'National yawn as our rights evaporate'

[pat_k]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15318240/displaymode/1098/"> National yawn as our rights evaporate
Updated: 4:49 p.m. ET Oct. 18, 2006

OLBERMANN: First thing this morning, the president signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which does away with habeas corpus. . .

TURLEY:. . .What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and
. . .
TURLEY: . . .I think that history will ask, Where were you? What did you do when this thing was signed into law? There were people that protested the Japanese concentration camps, there were people that protested these other acts. But we are strangely silent in this national yawn as our rights evaporate.

The "strange silence" does not reflect a lack of alarm and outrage

The dismay and seething anger is all around us. But our "leaders" have failed to give voice to the outrage. When outrage is given no voice in the public square, people tend to keep it to themselves, believing they are alone.

When no one gives voice to outrage, the floodgates remain closed. But when a public figure speaks out and taps into the energy, whoosh!

I saw a microcosm of this after the theft of the 2004 Presidential election. I was on a Democracy for America conference call. From the back and forth, it sounded like there were maybe 5 or 10 people on the line as they talked about this or that agenda item and possible things to focus on as we "learned lessons" and "moved forward." There was little energy.

As the moderator neared the end of the agenda someone piped up "What about Ohio? What about the stolen election? What does Burlington plan to do about that?" Suddenly there was a chorus. Dozens talking at once. It was unbelievable. It sounded like there were about a hundred people on the line -- people who had been "strangely silent."

If no one had given voice to the anger, no one on that call would have thought that anyone else cared -- they would have withdrawn in silence. And the "leaders" would have been able to tell themselves the stolen election just isn't something that people are interested in. They would have walked away from the call believing everyone else was on board with their "let's move on" agenda, which was the opposite of the truth. In fact, the mother lode of energy was with the "It Ain't Over 'Til it's Over!" people.

We see this over and over again in ways large and small.

The unprecedented and amazing response to Keith Olbermann's first "Special Comment" is one such event. When he gave voice to the outrage, outraged Americans came out of the woodwork in numbers that so shocked the programmers they realized the segment was such a powerful activator they replayed it several times, not just in response to demand, but to boost ratings.

Whenever our leaders touch on the theft of Florida or Ohio in public appearances, whenever they tip toe anywhere near a call for impeachment, the audience bursts out in cheers and applause -- usually the loudest and longest of the event. Leaving that kind of energy untapped is political insanity.

There is enormous public support for impeachment. We can see it in the anger at Bush. We can see it in our Republican acquaintances who think Bush "needs a good spanking." We can see it in the polls (even with no leader out there making the case; even before Katrina, a majority of Americans said "If he lied, he should be impeached." Well, now a majority think he lied to coerce the nation into war.)

Until members of Congress who are sworn to defend the Constitution speak the truth, accuse Bush and Cheney of their crimes, and take up the fight for impeachment and removal countless Americans will continue to seethe in frustration and silence, believing they are alone in a world gone mad.

As long as members of Congress fail to give our outrage a voice they can continue to believe the opposite of reality, that Americans prefer to trade away the Constitution to avoid the "negativity" of impeachment.

[ginnyinWI]

1. Tonight Keith will have another special comment

on the subject of Habeus Corpus.

[pat_k]

6. Wonderful. . .MSNBC needs to hear our cheers

. . .via email (or whatever means we can come up with).

[BlooInBloo]

2. Sheesh. It's never the electorate's fault...

... and the evil will continue as long as people work so hard to cover up the irresponsibility of the electorate.

[pat_k]

4. Recruiting citizen lobbyists and developing the tools that can make them.

. . .more effective is what we do.

It is up to us to confront our leaders with the "facts of life" -- and the devastating effects and self-fulfilling nature of their failure to give voice to public outrage is one of the things we must confront them on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2889225&mesg_id=2889768

[shance]

3. Blaming the victims who are allowed no voice and no representation.

Those in power refuse to listen to Americans.

[pat_k]

5. What are you referring to? Turley's comments? My comments?

[Canuckistanian]

7. I think shance is referring to Bush's victims

All those who have been wrongfully detained, abused, tortured and denied their rights.

That about right, shance?

[glitch]

8. K & R Well said. There are people who have tapped into it, and who have

spoken out about it. But there is no conference call mechanism, no media (other that Olberman and a few columnists) to focus and amplify the outrage, the closest thing to the energy release you talk about is this election.
This time the Democrats and even quite a few Republicans are outraged. I know Bush etc are going to try and steal the election, they have no real choice, but with the level of turnout I don't expect them to be successful.
How we deal with their theft and how they deal with their failure are wide open, and a little frightening.

[pat_k]

14. Actually, the public square is a "conference call" of sorts. . .

Take a moment to recall how things were in November of 2003.

