Michael Scherer does an excellent job of dissecting toture advocate Mark Thiessenattack on Wikileaks. Scherer looks back at history, namely the release of the Pentagon Papers that helped turn the war. The Pentagon Papers showed that more than one president deliberately mislead the country about the war in Vietnam and almost 70,000 US troops died as a result.

Supreme Court’s opinion in New York Times Co. v. United States, the so-called Pentagon Papers case from 1971.

Concurring in that case, Justice Potter Stewart observed, “In the absence of governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the area of national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry — in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government.. . . . Without an informed and free press, there cannot be an enlightened people.”

The article also quotes from Justices Hugo Black and William Brennan

[W]e are asked to hold that, despite the First Amendment’s emphatic command, the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Judiciary can make laws enjoining publication of current news and abridging freedom of the press in the name of “national security.” The Government does not even attempt to rely on any act of Congress. Instead, it makes the bold and dangerously far-reaching contention that the courts should take it upon themselves to “make” a law abridging freedom of the press in the name of equity, presidential power and national security, even when the representatives of the people in Congress have adhered to the command of the First Amendment and refused to make such a law. To find that the President has “inherent power” to halt the publication of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make “secure.” No one can read the history of the adoption of the First Amendment without being convinced beyond any doubt that it was injunctions like those sought here that Madison and his collaborators intended to outlaw in this Nation for all time. The word “security” is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic.

A government that lies to its people betrays everything a soldier hopes to be fighting for, everything. Long live Wikileaks and all independent media because without it we have no democracy at all.

First Amendment at Work in Lakeside,OR

Lightly edited version of original published Page 1 in the Coast Lake News, Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Last Wednesday, Coast Lake News Reported on City Hall’s passage of an Ordinance which handed any ‘designated enforcement official or designee’ the ‘Right of Entry’ upon private property and more than tripled the fines to $750 per violation per day.

We spelled out the secretive measures taken by the Council in the passage of this Ordinance, including lack of proper notice to the public, leaving it off of the Council’s meeting agenda, referring to it only by number and later by title and the lack of any discussion.

Mayor Pro Tem Rod Schilling voted for it as did Councilors Elaine Armstrong, Chrysta Swift,  Clark Anderson, Marjorie Kellison, and Mack Eubanks.  Rudy Sherych was absent.

In our story, we printed a section of the ordinance that clearly seemed to violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That subsection 1.16.111 of Ordinance 10-269 is listed under the boldfaced title “Right to Entry” and reads: “Any designated enforcement official or designee is authorized to enter upon any property or premises to ascertain whether the provisions of the municipal code or applicable state codes are being obeyed, and to make any examinations and surveys as may be necessary in the performance of their enforcement duties. These may include the taking of photographs, samples, or other physical evidence. All inspections, entries, examinations and surveys shall be done in a reasonable manner. If an owner, occupant or agent refuses permission to enter or inspect, the enforcement official my seek an administrative inspection warrant pursuant to the procedures provided for in Sections (blank space) of this code. The enforcement official will take reasonable steps to notify the property owner or legal occupant of the need to enter upon the property. If the enforcement official determines in his or her discretion that entry is necessary without notification or that notification is not practical, then the owner or legal occupant shall be notified as soon as reasonably possible after the inspection.”

As might be expected, Lakeside residents reacted with everything from astonishment to anger. No Trespassing signs have proliferated around the City — a disconcerting sight for a destination location that depends upon tourism dollars to boost the local economy. This Ordinance was passed just shortly after City Hall began enforcing a ban on RV sleeping in residential areas — a move that is widely seen by residents as harmful to tourism.

No Trespassing Signs Sprout Up Around Lakeside, OR

Despite our printing of the actual wording of the Ordinance, Mayor Pro Tem
Rod Schilling claims in a “Public Message” posted on a local blog that, “Misinformation is being disseminated both in print and verbally regarding Lakeside’s hazard abatement ordinance,” although he neglected to say what the misinformation consisted of.

We stand by our story. One of the reasons that we took pains to print the actual wording and specifically quote the Fourth Amendment and the relevant Oregon Revised Statutes is so that our readers could see for themselves how we came to draw the conclusions we did.

Contrary to what the ordinance specifically says, Schilling writes, “The ordinance does not give any city (sic) the right to violate any citizen’s property rights.”

But, in addition to the section cited above, section 1.16.030 entitled “General enforcement authority” clearly reads, “The city manager, the city attorney, chief of police or their designated enforcement officials have the authority and powers necessary to gain compliance with the provisions of the municipal code and applicable state codes. These powers include the power to issue notices of violation and citations, inspect public and private property and use whatever judicial and administrative remedies are available under the municipal code or applicable state laws.”

In his message, Schilling goes on to call our reporting a “campaign” whose motivation “is not entirely clear at this time.”

Coast Lake News is fine with Schilling’s characterization of our reporting as a campaign. We campaign for ‘open and transparent ‘ government. We believe our motivation for reporting what goes on at City Hall has been clear since the establishment of this newspaper — to accurately report the news and to hold City officials accountable for their actions and decisions.

We have repeatedly offered the Mayor Pro Tem unedited space to answer questions and/or address the public. He has consistently maintained that he cannot take advantage of our offer because, he says, the Coast Lake News ” is not a real newspaper.”

As part of Schilling’s efforts to spin the meaning of the Ordinance, he asks folks to read a response by City Attorney Frederick J. Carleton (also posted on the local blog) given after Schilling contacted him. But, Carleton’s response directly contradicts the rights claimed in the Ordinance which has already been passed.

Carleton writes, “No one on behalf of the city is entering or plans to enter any property, and if that were to be done, it would only be done with court approval, and it would be a very extraordinary situation.”

