newsrackblog.com

a citizen’s journal by Thomas Nephew

  • Recent Comments

    • Thomas Nephew on Ladies and gentlemen: your infinitely cunning Democratic Party
    • Nell on Ladies and gentlemen: your infinitely cunning Democratic Party
    • Thomas Nephew on A city’s ‘city issue’ issue
    • Seth Grimes on A city’s ‘city issue’ issue
    • Joe Blunt on How’s that lesser evil thing working out?
    • Thomas Ray Worley on National Popular Vote vs. fixing the electoral college
    • Dan on County Council’s retreat loses respect — and Busboys
    • Thomas Nephew on From sundown towns to a midnight county
    • Bruce Godfrey on From sundown towns to a midnight county
    • Thomas Nephew on Were recalls the way to go?
    • ballgame on Were recalls the way to go?
    • Thomas Nephew on Were recalls the way to go?

  • Recent Trackbacks

  • Real News

  • RSS my delicious

    • In Congress, Dem and GOPer Working Together to Change the NDAA | Mother Jones
      "Smith and Amash's effort comes amid a bipartisan backlash against indefinite detention that has already produced legislation on the state level. Republican-dominated legislatures in Arizona, Maine, and Virginia have passed anti-NDAA legislation. Proponents of indefinite detention argue that Congress' 2001 authorization of the use of military force against Al Qaeda and the Taliban permits the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens, even those apprehended in the United States. But the Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on the issue. Opponents counter that indefinite detention of American citizens in the United States is unconstitutional."
    • Review & Outlook: The Tea Party's Inner ACLU - WSJ.com
      The Wall Street Journal has a conniption fit about conservative opposition to the NDAA: "The ACLU tea partiers may be well-intentioned but they are woefully uninformed about the war on the terror. Their efforts would undermine executive war-fighting authority and the legitimacy of a terrorist detention and military tribunal system that has been established over many Congresses, endorsed by two Presidents and confirmed by the Supreme Court. They should stick to shrinking the entitlement state."
    • Arizona Joins Virginia in the NDAA Exodus. Is Nullification the Next New Thing? (Cutting the Gordian Knot)
      "In less than a week’s time a second state has put a foot down making it clear that it will not cooperate with Federal Law which is blatantly unconstitutional. Yesterday Arizona became the second state to pass a nullification of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)."
    • How Obama Became a Civil Libertarian's Nightmare | | AlterNet
      “The major defining feature of the Obama administration on this issue is the eagerness with which it embraced the stunning evisceration of civil rights and liberties that was a hallmark of the Bush administration, and then deepened those outrageous programs,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, who is an attorney representing many Occupy protesters swept up in last fall’s mass arrests. “He has successfully counted on the acquiescent silence of the liberals.”
    • ‘I withdraw’: A talk with climate defeatist Paul Kingsnorth (Stephenson, Grist)
      I don’t think any “climate movement” is going to reverse the tide of history, for one reason: We are all climate change. It is not the evil “1%” destroying the planet. We are all of us part of that destruction. This is the great, conflicted, complex situation we find ourselves in. I am climate change. You are climate change. Our culture is climate change. And climate change itself is just the tip of a much bigger iceberg, if you’ll pardon the terrible but appropriate pun. If we were to wake up tomorrow to the news that climate change were a hoax or a huge mistake, we would still be living in a world in which extinction rates were between 100 and 1000 times natural levels and in which we have managed to destroy 25 percent of the world’s wildlife in the last four decades alone.
    • Chris Hedges: Someone You Love: Coming to a Gulag Near You - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig
      “You are unable to say that [such a book] consisting of political speech could not be captured under [NDAA section] 1021?” the judge asked. “We can’t say that,” Torrance answered. “Are you telling me that no U.S. citizen can be detained under 1021?” Forest asked. “That’s not a reasonable fear,” the government lawyer said. Advertisement “Say it’s reasonable to fear you will be unlucky [and face] detention, trial. What does ‘directly supported’ mean?” she asked. “We have not said anything about that …” Torrance answered. “What do you think it means?” the judge asked. “Give me an example that distinguishes between direct and indirect support. Give me a single example.” “We have not come to a position on that,” he said. “So assume you are a U.S. citizen trying not to run afoul of this law. What does it [the phrase] mean to you?” the judge said. “I couldn’t offer any specific language,” Torrance answered. “I don’t have a specific example.”
    • America brings the ‘war on terror’ home (Wolf, Daily Star)
