Revolt in Paradise

Re: # 148 GT
[...But what they forget is that the judiciary is not elected. Furthermore, once the preceedent is set what will stop corrupt or authoritarian judges?...]

you think the corrupt and ``authoritarian`` judges someday will roll the tanks and take over the country?....

Don`t be scared unncessarily... if judges step over the boundary - they can be removed by legislature or the President... their rulings could be vacated by the legislature any time... their activism gets support because it makes sense... if they overstep - there will be no support for them... and judges know that... Finally, judges don`t command no army - no matter how ``authoritarian`` they want to be - they have no means to do it...

In particular - this order on police reform makes perfect sense... this has been on the debate for quite sometime and it`s absolutely necessary... whether it comes via an order of judiciary or legislature - it don`t matter... it has to be done...

So now go sleep, have sweet dreams... don`t be scared of ``authoritarian`` judges taking over the world...:)

#149 by masadi

US pursuit of `Manifest Destiny` over South America was given formal sanction through the Monroe Doctrine which has since functioned as a declaration of hegemony and a right of unilateral intervention over the nations of the Americas. The 30 military interventions and 47 covert or indirect operations in Latin America since 1846 should therefore come as no surprise.

# 146 aslam 644 writes <<< a nation that was built on genocide and slavery, an exemplar nation? >>>

Very true observation, I would add to this the long tradition of US imperialism in the period leading upto the 2nd WW, it is for this reason that I also suggested in my earlier post that you cannot seperate US corporate economic interests from its political when a long tradition of imperialism in Latin America, the Philippines etc tells us that they went hand in hand, let me quote Howard Zinn whose book, ``A People`s History of the United States``, I would recommend,

``“The U.S. had instigated a war with Mexico and taken over half that country. It had pretended to help Cuba win freedom from Spain, and then planted itself in Cuba with a military base, investments and right of intervention. It had seized Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and fought a brutal war to subjugate the Filipinos. It had opened Japan to its trade with gunboats and threats…It had sent troops to Peking with other nations, to assert Western supremacy in China, and kept them there for over thirty years… It had engineered a revolution against Colombia and created the “independent” state of Panama in order to build and control the canal. It sent 5000 Marines to Nicaragua in 1926 to counter a revolution and kept forces there for seven years. It intervened in the Dominican Republic for the fourth time in 1916 and kept troops there for eight years. It intervened for the second time in Haiti in 1915 and kept troops there for nineteen years… Between 1900 and 1933, the United States intervened in Cuba four times, in Nicaragua twice, in Panama six times, in Guatemala once, in Honduras seven times. By 1924 the finances of half of the twenty Latin American states were being directed to some extent by the United States. By 1935, over half of U.S. steel and cotton exports were being sold in Latin America. Just before World War 1 ended, in 1918, an American force of seven thousand landed at Vladivostok as part of an Allied intervention in Russia and remained there until early 1920. Five thousand more troops landed at Archangel, another Russian port…”.(Zinn 1995:399-400)

And finally, I would like to point to the institutional structure that has emerged post WW2 in the US, it is not liberal vs conservative of tweedle dee versus tweedle dumb-ass (Bush), but this structure that involves militarism, a permanent war economy and entrenched elites in the political military and economic that determines the near uniform foreign and domestic policies of the US. Anyone with wacky ideas like equal distribution of wealth, a globally equalized minimum wage etc never makes it through the corridors of power. This country was never, is not and will never be an ``ideal`` given humanitarian criteria, it`s past actions have been just as bad as its current ones though its ability to cause potential destruction has widely increased and what little gains the people made are being managed out of existence because of the concentration of wealth and power that this structure now offers the elite.

