outside your headquarters? Would the FBI raid your offices? Would your breathtakingly obscenely high profits drop into the red? Could you still maintain your decadent millionaire lifestyle? The oil companies are perfectly free to very significantly lower prices without anything that you or I would call financial suffering. But they don't do it. So what's being misunderstood by the public which obliges the companies to spend millions on advertisements? Money which could go toward price reductions.

Oil company executives at least produce a useful product compared to people in the hedge funds business. What are hedge funds, you ask? They're private, largely unregulated pools of capital whose managers can buy or sell any kind of assets. The income of the fund's executives -- often in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, sometimes even a billion -- is taxed as capital gains, a much lower tax rate than if it were taxed as regular earnings. One can say that hedge funds are simply pure speculation carried to absurdity; typical of the new American Dream: getting rich through speculation and inheritance instead of through skill, enterprise, and filling a human social need.

Here is Daniel Strachman, a former hedge fund consultant and author of "The Fundamentals of Hedge Fund Management." He's skeptical of raising taxes on hedge fund managers, saying they should be rewarded for taking huge risks. [So do firefighters, police officers, and bank robbers of course.] Most managers have their own money in their funds, he declares, and suffer massive losses when their investments go bad. "It's clear somebody has to win and somebody has to lose", says Strachman. "It's not pretty at all because people say, 'Oh my God. Look how much money these guys are making while people are losing their homes and are complaining about the cost of eggs and sugar.' But so what? We don't live in a society that is pretty all the time. That's why it's capitalism."[8]

William Blum is the author of: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir, Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire - Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org

NOTES
[1] Washington Post, June 1, 2008, p.18

[2] White House press briefing, March 20, 2008

[3] The Observer (London), December 26, 1999; Washington Times, December 30 and 31, 1999; New York Times, December 30, 1999

[4] There are numerous articles in the world press of the past 20 years about the KLA's inordinate thuggery; Google "KLA" and one or more of the key words, such as drugs, prostitution, ethnic cleansing, transplants, etc.

[5] http://wikipedia.org/, under "Camp Bondsteel"

[6] Del Ponte's book and the turmoil it's produced have been largely ignored in the US media, but if one does a Google on her name and the book, one will find many reports from Europe.

[7] Washington Post, May 9, 2008, p.D1

[8] Washington Post, April 17, 2008, p.D1

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.