      "(Judge) Forrest also repeatedly asked for assurances – at least five times – that the NDAA would not sweep up people like the plaintiffs: journalists engaged in journalism and citizens engaged in peaceful protest. Again, every time, the lawyers for Obama and Panetta said that they could not give her such assurances. [...] We now have it from the U.S. government lawyers’ own mouths: This law may put journalists at risk, or at least the lawyers explicitly refused to rule out that option for their client – and, as Forrest put it, they have “one very big client.”"
    • Obama’s evolution: Behind the failed ‘grand bargain’ on the debt (Wallsten/Montgomery/Wilson, WaPo)
      "That night, Obama prepared his party’s congressional leaders. He warned Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that he might return to the position under discussion the previous Sunday — that is, cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in exchange for just $800 billion in tax increases. [...] White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table."
    • Not All Labor Leaders Happy With AFL-CIO’s Obama Endorsement (Elk, In These Times)
      “There's not a lot of choice here, that’s the sad part of this,” says Matt McKinnon, political and legislative director of the Machinists union (IAM), which is affiliated with AFL-CIO and endorsed the president earlier this year. “He’s been a disappointment in several areas, but he came through with some decent appointees.” The expected endorsement represents the reality that organized labor leaders still feel trapped in a two-party system, with a not-always labor-friendly Democratic Party on one side and a downright hostile Republican Party on the other.
    • Elections: What Are They Good For? (Swanson, War Is A Crime.org)
      Voting isn't everything. "I think Emma Goldman had a point in saying that if voting changed anything they would ban it. I think Howard Zinn had a point in saying that it doesn't matter who is sitting in the White House so much as who is doing the sitting in. The relentless ubiquitous question of how you can change the world if you refuse to engage in electoral politics strikes me as crazy. Women didn't vote themselves the right to vote. Workers didn't elect the eight hour day. India didn't vote the British out."
    • Part II Infiltration of Political Movements is the Norm, Not the Exception in the United States (Zeese, Occupy Washington, DC)
      "When the long history of political infiltration is reviewed, the Occupy Movement should be surprised if it is not infiltrated. Almost every movement in modern history has been infiltrated by police and others using many of the same tactics we are now seeing in Occupy. "
    • Critiques Of Libertarianism: A Non-Libertarian FAQ (Huben)
      "The purpose of this FAQ is not to attack libertarianism, but some of the more fallacious arguments within it. That done, libertarians can then reformulate or reject these arguments. This is also needed to help people place libertarianism and its arguments in context. It is very hard to find any literature about libertarianism that was NOT written by its advocates. This isolation from normal political discourse makes it difficult to evaluate libertarian claims without much more research or analysis than most of us have time for. Compare this to (for example) the extensive literature of socialism and communism written by ideologues, scholars, pundits, etc. on all sides. Libertarianism is scantily analyzed outside its own movement. Let's fix that."
    • UPDATED: Limbaugh's Misogynistic Attack On Georgetown Law Student Continues With Increased Vitriol (Media Matters for America)
      Always good to have a reference, this is it. "Rush Limbaugh is not backing down after widespread condemnation over his misogynistic attack on Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University Law School student who testified before Congress recently about the problems caused when women lack access to contraception. " Multiple clips for future show and tells.
    • America's Death Squads (Davies, PDA Community/ZCommunications)
      "Barack Obama has halted the macabre parade of hooded, shackled suspects in orange jumpsuits stumbling off American planes into the tropical sunshine at Guantanamo, but he has not done so by restoring the rule of law. Instead, to a great extent, he has replaced Bush’s policy with a global campaign to simply kill a wide range of people in cold blood: terrorism suspects, resistance fighters, and anyone else added to secret lists for secret reasons. From a uniquely American “exceptionalist” point of view, killing suspects instead of capturing them is a convenient way to avoid the embarrassment of sweeping up hundreds of mostly innocent people in an indiscriminate global dragnet and then not knowing what to do with them. The dead tell no tales. Public outrage is contained within the faraway countries where the killings take place and does not cause domestic political problems."
    • Corruption in Iraq: 'Your son is being tortured. He will die if you don't pay' (Abdul-Ahad, Guardian)
      Iraq ten years after: instead of one Saddam, many little ones. "Yassir was detained in 2007. For three years she heard nothing of him and assumed he was dead like his brothers. Then one day she took a phone call from an officer who said she could go to visit him if she paid a bribe. She borrowed the money from her neighbour and set off for the prison. "We waited until they brought him," she said. "His hands and legs were tied in metal chains like a criminal. I didn't know him from the torture. He wasn't my son, he was someone else.""