A vast majority of those who saw the truth had been beaten down by horror after horror. Far too many felt silenced and withdrew. Stolen elections, massive tax kick backs to the American aristocracy, unprecedented secrecy unchallenged, the PNACons (pee na cons) purged dissenters from positions of leadership with impunity, Congress, fearing the "bad things" the opposition would say about them if they did not, passed the Iraq war resolution, Paul Wellstone killed, fascists unchecked as they took control of the 108th Congress, patrionics gone mad – it was just too much for many of us. The outrage about the stolen election and all the other horrors was still out there, but it was effectively invisible. Months and months of empty rhetoric from "the opposition" kept the outraged numb and mum.

Then the tide began to turn. The shift for many began as Howard Dean's campaign took off and gave voice to the silenced. When Howard Dean stood up and spoke a few simple truths about what we confronted he gave voice to frustration and outrage and people across the nation came out of their "strange silence" and made a heck of a noise.

The position that the person who gives voice to our outrage holds makes a big difference in the effect. When Keith gives voice to our anger, some people come out of the woodwork because he gives them hope that they are not alone in their anger. They see a fellow traveler in the fight. Our anger and his anger are directed at the same target: Bush and Cheney and the elected officials who are failing to stop them.

Recognizing we are not alone is energizing, but the power is muted if we don't believe that something can be done. When a person who can actually do something about the thing we are outraged about -- for example a Presidential candidate or members of Congress who have the power to impeach -- gives voice to our anger, the electrifying effect is many orders of magnitude more powerful.

[SmokingJacket]

9. The yawn is the media's yawn.

Olbermann excluded, of course. But where I work and among the people I know, there is complete outrage. Just no outlet.

[Disturbed]

10. Most Americans do not believe that this will effect them.

They believe that this only applies to those foreign terrorists who deserve harsh interrogation and do not deserve any rights.

[C_U_L8R]

11. When people we know start disappearing

it will be too late

[SmokingJacket]

12. Well, they need to be educated, because it will affect them.

And it is the media's job to educate on matters like these... and they're not doing it well enough, if at all.

[pat_k]

17. Yes, the state of "journalistm is appalling, but "education" isn't . . .

. . .the panacea many of us believe it is.

For your consideration:

http://january6th.org/post_of_the_week.html#pmk">Belief people v. Knowledge People

I have a theory that some people operate on belief, others operate on knowledge. Although I sometimes think of them as two distinct populations, people undoubtedly fall somewhere on a continuum. They may operate as belief people in some areas of their lives and knowledge people in others.

For knowledge people, things need to add up, beliefs are theories that are constantly being tested. They figure out how things fit together and fill in gaps as they seek to understand their world.

Belief people come to their beliefs by looking to others. They adopt conclusions and don't need to know the basis. Beliefs are beliefs, not theories. Belief people adopt a belief because people they identify with believe it. They are influenced by the beliefs of people that "cut to the chase." They are more likely to be influenced by people who accept and respect them as they are than people who look down on them.

"Knowledge people" are doomed to frustration when they try to influence "belief people" by giving them the information that would lead another knowledge person to reach some knowledge-based conclusion. A belief person doesn't adopt their beliefs in that way. They know what they know and arguing details with them does little to change that.

Certainly, some belief people may change their beliefs when enough information is thrown their way, but most don't budge until others around them do. When "everybody knows" something, they join right in. Doesn't matter what they believed yesterday, they just adopt the new beliefs.

When dealing with belief people, knowledge people need to learn to simply assert their conclusions with assurance. No need to muck up a general truth with qualifications. No need to provide the details that led them to their conclusion. Listen to Rush for a short time. You'll notice that he just spouts a series of conclusions. Whys and wherefores are rare.

. . .http://january6th.org/post_of_the_week.html#pmk">More

[pat_k]

15. One phrase and people get it: "Rights Not Judicially Enforceable"

You don't need to be a lawyer to be horrified by this one. It is simple.

1. Every instance of person thoughout this document is qualified in some manner, except ONE.
   
   For example, we see
   ". . .person who has engaged in hostilities. . ."
   ". . .person who is part of the Taliban. . ."
   ". . .persons who are authorized to detail such counsel for such commissions. . ."
   ". . .person subject to chapter 47 of. . ."
   ". . .person accused of torture. . ."
   ". . .person subject to this chapter. . ."
   ". . .such persons. . ."
   
   The exception is the provision that STRIPS us of our right to enforce our rights.
   
   
   • Final version
     (Enrolled Bill) as passed by both Houses
     
     SEC. 5. TREATY OBLIGATIONS NOT ESTABLISHING GROUNDS FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS.
     (a) In General- No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories.
     
     To view the bill search at http://thomas.loc.gov (enter "S.3930.ENR" and select the Bill Number radio button. The printer friendly version is easiest to search)
   
   
   
   • Original
     White House version
     SEC. 6. SATISFACTION OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS.
     (b) RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—No person in any habeas action or any other action may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto as a source of rights, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose in any court of the United States or its States or territories. . .
     
     http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf



2. The phrase: "RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE."
   
   The phrase itself demonstrates a recognition that rights actually existed, and the intent to violate those rights through non-enforcement.
   
   Yes. It is just that simple.
   
   Case Closed on the newly inaugurated War Criminal Nation.

If they are Rights they Cannot be Unenforceable.