Mohammad Gill:

Allow me to use your board to bring up a subject which has been bothering me for sometime. SR talked about liberty slipping in the US. Nevertheless, it is the executive and the legislature which is doing it. If people want to change things they can - through their vote. However, in India something else is happening. The Supreme Court has started directing the legislature through what is commonly being termed in India as `judicial activism`. Today, the newspapers reported that it has asked for tenure in police services. This is the work of the legislature not the judiciary! But this is not what scares me. What scares me is the fact that the `judicial activism` is widely supported by the chattering classes. They sure have a reason, given the widespread corruption in our legislating bodies. But what they forget is that the judiciary is not elected. Furthermore, once the preceedent is set what will stop corrupt or authoritarian judges? It puzzles me when I see people willing to compromise on institutions which secure their freedom for myopic bliss. Is there a pattern here? People, initially, supporting Mush. in Pakistan; support for fundamentalists almost everywhere and support for judicial fundamentalism especially in India. Can we learn something from this? Is there a common pattern? Why do people readily give up on their freedoms to ensure short-term bliss?

Zeemax and SR, I am particularly interested in your take on the above stated broad questions (you do not have to deal with the Indian judiciary). I already know the answers of masadi, Urstruly and HP (I think). I would also like to know what jang, stuka, arjun_m and sadna think about this (specific to the Indian judiciary as well as broadly). Finally, I presume that some of these questions might have motivated Gill sahib to write this article. Hence, it would be very nice if Gill sahib obliges to answer.

Waste not your time and energy on a has-been, or really never was!
The United Satan is on its way to the dustbin of history ..and geography as well.

Dump the US Dollars before it is toooooooooooo Late! THe Dollar Tsunami is on its way and gold is in, would be in , and on its wake is the e-dinar...the currency of choice, the SIKKA of Islam which will be stamped on every heart mind and wallet of the smart ones.

Waste not your time on the economies of waste, pollution, disaster and manufactured diseases. Deeducate yourself , for pretty soon new learnings have to be learnt, new paradigms have to inculcated and and an International order would soon be emerging which be most aligned in its non-alignment, most arrayed in its disarraying & dishevveling of the United Satan & the lapdog shatans.

Hasten the demise of the devil in the guise of human-rights, democracy, and prosperity.
The one-eyed-Dajjaal has been spotted! It smelled of Sulphur after it had left the UN building; as Chavez correctly pointed out.

And the Qura`aan said: `` Iza`jaa`a Nasrullah min Fateh Quareeb``



``and when Allah`s help came, the victory came near them.

``aur hubb aan pohnchee Allah kee madad, toa jeet nazdeek hee hai.``

---

Celebrate, not whine; Every moment we are getting closer and closer to the dream the muslims see every spare moment in their lives.

``Kitaab-i Millat-i Baizaa kee phirr sheeraaza bUndee hai
yeh shaak-i Haashmi krnay ko hai phir brG O bUr paidaa``

tr:
The book of the nation of Islam, torn & tattered , is being recollated & rebound
This dried twig of the Hashmis is again turning green;sprouting leaves & buds.


MashaAllah.

---

A Shiite Muslim Sheikh watching
as Hezbollahsupporters wave flags
during a `divine victory` rally
in Beirut on Friday. (AP)


Nasrallah: No army can force Hezbollah to disarm




In his first public appearance since the start of his group`s war with Israel, Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said Friday that ``no army in the world`` would be able to disarm his group, a key demand of a United Nations cease-fire resolution that ended the 34-day conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

Nasrallah also said his group still has more than 20,000 rockets, and called for a new government to be installed in Lebanon.

Some 500,000 people, mostly Shiite Muslims, turned out for a rally in a bombed-out suburb of Beirut to celebrate Hezbollah`s ``divine victory`` in the war.
Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mark Regev said Hezbollah is spitting in the face of the international community by refusing to disarm.

``Nasrallah is challenging not only the government of Lebanon, but the entire international community,`` Regev said. ``The international community can`t afford to have this Iranian-funded extremist spit in the face of the organized community of nations.``

Regev noted that according to the UN cease-fire resolution, Hezbollah ``shouldn`t have any rockets.``

``The resistance today, pay attention...has more than 20,000 rockets,`` Nasrallah told the crowd.

``The current government is unable to protect Lebanon, or to reconstruct Lebanon or to unify Lebanon,`` he said, calling for a new ``national unity government``.