  • Subscribe

  • Meta

Blogged.com
«« prior: Happy fourth birthday, fact-esque!
next: Video: last leg of Nirenberg’s... »»

A walk to strengthen a weakening Constitution

Posted by Thomas Nephew on January 14th, 2008


We the People
John Nirenberg talks with two supporters
next to a “We the People” banner signed by
impeachment supporters.
Originally uploaded by Thomas Nephew

John Nirenberg is a retired college professor from Vermont who began walking from Boston’s Faneuil Hall to Washington, D.C. on December 2 last year to demonstrate his support for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney. In the first entry on his web site about the march — March In My Name — he explained:

I’ve decided that being outraged isn’t enough. Bush and Cheney have so perverted our system of government, I have to do more than just be angry. What can we do as citizens? As a former Social Studies and American History teacher I remember telling my students to get involved, to vote, to speak their minds. Today, unfortunately, that’s not enough. We voted for change a year ago and nothing has happened. Congress is controlled by the Democrats but instead of holding the administration accountable for its wanton disregard of the Constitution, gets scolded by Bush for inaction and is intimidated by Cheney! Yikes, what’s a citizen to do?

I have chosen to march for the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney for their many high crimes and misdemeanors including placing themselves above the law.

I joined several dozen other impeachment supporters in accompanying him on the last leg of his journey on Saturday morning at the National Arboretum. We chose a huge and seemingly abandoned parking place for the rendezvous with John and his support crew. Not abandoned enough, though — the cars had to be reparked elsewhere, we were told by Arboretum police (or rent-a-cops, not sure which to be honest). Fine, whatever.

Around quarter to 10 the initial group — about twenty of us — started walking west down New York Avenue, which (other than the Arboretum quickly left behind) is initially a fairly bleak urban panorama — gas stations, overpasses, Washington Times printing plant, cheap motels. But as it bends southwest it begins to descend into Washington proper. I stopped briefly to take in a nice view of the city and the Capitol building in the distance. The weather was fine; blue skies and a sunny day; it must have been a great sight indeed for John after his long walk south. Along the way, we got mostly honks of support and thumbs-up reactions, though on one occasion an angry fellow yelled out of his window… what was it… oh, yes: “You guys are the greatest for sticking up for our Constitution!” At least, that’s how I remember it now.



Cheney: “I’ve got my own branch, so
go f*** yerself.”
Originally uploaded by Thomas Nephew

We made for Union Station, where additional supporters rendezvoused with us around 11:30, among them AfterDowningStreet’s David Swanson, with his wife and little boy (Wesley; not quite two; loves pigeons; cute as a button; smiles or wails enormously as warranted.) We were also joined by Deborah Vollmer, who is once again challenging Chris Van Hollen in the primary (February 12) for the Democratic candidate for Maryland’s 8th Congressional District. Ms. Vollmer is running a decidedly low-budget, shoestring type of campaign, but I hope her advocacy for impeachment and for a tougher Democratic stance on ending the Iraq War cuts into Mr. Van Hollen’s totals a month from now.

As we waited for others to join us, security personnel again approached. We had set down our signs, and assured the security people we were just passing through. But they preferred we do so sooner rather than later; with two new participants costumed as Bush and Cheney in prison stripes, we apparently seemed like an imminent threat to make a slow Saturday more interesting than they wanted it to be.

Union Station being private property, we made a kind of slow retreat across the Liberty Bell plaza in front of the station, with “Bush”, “Cheney,” and two Code Pink “policewomen” blowing whistles at them. Cheney was very good; he found a little branch of a bush and started waving it around, declaring “I’ve got my own branch now, so go f*** yerself.” Some concern was expressed about young Wesley’s exposure to such language, but he either didn’t hear or didn’t care, and survived.