[pat_k]

16. There is no doubt that the outrage is all around us. And the speed. . .

. . .with which people who label themselves Republicans are jumping on the "accuse and punish" bus is notable -- but not really surprising.

The folks on "our side" tend to be reluctant to go after individuals. We condemn behavior, not the person; we vow to to fix systems, but side step dealing with the wrong-doers within the system. This tendency is in large part responsible for the perception that Democratic officials and candidates are weak.

In contrast, the folks on the "other side," particularly white males, revel in accusation and punishment.

It is so painfully ironic. The most effective thing the Democratic "leadership" could do to bring these folks on board would be to accuse Bush and Cheney in no uncertain terms and demand punishment (removal from office is in fact a defensive act, but many view it as punishment and want to see Bush and Cheney impeached for that reason).

[chill_wind]

13. This is the most grave issue confronting us all.

The War Criminals' Protection and Amnesty Act (call it for what it is.)

It is a knife that has not just gutted the Constitution and the legal rights of all to habeus corpus, but is being held to the potential throats of ALL politically dissenting Americans, rich, poor, married, single, gay, straight, urban, rural-- it is a broad and ominously loaded assault weapon being held to our collective heads. It goes without saying that it *should* be an issue for every single freedom valueing American, but if ever there was a uniting issue for us and our party leaders, this by god should be it.

It should be dominating every election debate where there is a Dem, a microphone, a spotlight and a prime public platform.

Until members of Congress who are sworn to defend the Constitution speak the truth, accuse Bush and Cheney of their crimes, and take up the fight for impeachment and removal countless Americans will continue to seethe in frustration and silence, believing they are alone in a world gone mad.

As long as members of Congress fail to give our outrage a voice they can continue to believe the opposite of reality, that Americans prefer to trade away the Constitution to avoid the "negativity" of impeachment.

K&R.

[pat_k]

18. Come one come all!!! Get out your Cluesticks. . .

As Ann Wright (Retire Colonel and State Dept official who resigned in protest March 2003) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2428050">points out, "We the people have to give them that courage."

Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but they fail to get it. Somebody needs to hit them with a cluestick. There are many among us who are at the end of their rope, and are ready to jumping into the fray. The key is to dicover ever more effective ways to get through to them. Some thoughts:

from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2889225&mesg_id=2889768

What we are contending with

We can never forget that our elected officials are just people -- people vulnerable to the same social influences we all are.

The inhabitants of the insular beltway social/political world (and the social is inseparable from the political) are trapped in a closed feedback system that breeds increasingly wrong-headed assumptions and nonsensical "conventional wisdom."

Rather than employing a rational process in which the range of possible consequences, both pro and con, are weighed, we see them focus exclusively on the risks of acting (e.g., imagined/assumed bad things "they" will do). It is rare that the very real benefits of action and the very real risks of failing to act are considered. And when a principle they claim to be committed to demands action, they seem to be completely blind to the fact that their failure to act is a cynical betrayal of that principle.

For people who pride themselves on being reasonable, rational, and principled such irrational and one-sided thinking can only be explained if you understand that any closed system tends to give rise to idiosyncratic assumptions and habits of thought.

The nonsense infects folks "out here" too, and in the "reality-based" community, rationalization disguised as "realism" is currently dominant. (See this post for a discussion of the key losing tendencies our side must resist if we are to effectively fight to create a more perfect union.)

To inject reality into their insular world more of us need to enter that world as citizen lobbyists

1. We aren't limited to one-way communications (calls, FAXs, email, protest).
   
   Like many of us, I write letters, shown up at protests, call, write letters to the editor, talk to friends and acquaintances, and perhaps above all, do a lot of complaining about "them." But, until December of 2004 when I joined with others to lobby members of the Senate to stand up on January 6th, I had never sat down with a member of Congress or staffer.


2. The bizzaro-world "conventional wisdom" of the beltway is powerful, but not impenetrable.
   
   When we took that next step and actually confronted them in person, we came up against a powerful system of rationalizations for inaction. As soon as you knock down one, they try to escape behind another one. We heard the same rationalizations over and over ("It's futile. Can't win. Won't try" or "The mythical backlash beast will get us" or "Americans want civility and bipartisanship above all else. We shouldn't 'go negative.'")
   
   Although crucial to showing our numbers, it became clear that the calls for action they got via phone, fax, and email were doing little to chip away at the rationalizations they cling to. But, when we asked pointed questions -- questions that force them to speak their rationalizations to someone who doesn't share the absurd assumptions they have adopted -- we saw shifts.

There is a reason lobbyists are paid to lobby in person. The most effective way to "get through" is face-to-face, where you can elicit and directly challenge their reasons for inaction.

. . .

100 citizen lobbyists is worth a million in professional lobbying muscle -- even more because we are bringing something new -- we are not speaking the insider malarkey they hear day in and day out.

It is tough, but if you can recruit a friend, or connect with a local group and go as their representive, you can make an appointment and start a dialog. (http://january6th.org/files/meeting_lautenberg.pdf">sample meeting request)