Nasrallah said Hezbollah emerged from the war stronger than it had been before it. ``(It) has recovered all its organizational and military capabilities,`` he said. ``It is stronger than it was before July 12.``

``There is no army in the world that can [force us] to drop our weapons from our hands, from our grip,`` he added. ``Today we celebrate a great divine, historic and strategic victory.``

The huge turnout in a country of just four million was a gesture of defiance to Israel but also marked a challenge to the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

Hezbollah has two ministers in the cabinet, but most cabinet members oppose the group`s alliances with Syria and Iran.

Nasrallah said he had decided to appear at the rally despite threats to his life.

``They said that this square would be bombed and this stage would be destroyed to frighten the people and keep them away,`` he said.

Since the war, Israeli officials have said they would continue to target Hizbollah`s leadership but Prime Minister Ehud Olmert refused to comment on Thursday on whether Israel would try to kill Nasrallah if he appeared at the rally.

Nasrallah debated with his aides until 30 minutes before the rally, about whether to attend. ``But my heart, mind and soul did not allow me to address you from afar,`` he said.

``You are proving by attending this victory celebration that you are more courageous than on July 12 and August 14,`` he said, referring to the beginning and end of the month-long war.

The crowd roared with cheers as Nasrallah appeared waving to the crowd, flanked by his bodyguards as an announcer said ``The leader has arrived.``

The Hezbollah leader had been in hiding since July 12 when the group`s cross-border capture of Israel Defense Forces reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev and killing of eight more troops sparked the war.

Nasrallah was expected to outline ``prospects for the next stage in Lebanon`` and address international calls for his group`s disarmament, as well as the deployment of UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon, which for years has been controlled by the militant group, Hezbollah spokesman Hussein Rahhal said Friday.

The UN-brokered cease-fire calls for Hezbollah to eventually be stripped of its weapons, but Nasrallah has so far been defiant.

Roads toward Lebanon`s capital were packed with cars and buses waving Hezbollah flags Friday, hours before what was billed as the country`s largest rally to showcase the group`s insistence that it won`t disarm. Hundreds of Hezbollah supporters from across south Lebanon began marching toward Beirut a day earlier.

Two hours before the rally, thousands of people had already arrived at the site on foot, in buses and in cars, chanting Nasrallah`s name and waving Lebanese and Hezbollah flags.

In the southern port city of Tyre, some 200 people, including veiled Shiite Muslim women clad in black and holding their children, boarded large minivans bound for Beirut.

Hezbollah`s Al-Manar television said thousands of buses, minivans and cars were streaming toward Beirut from the south and the eastern Bekaa Valley. Members of Christian parties and pro-Syrian groups in northern Lebanon were also traveling to the capital to participate in the rally, the broadcast said.

Al-Manar said late Thursday that Friday`s rally would be ``the biggest referendum on the resistance choice.`` It said ``waves of humans`` would pour into the bombed-out southern suburbs of Beirut to support the guerrillas.

During the war, Israel threatened to kill Nasrallah. An attempt to assassinate him now was considered unlikely since it would risk plunging the region back into conflict. However, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert would not say in comments published Thursday whether Nasrallah remained a target.

The gathering is intended as a show of strength by Hezbollah at a time of increased friction with the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

Butros Harb, a lawmaker who supports Saniora`s government, said Hezbollah`s refusal to disarm was unacceptable and expressed concern about the rally.

``We can`t have an illegal army at the heart of our state, all weapons must be held by the Lebanese government,`` he said.

At the rally site in south Beirut, workers set up tens of thousands of white plastic chairs facing a podium and organizers prepared tens of thousands of banners and flags. Past Hezbollah rallies have drawn up to 800,000 people.

Hezbollah, whose popularity among Shiites soared after it withstood weeks of punishing Israeli bombardment and kept up a barrage of rockets into northern Israel, has refused to give up its weapons.

In a television interview last week, Nasrallah boasted that his armed fighters were still on the border with Israel.

#142 by SR on September 22, 2006 9:19am PT

On July 4, 1776, America became the exemplar nation of the west. Now Americans can lose that.

a nation that was built on genocide and slavery, an exemplar nation?.