Impeachment advocate, Capitol
in background. Note the poncho.
Originally uploaded by Thomas Nephew

Our destination was the National Archives — home to original copies the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Archives (or NARA, National Archives and Records Administration) have spared no expense to protect the physical documents from decay; in 2003, the documents were enclosed in “new airtight containers made of aluminum, titanium, and glass that will be filled with argon gas.” But we quickly learned that while the Archives may be wizards at protecting the documents themselves, they’re not so good at protecting the values those documents are supposed to represent and protect.

We gathered on the right side of the staircase — next to an inscription intoning “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” — and were quickly met by NARA rent-a-cops. “You can’t have those signs here,” they said, meaning our local green “IMPEACH THEM” signs or the Vermonter’s yellow counterparts. “This is a place of business,” one of the security people explained. “Business!?” I reacted, only to be hushed (wisely) by fellow Takoma Park impeachment activist Lisa Moscatiello, who was trying to defuse the situation and negotiate some kind of compromise. But we eventually capitulated and crossed the street to march up and down the block for a short while holding our signs.

We gathered to listen to brief remarks by Nirenberg, Swanson, and Ray McGovern — an ex-CIA agent who has been a vocal war opponent and impeachment advocate. For his part, Nirenberg said that his walk was simply “Phase One” of his efforts, which will now turn to lobbying Congressmembers to take up impeachment hearings. John will meet with Rep. Wexler, who also wants impeachment hearings, and hopes to meet with Nancy Pelosi, who still wants them off the table. I confess I didn’t take notes about Swanson’s and McGovern’s remarks — I agreed with them, and noted that Swanson also thought the “place of business” comment was a strange view of the mission of the National Archives. Like much of the march, the remarks were videotaped by Michelle Bailey, and will soon be available for viewing on her web site (”Impeach Them!“). [UPDATE: see above]

And then it was over, or so it seemed. Having walked hundreds of miles to see them, John and others wanted to go in and have a look at the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I stayed across the street with the signs and other paraphernalia of the march — bullhorn, satchels, whatnot. But inside, one last disappointing brush with our diminished United States of America was unfolding.


“To your right, the National Archives. The Archives
are charged with hermetically sealing off the
Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and
the Bill of Rights from the American people and
any complaints they might have about their
government.”
Originally uploaded by Thomas Nephew

As John’s wife Allyson reports at the March in My Name site, she was stopped and told she couldn’t enter wearing the yellow rain poncho with a protest slogan on it. The slogan — “Save the Constitution”!*

I tried to talk to the guard about my goal in being in the building – simply to see the Constitution of the United States. He wasn’t convinced and kept repeating his mantra, “Just take off the poncho and you can go in.” I asked him what was wrong with my poncho. He replied that they do not allow protests inside the building. I said that I was not protesting, that I was just an American citizen visiting the most important document of our country. [...]

I asked for a copy of the policy that mandated I remove my objectionable clothing in order to see the Constitution. They would provide nothing… I asked them how the policy is practiced - that knowing how they interpret and implement the policy might help me understand the policy or law I was violating. They simply and finally said, “You will have to leave if you do not remove your garment.”

So she chose to leave.

And, as I was turning to leave, I told him he was part and parcel of the reason that I found it necessary to articulate my point of view to “Save the Constitution,” on my clothing. “You might want to read the Constitution before you leave work today to find out what this is all about.” I said as I left.

She told us outside, “I’m not going to take off a poncho with a political statement on it to go in and see the document giving me the right to keep it on.”

I’m almost as dissatisfied with myself as with the cops involved — for not being surprised or immediately outraged any more. In the scheme of things, it’s obviously not a major incident if someone doesn’t get to wear precisely what she wants to precisely where and when she wants to, and I don’t feel comfortable trying to make a cause celebre out of it compared to homelessness, the war in Iraq, or our broken, stupid health care system, to name but a few alternatives. Yet I should think someone or other in NARA ought to blush if they ever read this account or others like it. Either their rules or their personnel did a silly, stupid, bad thing on Saturday.

Viewed in retrospect, as dispassionately as I’m able to, we were repeatedly and unjustifiably put on the defensive throughout the day for peacefully, imaginatively, and determinedly doing nothing more than saying what we thought about a highly important political issue. Completely shrugging off these little slights is just conditioning for shrugging off the next bigger one. Meanwhile, I’m just waiting for someone to say “what if anyone just had whatever they wanted on their t-shirt, or baseball cap — then what?” Because my answer would be: “Then the Bill of Rights would be working as intended.”

