GOP Ready to Overthrow Constitution and Bill of Rights After Boston

Numerous studies have shown that the United States ranks up with Russia and China when it comes to the level of surveillance and lack of privacy for citizens.  Now, in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings and the capture of Dzhokar Tsarnaev, leading members of the GOP want to toss out legal protections guaranteed to U.S. citizens.  For a political party that whines incessantly about the "slippery slope" that could be triggered by gay rights and same sex marriage and an abusive federal government, they are oblivious to the much more frightening slippery slope that will be set in motion if Tsarnaev is treated as an "enemy combatant."  Once exceptions to the rule of law, right to trial by jury, etc., are made and worse yet, become acceptable, all of us are ultimately at risk to an unrestrained government.  One need only look at how the Nazis slowly undermined the rule of law in Germany in the 1930's for a case study of where this slippery slope can lead.  Emotion - and pandering to a misogynistic party base - do not justify jettisoning constitutional protections for citizens.  A piece in Politico looks at the GOP rush to subvert the processes that all of us should support.  Here are highlights:

Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain are calling for the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings to be tried as an enemy combatant, rather than as an ordinary criminal.

“Under the Law of War we can hold this suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or the appointment of counsel,” the Republicans said in a statement released Friday night. “Our goal at this critical juncture should be to gather intelligence and protect our nation from further attacks. We remain under threat from radical Islam and we hope the Obama Administration will seriously consider the enemy combatant option.”

“Now that the suspect is in custody, the last thing we should want is for him to remain silent,” they said. “It is absolutely vital the suspect be questioned for intelligence gathering purposes. We need to know about any possible future attacks which could take additional American lives. The least of our worries is a criminal trial which will likely be held years from now.”

President Barack Obama offered a possible nod to that issue in his televised address Friday night, saying that “it’s important that we do this right.”  “That’s why we have investigations. That’s why we relentlessly gather the facts. That’s why we have courts,” Obama said.

I am not opposed to questioning Tsarnaev and doing things right, but let's not forget that under Bush/Cheney, America violated the Geneva Conventions and engaged in illegal torture.  Indeed, Bush and Cheney deserve to be tried for war crimes.  Now the same mind set wants to undermine protections at home for U.S. citizens.  I find it scary to say the least.  In some ways since 9-11 we are slowly drifting towards a police state and many people don't even realize that it is happening.  One would think that John McCain of all people would be worried about abuses and possible torture.

On Proposition 8 Ruling, It's the Evidence, Stupid

Attorney, Lisa Bloom, a television commentator and daughter of well known attorney Gloria Allred, has a great op-ed at CNN that looks at Perry v. Schwarzenegger and why the Prop 8 supporters went down so thoroughly in defeat. As she notes, in political ads and talking points disseminated by e-mail, radio spots and other methods, unsubstantiated opinions and rank demagoguery can hold sway. However, once you walk into a court of law, the focus shifts to evidence, not opinion and mere religious belief (unless, of course you are one of Virginia's state court judges who ignores the Canons of Judicial Conduct and let personal religious belief form your ruling). The simple fact is that the Prop 8 supporters had no legitimate expert witnesses and that when all the smoke and mirrors were pulled away they had nothing but religious belief and religious inspired prejudice to support Prop 8. Here are highlights from Bloom's column:
*
There's a big difference between a political debate about same-sex marriage and the recent hard-fought court challenge to the California ban, Proposition 8.
*
In politics, anything goes: Vague, sinister comments about same-sex marriage threatening children or undermining the sanctity of heterosexual marriage were prevalent during the Prop 8 campaign. In court, same-sex marriage opponents needed solid evidence to back up these and other claims.
*
Despite "able and energetic counsel," they never produced it. That's why they lost, resoundingly, in the federal district court. And that lack of evidence should dog opponents up through the chain of appeals that is now beginning, because appellate courts are required to review only the evidence in the court record and to give great deference to Judge Vaughn Walker's findings of fact. He was there, after all, presiding over the trial, and the appellate judges weren't.
*
And what a lopsided trial he presided over. All the anti-same-sex marriage arguments imploded when subjected to the rules of evidence.
*
Trials turn on admissible evidence -- primarily credible witness testimony or documents, in this type of case. And Prop 8 proponents did not have it. Over and over again, Walker's decision focused on the evidence, the mountain of reliable facts offered by gay marriage advocates, and the glaring lack thereof proffered by gay marriage opponents.
*
Opponents offered exactly zero lay witnesses to explain, say, how their heterosexual marriages would be undermined by same-sex marriage, or how children would be harmed by a neighbor's same-sex marriage -- though these were central arguments made during the Prop 8 campaign.
*
The evidence at trial proved that children raised by gay or lesbian couples are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. That gay folks are no more likely to be child molesters than heterosexuals. That marriage has evolved in this country to allow for women's equality and interracial marriage. That no "undermining" of straight marriage would occur if marriage further evolved to allow same-sex couples to marry, too.
*
In a nice trial "gotcha" moment, gay marriage advocates read in deposition testimony from two witnesses who were to testify for the other side -- yet their pretrial testimony instead supported the gay marriage advocates. Opponents offered no explanation for why their witnesses flipped. Another embarrassment.
*
Ultimately, same-sex marriage opponents called only two witnesses, the founder of the Institute for American Values, who the court found lacked qualifications to offer expert testimony, and a Claremont College professor, who "sought to rebut only a limited aspect" of the plaintiffs' case.
*
Given all these detailed evidentiary findings that follow ineluctably from the marriage opponents' failure to put on much of a case at all, and given Walker's finding that Prop 8 violated two separate constitutional provisions -- the due process and equal protection clauses -- it will be extremely difficult for an appellate court, following well-established rules of deference to lower court findings, to reverse.

Incorrigible Angel - Part 3

I spoke with my incorrigible angel late last night - we talk at a late hour every night and have missed talking daily perhaps only once or twice since late March - and he remains as selfless as ever. He's a very private individual, so suffice it to say I cannot divulge any details of his circumstances other than to say that he is undergoing arduous trails and tribulations currently. Nonetheless, when we speak his first concerns are about me: how am I doing, am I OK, did I have a good day, whether or not a new love interest in my life called me that day (of late the answer to that latter question is yes!).

*

Most individuals confronted with what he's going through would be totally self-absorbed, but not my incorrigible angel who cracks risque jokes and engages in outrageous commentary just to make me break out laughing out loud. I usually endeavor to return the silliness and I suspect anyone over hearing our conversations without hearing both sides of the conversation and knowing all the circumstances might think us crazy or obscene. When I get him laughing out loud, it is such music to my ears. There is so little I can do for him at the moment other than to give him my heart and assurances that "I won't let go, I promise to never let go." Never ever. However long these current trials may be, I will be there for him - and for someone else very special who has angelic traits herself - as he is for me.

*

Close friendship is always something special, but in my incorrigible angel, I have found and invaluable friendship that appeared one day in my life outwardly from out of nowhere (he'd say it's because he's my guardian angel sent to watch over me). He sees my better self, understands my heart, touches me daily, and extends constant love and encouragement no matter what. He's a loving and caring friend/observer who has added much to my life yet remains ever self-depreciating and far too humble. Would that he could see his better self as I see him. I tell him that any good he sees in me is merely a reflection of the good in him. He has added magic to my life and I'm sure the lives of all with whom he's come in contact even if he cannot see it. He is a most special and wonderful person. I love my incorrigible angel now and always.