SR #142: interesting post.....quite accurate, as well in my opinion.....i think, however, there is one more aspect involved, in addition to power. it is related more to the social aspects......

the usa, over the past few decades has had a conservative revolution.........this has been well planned out and is the subject of many books.....while the rest of the west is getting more and more liberal and less and less religious, the usa is the only country, in the west, to be rapidly going in the other direction........much like it is extremly difficult for conservatives to get elected in canada (they are in now, due to massive corruption scandals of liberals), it is very difficult for liberals to be elected in the usa....this conservative movement reached its peak, during the end of the clinton era.........it is marked by the following major political events.........

1. election of ronald reagan: by the end of the ronald reagan term, conservatives were firmly on their way to controlling us power centers. the society was rapidly moving towards religion, evangelicalism, and conservatism.....reagan had a phenomenally successful second election and trounced his democratic opponent...........

2. bush sr. was elected and the executive was firmly in conservative control....newt gengrich, rush limbaugh, rumsfeld, cheney, ralph reed, pat robertson etc. were well on their way to be highly influential figures.......

3. it took an unknown extremely brilliant politician like bill clinton, to appear from nowhere, and put some sort of a bump in the conservative/religious rise of politics in the usa.........however that bump was limited........every politician is not a clinton (including hillary)......

the social movement had reached such a stage that even extremely competent liberal politicians could not get elected from the north. the only hope of success for liberals was to have a candidate from the south. i believe john kennedy was the last liberal to be elected from the north. clinton was from arkansas, carter from georgia and johnson from texas......

while republicans from anywhere could get elected. reagan was from liberal california......guliani, a possible future candidate is from liberal new york.....by the end of the clinton term, the whole south of usa was red........the liberals were surviving politically only because they would always win in the two giant states: new york and california.........

4. the conservative revolution was now complete........the next many decades should have seen the very conservative wing of the republican party dominate the legislature......it was already dominating the executive.......and over time it would move in judges to dominate the judiciary also............

socially, around 25% of the usa voters were evangelical christians, and 40% were christian conservatives.........even liberals had to publicly carry around a bible in one hand and a gun in another to get elected..........preachers and pastors had huge political influence over who would reach the congress and the white house..........totally different from any other country in the west..........

5. however this revolution went too far.........it became impossible for anyone in the republican party to get elected, if he wasn`t totally to the right politically and religiously. this is why a very medoicre individual like bush II was able to defeat a far more accomplished mccain.........and why a far more accomplished and successful powell was fired while a totally unsuccessful cheney has been maintained........

6. enter bush II: the conservative hold was so strong that mediocre bush II defeated a highly successfull all-american vice president like gore......that was the death knell for the liberals, i.e. even succesfull liberals with excellent track records could be defeated by incompetent conservatives........the reason was simple: the right had to only get around 20% of the vote........it already had the remaining 30% through evangelicals and christian consertives........

7. however, bush II turned out to be a nightmare for the conservative movement........committing one blunder after another.........even though he had the golden opportunities given to him by 9/11.........his blunders, both domestically and externally (not to mention grammatically) were so awesome that he brought the usa to a point where it has lost one war (iraq) is starting to lose another (afghanistan), has a gigantic debt, a sinking dollar (not totally his fault), and a deeply divided populace, which is directionless.........not to mention the fact that is hugely disliked in the east and the west..........

8. even the great conservative movement may be unable to survive a bush II. this is where the current congressional elections come in.......bush II was able to survive the presidential elections, (once again against a far more experienced and successful war hero candidate in the form of kerry) thereby highlightinng the power of the conservatives.........however, will even the powerful conservative/religious revolution be able to survive the bush blunders, in the coming election?...........let`s see......

needless to say, bush II in eight years may have done what should have been impossible to do, i.e. drowned a huge social movement which had completely taken over the usa........by this time, the conservatives and religious right should have been well on their way to controlling the executive, legislature and judiciary for the next many decades..........yet they find themselves in a political fight, in a country that is overwhelmingly socially on their side...........

SR#142,

Thanks for this informative post.