John Nirenberg walked to the National Archives to help defend its most cherished contents: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But by the time he got there, it was just a place of business, more concerned with “defending” them from him.

=====
* The full text of the poncho reads: Save the Constitution — Impeach Bush/Cheney — Tell Speaker Pelosi (202) 225-0100 — www.marchinmyname.org. Pretty inflammatory stuff!

NOTES: For a few more photographs of mine, go here; for a lot more, see Michelle’s slideshow; as mentioned above, she’ll also have video soon; check this post for updates.
UPDATE, 1/15: More discussion at my post about this at American Street; see also Avedon Carol (”The Sideshow”) and AfterDowningStreet.org.
UPDATE, 1/15: David Swanson (”AfterDowningStreet.org”) writes: “[Fellow Nirenberg marcher] Suzanne Haviland reported that a guard told her, “The reason I’m stopping you is that you are wearing something that criticizes the President. I’m a federal employee, and I’m not allowed to criticize the President.” I remember hearing about this, too, but didn’t know who to attribute it to.
UPDATE, 1/16: Libby (”The Newshoggers”): Is this freedom?
EDIT, 1/16: Allyson, not Allison.

Category: Post. Tags: , , . Thread RSS, Comment, Trackback. Print This Print This

5 Responses to “A walk to strengthen a weakening Constitution”

  1. Michelle Bailey Says:
    January 14th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

    Hey Thomas,
    Very nicely said. love the photos!
    Michelle

  2. Paul Says:
    January 15th, 2008 at 2:15 am

    That was a good write-up. Way to go.
    However, as is my wont, I do have a criticism that has always bugged me. I’ve wondered if the people who participate in these kinds of things ever considered dropping the theatrics and wearing suits and “church clothes” (for lack of a better term) instead?

    It’s been my main criticism since day one, because when I see people dressing up and doing the theatrical stuff to illustrate their points, it doesn’t look like they’re taking it seriously, so why should I take it seriously? That is the message you’re sending out, whether you want to believe it or not.
    To me, defending the Constitution is serious business and I think the behavior and attire should reflect the seriousness and sobriety the task demands. I think it would definitely send the right message to people about how serious your intentions are. When you see people in their get-ups, it looks like the county fair or a Comic convention.
    If you want some inspiration, look at the Civil Rights movement. You never see all that clowning around and general nonsense that you see at modern protests. What you see are people dressed well and proceeding with dignity and self-respect. That’s inspiring. I would gladly join them, and that’s the point. You want people to join you, not gawk at street theater.
    Anyway, that’s not a criticism of you personally, but just some aspects of the whole thing that I find to be lacking in real merit.

  3. Thomas Nephew Says:
    January 15th, 2008 at 4:36 am

    Thanks, Paul. Everyone other than the Code PinkBush/Cheney/cops crew was +/- regularly dressed, except for the ponchos I suppose.
    I see your point, and I don’t take it the wrong way. I tried it for a January 07 demonstration (this one). Wound up feeling out of place — like I was saying I was ever so much more serious because of the clothes I was wearing. So I overshot that time.
    Also, with relatively little actions like this one, I’m just grateful for anyone who shows up. The Bush/Cheney Act also helped us kind of take over the little moving spot of space we were in, instead of being just a forlorn, outnumbered bunch of people with signs; people stopped to watch, instead of just passing by without a glance. (Plus they made me laugh, the branch bit cracked me up.)
    But when we met with Van Hollen, say, it was mainly suit and tie and dress clothes, so we did it right that time, anyway.

  4. Nell Says:
    January 15th, 2008 at 3:10 pm

    Thanks for this, Thomas. Even though the crime is tiny compared with all the ongoing horrors, it stabs. “Protecting” the Constitution from people wearing the message ‘Save the Constitution’.

  5. Thomas Nephew Says:
    January 16th, 2008 at 6:14 pm

    Thanks, Nell; it’s good to get some positive feedback from you (and Paul, eRobin, Avedon, and many others) via the Internet, because it was scarce at the time — though there were approving honks and thumbs-ups from some people driving by the Archives, it doesn’t sound like there was much help with the incident inside the Archives.
    By the way, Michelle is my friend, one of the main impeachment people in Takoma Park, and very good with video work. She joined the march and made a video, as I mention in the post. Check out her “Impeach Them” blog.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

«« prior: Happy fourth birthday, fact-esque!
next: Video: last leg of Nirenberg’s... »»