This sounds very comforting, except, the Ordinance which has the effect of City Law clearly states: “Any designated enforcement official or designee is authorized to enter upon any property or premises….”

Perhaps Carleton recognized this, because he ends his letter to Schilling by saying, “Since these ordinances have been called into question, again, we are reviewing that and we will be back to you very soon.” That was the second time in his short response  that he says his office will be reviewing the ordinance.

Meanwhile, copies are available for review at City Hall for anyone who would like to read the entire Ordinance, which is scheduled to become effective August 7th.

Originally published on Page 1 of the weekly Coast Lake News, Wednesday July 14, 2010.
Part 2 of three parts – Part 1, Part 3

It is important to note that there is no requirement in this new ordinance for a prior complaint, written or otherwise. There
is no definition of “reasonable manner” or “reasonable steps.” In contrast, Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 90.322(f) Residential Landlord and Tenant Law requires a minimum of a 24 hour notice before the landlord can enter the premises. In this new ordinance, determination of notification is left strictly up to the enforcement official, who alone can decide whether notification is “practical.” On the face of it, this ordinance appears designed to give City officials free and full
rein to target any resident of their choosing in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

At a recent Council meeting, when the issue of the $50,000 lien that the City recently placed on Don Londo’s property (the result of a judgment for nuisance violations) came up, City Attorney Fred Carleton commented that the amount was “a bit excessive.” That amount was arrived at when fines were listed as $200 per day per violation. Carleton later said, on behalf of the City, “We are not after the money; we are after curing the problem.” Given that statement, it is difficult to explain the fact that the recently passed ordinance sets the fines at $750 per violation per day – more than triple the former amount.

Section 1.16.090 of the new ordinance reads:

“As part of a civil action filed to enforce provisions of the Lakeside code, a court may assess a maximum civil penalty of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00) per violation of any ordinance for each day during which any person commits, continues, allows or maintains a violation of any provision of the ordinance.”

To be fair, it is possible that the Mayor, Councilors and City Attorney did not intend to violate the Constitution or to go “after the money.” Those portions of the Ordinance might have been an oversight that could have been discovered and changed with more input from the public. That input was prevented by the secretive actions surrounding the adoption of the ordinance.

According to the Oregon Public Meetings Law, ORS 192.620,

“The Oregon form of government requires an informed public aware of the deliberations and decisions of governing bodies and the information upon which such decisions were made. It is the intent of ORS 192.610 to 192.690 that decisions of governing bodies be arrived at openly.”

ORS 192.610, defines “Decision” as “any determination, action, vote or final disposition upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, ordinance or measure on which a vote of a governing body is required, at any meeting at which a quorum
is present.”
And ORS 192.640 (1) which addresses public notice says,

“The governing body of a public body shall provide for and give public notice, reasonably calculated to give actual notice to interested persons including news media which have requested notice, of the time and place for holding regular meetings. The notice shall also include a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be considered at the meeting,
but this requirement shall not limit the ability of a governing body to consider additional subjects.”

“Barack Obama thinks he can be trusted with the power, but he’s being stalked by a strange and twisted creature who wants to take the precious away.” The president has ticked off progressives for a lot of reasons including his lame ass speech last night about the oil spill. Today he toots his horn that he got BP to commit to more than the $75M cap on damages.

There are a lots of reasons I would not be able to hold my head high and admit to being a member of the GOP but I will focus on one. Anyone that reads this blog knows I am opposed to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and regard armed conflict in this respect as a complete and utter failure of our diplomatic corps. Nevertheless, I hail from warriors, my ancestors fought their way up the Iberian peninsula and ultimately settled in France and Ireland enduring many hardships and inciting and surviving many battles on the way. Generally regarded as fearless and hardy I can only wonder what they would make of a panic driven society that willingly lines up to remove their shoes before going on a journey. And now we have to worry about underwear….

Recently, while visiting the DMV I witnessed a diminutive, frail, old woman walking in with a framed marriage certificate. It seems she had recently remarried and wanted to change her last name. After waiting her turn she gathered her bag and picture frame and tottered up to the counter and began rummaging around pulling out bits of paper and ID. Alas, she was turned away by a very sympathetic DMV employee because she had not sufficiently proven she was an American citizen. 1) She needed an original Social Security card not a copy and she couldn’t locate her Medicare card. 2) She needed her marriage license, a certificate signed by her pastor was not proof she was married. 3) She would have to write to California for a copy of her birth certificate in order to prove her statement “but I have lived here all my life”.

Ben Franklin famously said ‘Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Not only have we lost security and freedom but we have forfeited our dignity along with it. How shameful Congress sees fit to treat the citizens of this country as potential terrorists over the acts of a few.

The GOP continue to campaign on fear and crow with military machismo, “my SMAW is bigger than your RPG”, and legislate draconian laws initiating embarrassing rituals wherein we remove our shoes before boarding a plane and peeping toms will be provided with x-ray machines to facilitate looking up our skirts. How degrading and shame on the Democrats for playing along.

All I can think is what a bunch of fraidy pants. What colossal pussies. What are they overcompensating for? If they submit to nude x-rays we may find out soon.

My ancestors are rolling over in fits of laughter… I know it.

Investigating prisoner abuse will be a political food fight, and that is messier than torture.

Michael Isikoff says, “…a couple of months ago, just before those interrogation memos were released, I and others had said it was going to be a key test of the Obama presidency‘s commitment to transparency if they disclose those memos.

If they did, it would open the floodgates for a lot of this to come pouring out, and we‘d begin to see the full scope, the full story of the program. But what‘s actually turned out is rather than that – that one disclosure being a big breakthrough, it‘s become trench warfare. Document by document, a fight goes on over it in which the CIA and the intelligence community have pushed back hard.” Read the transcripts here