On July 4, 1776, America became the exemplar nation of the west. Now Americans can lose that.

It`s upto them, isn`t it? Let`s see what they decide.

#141 by aquaris

Actually, Khan of Kalat is right. Technically.

Gill sahib,

The theme of your article has been somewhat side-stepped with our usual ``Clash of Civilizations`` arguments peppered with name calling and such. I didn`t get around to it earlier but wanted to add some comments about what I believe is of historic significance for the US body politic, in keeping with your title of Revolt in Paradise.

The upcoming US Congressional elections will be a watershed. It will decide whether the US can be returned to its former historical Constitutional foundation or whether it will slide further into full-scale Executive Tyranny.

In the nineteenth century, it was well understood that the USA was a Constitutional Republic. It was a Republic composed of a UNION of American States which had delegated some of their own powers and responsibilities to the new Federal Government. These delegated powers were clearly numerated, i.e. they were all specifically and precisely defined. There were only a certain number of powers so delegated. The political emphasis was on the STATES. This was the real foundation of the US federal system. Until the early 20th century, the State Legislatures chose the people who they wanted to send to Congress as their Senators. That, in effect, turned the US Senate into a College of Ambassadors from the several States in the Union.

The only ``democratic`` component of the early US Constitution existed in the House of Representatives. To ensure that the new Federal government was kept small, it was specified in the new Constitution that spending bills could only be originated in the House. The ``hope`` here was that Members of the House would hesitate to vote for higher taxes because such an act would get them voted out of office. Both Houses of Congress had to agree to any tax. The President had the power of Veto. It was the ability of Congress, in joint action, to overturn a veto, which ensured that the President in the final instance had to comply with the LEGISLATIVE power. This made the Executive power somewhat secondary.

The US presidency itself was a rather uninteresting political office. It could enact no laws of its own nor could it raise any taxes on its own. The laws enacted by Congress are given to the President to, as the Constitution says, ``faithfully execute``. The President was voted the money by Congress with which to give effect to the laws enacted by Congress. The political and Constitutional fact was that a President had to rely on Congress for both the money as well as the laws enacted by it before acting at all.

If either Congress or the Presidency - or both acting in collusion - tried to circumvent the Constitution, the Judicial Branch in the form of the Supreme Court stood as the third and CO-EQUAL branch of government. Its power lay in its ability to find and declare that any such acts were UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The benefit of such a system was supposed to be, and for a while actually was, LIMITED government with LIMITED powers resulting in Individual Freedom and Liberty.
Apart from the deep wound of slavery in the US, which Britain had abolished years earlier by the peaceful moral suasion of Wilberforce, never in all human history had a nation been as free as the USA. It was for good reason that the US was called: The Last Best Hope For All Mankind.

The November 7 Congressional elections are, in principle, about political POWER not about party. The main issue in this election is NOT being discussed. This issue is whether political power in the United States is going to be unlimited - or limited. If it is to be the former, then the last best hope for all mankind is dead. The Republic is over, replaced by an Absolute National Government. If it is to be ``limited`` government, then the States in the Union still have a chance. Here it does not matter that it is the Republicans who hold both of the Houses of Congress and the White House. The issue would have been the same had it been the Democrats in this position. The political direction of the United States has been clear for nearly a century. It has taken this long to get to where the US is today only because of the moral and political opposition of the American people. As more and more American cease to be citizens and gradually become only consumers the force of their opposition to tyranny weakens to the point it has reached today.

If one central political truth in the US has been proven over the last thirty odd years, it is that neither of the two main political parties can be trusted to hold power in both Houses of Congress AND in the White House. Whenever this has happened, both parties have expanded political power with no mercy, leaving an incoming administration with these new powers in hand. Having gained office, the newly arrived administration or executive took no steps whatsoever to diminish such power. Instead, they proceeded to expand the political power even further on their own.

All political power should be looked at as a CLUB. A club with which to beat men into submission. After all, government is always force - coercive force.

The sole issues are the size of the club and who wields it. At present, there is nothing inside the US, no cohesive political force, strong enough to gain votes in Congress with the purpose of reducing the size of the political club and thereby curbing the power of government. That reduces the central political issue in November to whose hands are on the club. It is these hands on the club which have to be pried off again and again and again, with the end purpose that neither party gains BOTH the White House and both Houses of Congress, if for no other purpose than to keep power divided. In present circumstances, establishing the principle that ``you get ONE term only`` is the stand behind which a campaign can be rolled out to begin to CURTAIL the power of government - to shrink the size of the club.

This Congressional election will be one of America`s most grim, ugly and brutal. Any and all means and methods which could conceivably make it possible for them to hold on to both houses of Congress will be used by the White House and the Republican Party itself. The House of Representatives is the political centre of this contest. This is because the House is the only place where impeachment can be launched and there are plenty of grounds for this. The best and the most direct impeachable offense is the illegal wire tapping which the Bush Administration has had the NSA and other agencies engage in.

President Bush himself, when caught red handed, has tried to brazen it out. He has admitted nineteen times (19) in public and on the record that he chose to act against the standing law.

One Is Enough. One felony, that is. The felony which Mr Bush has admitted to carries a ten-year jail term. Committing ANY felony is full grounds for impeachment with no ifs and buts about it. Directing others (in the NSA etc) to do so only compounds the offense. That is a CONSPIRACY, which is abundant impeachment grounds. But the Department of Justice is under the Executive Branch and the Republicans hold a majority in the House, so it is no wonder that nothing has happened. Something can happen in the House of Representatives, but only if the House changes hands on November 7.

If that is what lies ahead, the Bush Administration is facing a stupendous problem. If the House is lost, the chairmanships of House Committees also change hands. They have full subpoena powers. They can call any witnesses they want, swear them in, and ask them anything they want. The only thing that protects such witnesses is the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. But in President Bush`s own case there is no such protection. His nineteen public statements that he broke the law convict him. Mr Bush has not stopped there. Among many other things, he has directed the US Armed Forces to take actions in breach of the Geneva Conventions. The Senate, however, has ratified these, making them part of the laws of the US. No matter, Mr Bush`s public statements convict him. That is why holding the House is a desperate matter.

The Republican campaign plan, as led by Mr Karl Rove, is already clear. It is a plan to fight solely in each electoral district. Mr Rove plans his ``normal`` method of full force character assassination and the destruction of the reputation of the opponent in the district. The campaign is to be confined to the ``local level`` because no Republican wants to be seen as being close to President Bush or to answer questions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the Democrat side, the campaign plans are less clear. They seem to revolve around claims that President Bush is a failed war leader and that he is losing his global war against terror. The Democrats seem to have chosen to run on general themes, not local ones.

Pity the American public. The American people are going to be subjected to an unrelenting barrage of claims from both sides. But one huge political point ought by now to be at least partially clear to most Americans. The full surveillance state exists and is active inside these United States. If their knowledge were to go far enough in historical terms, most Americans would know that the police state always follows after the surveillance state has arrived. The central issue before all Americans is POWER - political power versus the Individual Freedoms and Liberties they once had. The people presently in power will do anything and say anything to stay in power. An ``October surprise`` therefore, should not be ruled out as a possibility, its purpose being to stampede many Americans into the political arms of those now in power - to keep power in their hands.

On July 4, 1776, America became the exemplar nation of the west. Now Americans can lose that.

Well every one seems to be trying to corner every one else...


that Peacock Karzai says... Pakistan Send Talibans... Mushy Says.
Mullah Umar is in Kandhar, and thats were their base is.

plus its the Karazai in tacit collusion with India , is fanning the Balochistan Issue.

Balouch Jirga called by the Khan of Kalat , Just has decided to go to ICJ , for the breach of treaty of 1948 between Pakistan and Khan of Kalat

So the chess board is pretty lively , at least for Pakistan being in the center....

Re: # 139

Well - the pakis ain`t giving up Bin Laden... so Bush is going to go in himself... that`s what he said the day before - US forces may invade into pakiland if the need be...

What has these Na Pak Faujis & collaborators of Neo-colonialism turned our nation into: