Highlights of Faithful Progressive Interview Series

This year's FP Interviews have convinced me that the progressive and moderate faith community is alive and well. The Progressive religious tradition represents a thoughtful, values-based agenda that can inform debate about our politics. The FP Interview subjects are full of fresh ideas that are getting active support from people of many faith traditions. Take a minute to listen to the voices below, and I'm sure you'll agree.

Rev. Jennifer Kottler, Protestants for the Common Good

I have a deep commitment to justice and the common good, which my Christian faith leads me to understand can best be used in influencing public policy. I believe deeply that it will take structural change, at least changing the hearts and minds of many Americans to bring justice to our public debate. Poverty and deep economic injustices that go hand in hand with racism keep me awake at night.

Father Jake (Episcopal priest)

I think we have to stop allowing the ultra-conservatives to frame the argument. The progressive Christians need to find their voice and take the offensive position. This might mean having to challenge the secular fundamentalists as well as the biblical fundamentalists, which means being willing to be as critical of Democrats as we are of Republicans. When Democrats claim that religion is a private matter, they’re playing right into the game of the conservatives who want to make private morality the only issues that are important. Public morality, which would include war, poverty, the environment and health care, are essential issues for any Christian who knows their bible. It’s not an either/or thing. Private and public moral values need to be taught and lived. And, because of the public nature of many moral and ethical issues, we can never separate religion from politics; they are made of the same cloth. So what can we do? We can start by honing our communication skills; by proclaiming the Good News in innovative ways that will move us all toward caring action; toward becoming the healing hands of Christ in the world today.

Dr. Bruce Prescott
Mainstream Baptist Leader

The most important thing that moderate and progressive religious people can do to change things is to start standing up and speaking out on behalf of separation of church and state. Religious liberty for everyone – not just Christians – is our first freedom. It’s the first freedom because it is the bedrock foundation upon which every other form of freedom rests. It secures our right to a free conscience and protects the rights of minorities.

Ms. Jacqueline Trussell, Founder BlackandChristian.com and Harvard Divinity School Graduate

The simple answer is to pray--I do believe that prayer changes things. Whether it's Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Clinton, Lincoln or George Washington, this nation has persevered and survived through good leadership and not so good leadership. Black people, led often by Black Christians such as Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey, Harriet Tubman, Henry Highland Garnet, Sojourner Truth or Martin Luther King, have survived. If we, as Black folk have learned nothing else, we have learned how to survive…There is potential for great things to happen around an agenda that speaks of "uplifting the race" through social, political and economic change. What remains to be seen is how this will be implemented. The Black Church, whether Baptist, Methodist or Church of God In Christ, has always been at the forefront of any movement for change as it relates to people of African descent.

Ol Cranky of Disenchanted Forest (Progressive Jewish Blog)

Count me as one of those disenfranchised by "religious" people and the Bush Administration. I see Bush as a great divider due to what‚s been done for political expedience in the name of G-d, religion and Scripture; the relationship between the Bush Administration/Republican party and the “religious right” has created such a heated environment in which religion has been used as a weapon…Everyone who really wants some healing needs to do their share to seek out information about and initiate dialogue with those across the aisle. For my own part, I've intentionally sought out blogs of various Christian writers to things in perspective, find out what the ECs really think and, more importantly, to learn-- though, in all honesty, I still do my share of thumbing my nose at the collective "them.’

Kathleen Le Roy, Vice President of Operations, Christian Alliance for Progress

Well, the theocrats in Jesus’ day attacked him for healing on the Sabbath. According to them, that was a major violation of the religious law. For them, it was more important to uphold a religious dictate than it was to ease the suffering of a human being. We can see that very same mindset in the “no, no, absolutely not” approach to stem cell research. The Radical Right has this position statement: “We stand for life.” Well, you know, who doesn’t? But what an incredibly simplistic way to dismiss complex scientific and ethical questions! It’s a nice, pat religious principle, just like “No healing on the Sabbath.” But while they are standing for life, what happens to the people who are dying from Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s?

The Right says, if you stand for life, then you’ve got to stand against medical research, against science, against human healing. If they succeed, America will no longer lead the world in scientific and medical discoveries.



Bob of I Am a Christian Too
(ELCA Blog)

For me, my Christian faith demands my progressive politics. How can you read the gospels without believing that, as a society, we must do more to care for those in need? This phrase also makes me think of today's "Samaritans" -- the poor, gays, Africans with HIV -- as I imagine them saying "I am a Christian too", or even "I was made in the image of God too.” We need to organize, and we need to be savvy about how we present our message... I am looking for a way to organize that can give focus to this incipient progressive Christian movement, an organization that is both political and religious, that is outside and cuts across existing denominational lines, to speak for those of us that believe in progressive policies because of our religious beliefs, not despite them. We need to advocate policies in authentic, orthodox Christian language so that we can't be dismissed by the majority of Americans that are theologically orthodox. We need to take the moral high ground, but with a deep humility and respect for those that disagree, or we will be just another group of hate-mongers.

Chuck Currie
(United Church of Christ Seminarian--make that Minister!)

Progressive Christians started organizing to impact the 2004 elections in 2003. The religious right has been busy building up their movement since the mid-1960s. We need to build from the ground up and build alliances with better established secular groups that share some of our core values. We need to think long term and to develop new leadership. The religious left folks most active in opposing the Bush policies are the same group who fought against the Vietnam war. A new generation of leaders needs to be groomed. The progressive left has a training program for activists called Wellstone Action . We need a program like that to train the religious left.

Rachel Barenblat of Velveteen Rabbi
(Jewish lay leader, liturgist, and poet)

I think the most important thing is not to let frustration sour into despair. There's always something we can do. One of my favorite quotes (from Pirke Avot, a collection of rabbinic wisdom) is "it is not incumbent upon us to finish the task, but neither are we free to refrain from beginning it." I remind myself of that often when I'm thinking about the political sphere. I think we on the religious left need to speak up more. It's easy for the mainstream public to assume that "religious" means "on the right," and that's a fundamental misconception which will only be cleared up if we make ourselves heard.

Matt Sellers UK (British Baptist)

Our church is committed to the local community, and in particular the children, youth and disadvantaged of the area. We have many ongoing projects and the church buildings are used so much we are looking at expansion plans. Current membership of the church is about 550 and rising (probably in the top five biggest Baptist Churches in the country). I think this kind of community view of the church is becoming more prevalent up and down the country, and I'm hoping that some great long-lasting initiatives and reforms will come out of it - just like the great reforms of the 19th Century - we are beginning to see this with the Drop the Debt initiative and Fair Trade movements, and more recently the Make Poverty History initiative.

Ono Ekeh of Ono's Thoughts(Liberal Catholic Blog)

Only time will solve this. What has to happen is for the Catholic and Christian Right to define themselves as extremists, which they are already doing. At the same time, on the left, we have to learn to be more comfortable talking about our faith…Now, while a conservative will have no problem opening up to the world the internal dynamic of his/her faith life, liberals like Kerry are uncomfortable revealing these personal details and then people assume that there are no details. I don't think liberals have to get phoney, but we have to speak honestly about faith and its place in our lives. That's how we'll take back religion.

Carlos Stouffer of Jesus Politics
(Anthology of Readings from former Southern Baptist Missionary)

I like to contrast the political Christians on the Christian Right with the political Christians on the Jesus Left. The Christian Right focuses on an orthodox and institutional interpretation of the Christian Faith whereas the Jesus Left focuses on fresh ways to honor the life and spirit of the historical Jesus. Even though some political Christian leaders are loud, I am pretty sure the vast majority of Christians in the US are not that interested or engaged in politicsAs more Christians get involved and become better informed, I think they will start to question the assumptions of these loud political Christians. I think the Christian Rightists are particularly vulnerable when Christians begin to wake up and discover what is going on in the name of Jesus.

Broken Strings, Missing Notes Author Larry J. Eriksson

Whenever we present new ideas to people, we need to recognize that transformative change is threatening. One way to minimize the threatening nature of progressive ideas to those from conservative or fundamentalist backgrounds is to help them understand that they can change without losing their personal identity. One approach is to use language that is familiar to them. This means that when we speak to business folks, we must be able to talk about our progressive values within the context and language of business -- production, efficiencies, profits, investments, and income. When we speak to political leaders, we need to speak of our founding documents and political history. When we speak to conservative Christians, we must use a theological context and religious language to communicate our values. A excellent place to begin is with the Gospels since they express progressive values in a context that conservatives can appreciate and understand. Once progressives and conservatives come to see that the Bible can be read to support both perspectives, it may be possible to move beyond citing Biblical proof texts and pursue the broader meaning beyond the words.

Rev. Richard Hall (UK Methodist Minister)

Politically, the US is much more conservative than Britain though our politics are shifting rightward too, I find it hard to make a genuine distinction between the Democrats and the Republicans at any fundamental ideological level and I don't know that any "big idea" other than The American Dream has played much of a role in your political life. Correct me if I'm wrong! It makes me laugh when I hear a congressman or senator described as a "socialist". The very idea! And I was genuinely shocked to pick up a noticeable sneer in people's voices when they talked about "socialized medicine". In Britain there is almost complete unanimity that health care should be free at the point of use...The other issue that completely divides our nations is the question of gun control. Britons are mostly completely perplexed by the US love affair with firearms. That's as much to do with emotion and self-identity as anything, I think.

Gaunilo, Blogging Theologian

FP: As someone who knows conservative evangelicals from the inside--how does the sincere faith of people on the right come to have these negative and seemingly distorted and un-Christian impacts?

G: This is such a tough question. In many senses, I think it will be an ongoing research project in my academic life to figure out just this issue. First, though, you're right to say we should immediately acknowledge the sincerity of conservatives. Understanding is going to have to start there.

I think much of the answer lies in the history of American Christianity, a history of fairly reactionary populism, that really came to a head in the Fundamentalist movement at the beginning of the century. Everything in our current climate in the church has its roots there. The rebellion of the fundamentalists against science and its perceived undermining of the veracity of Scripture, against the modernists controlling the mainline denominations, and against the expansion of the American urban centers marks a very clear dividing line. The fundamentalists latched on to a few core beliefs - the Fundamentals. For really the first time in history, the only legitimate mark of a true Christian was having correct belief, according to a rigid code. The results of that are disastrous, as I've written about, because that means that absolute demarcations have to be drawn, and a Christianity organized around boundaries rather than the center is a Christianity that defines itself by excluding the other.

The curious thing about fundamentals is that they often are marginal issues. The original fundamentalists spent all kinds of time defending miracles. Inerrancy debates tend to be over insignificant trivia (how many times did the rooster crow?). Modern evangelicals get up in arms about predestination, women's ordination, the timing of the "rapture," and divine foreknowledge, none of which are even remotely necessary for salvation in anyone's book. And, of course, homosexuality. My theory on this is that these are all identity signifiers - they are boundary conditions that function to define who's "in" and who's "out." They purport to show with one or two easy check boxes where a person stands theologically, and therefore, whether they're orthodox or heretical. It's a convenient way of excluding an opponent's argument from the outset. It's also a means of isolating the conservative church from the culture. Conservative evangelicals tell a narrative of cultural decline - their eschatology demands it - and the isolation of the church as a lonely light in a dying world. You can't fight everything at once, so an issue, say homosexuality, comes to be a signifier for the enormity of the of the perceived cultural oppresion and apostasy. It becomes, in a sense, the distillation of the evil of the realm of the ungodly.

What I haven't figured out is how fundamentalism got so closely aligned with patriotism in this country, with a revisionist history and everything. Certainly there's a political disenchantment - undergoing persecution is also a necessary ingredient of the fundamentalist mindset. It's amazing how much the rhetoric of persecution and marginalization is still used today, with this president and Congress, but the language is built into the theological system. But how it was decided that the Republican party was an adequate stand-in for the Kingdom of God I really don't know. But realizing that - in November of last year - was the last straw in my break with evangelicalism.

Dignan, Dialogue-Seeking Christian Conservative


FP: You've been reading our series about some of the more extremist members of the Christian Right-what do you make of it? Don't we all have some obligation to try to check extremists on either side?

D: Well, I don't disagree that many you have highlighted are indeed extremists. However, among most conservative evangelicals I know, the mention of someone like Jerry Falwell elicits facial expressions to the effect of "what is that stink in the air?" As far as others like Rushdoony, I would imagine less than 5% of people at my church have ever heard of him. So I think you overestimate the influence of many of these people. I'm not sure that I would agree about having an obligation to check out extremists on either side. I'd rather many of these people be ignored. I think many of them view any mention, even negative, to be good. I think some of them especially like to see their "enemies" attacking them as it proves what they have been saying, at least in their own minds. It is unfortunate that the media usually calls the extremists first when looking for a soundbite.

Rev. Tim Simpson (Theologian and Religious Affairs Dir. Christian Alliance for Progress)

The left has to tend its own garden, rather than only pointing out the problems with the right's. They need to begin to do more than simply complain, but to be a part of building something better. They need to stop going to St. Mattress every Sunday morning and get off their butts and get themselves and their kids in church. We have become too secular for either our own spiritual good or to do society any good, such that society will put someone back in office who may have already started WWIII rather than turn the country over to people that they view as secularists. That is a very sad commentary on how low we have fallen and the liberals have no one to blame but ourselves for letting a handful of people at our leftmost fringe define who we are to the American electorate.

Folks need to find out who their precinct captain is and contact that person and make themselves available to make phone calls, stuff envelopes or whatever else is necessary. Once again in November, Republicans hammered the left when it came to getting out the vote and that isn't going to change unless more people budget their time to make this community political work a prioroty.

People need to build donations to political causes into their personal family budgets and make this a priority as well. Republicans have preached this gospel with a missionary zeal. We imagine that there are only the fat cats that we hear about in the media who keep things going financially over there, but that is not the case. My mother in law is a lobbyist with Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schafly's group, and I can tell you that people sacrifice to contribute to these right wing causes. The right has these people so scared that the gays are all going to be raping their children and that you'll be able to get an abortion as easy as picking up your dry cleaning that they will spare no expense to try and stop what they fear. The liberals have got to get some of that zeal and start talking to their followers in such stark terms as well. The left did a great job of fund-raising last time around, but there are still millions of folks out there who did not give a dime in the last cycle. Those funds will be needed if things are to be turned around in '06 and '08, so get the family 'round the kitchen table and start planning how you can do your part.

Danny Fisher, Buddhist Chaplain-in-training:

FP: Many people feel frustrated by both the perception of religious people and the Bush Administration--what can they do to change things?

DF: Don’t believe the hype. Show others through example what
religious people really look like.


Please note: my apologies if I missed anyone!

Happy Holidays and Season's Greetings from FP

We are taking a break for the holidays and will return in early January. Thanks for making our first ten months so rewarding. I have especially enjoyed the FP Interviews and hope to post a summary of those before heading out. We are planning more interviews for next year, and a sprawling new series "Overcoming Religious Polarization." This year's series "Extremely Influential: The Religious Right in America 2005: is here. 2006 promises to be an exciting year on our beat of religion, culture and politics. Happy holidays and have a great New Year!

FP

My Personal Skirmish in the War on Christmas

It was an opportunity too rare to pass up. Somehow, the Wisconsin Christian Alliance for Progress was sent an e-mail asking us to join in attacking a school in Wisconsin that had declared "War on Christmas" by re-writing the Christmas standard Silent Night and inserting secular lyrics! The only problem with the story--pushed by the America Family Association, Fox News and others-- is that it is almost completely false. So I was left with this rare opportunity to speak to a large group on a mass e-mail. I may have gone a little too far—I’ll leave it up to you to judge.

What follows are the actual e-mail exchanges between Keith (whose last name and e-mail address I am deleting to avoid any embarrassment) and members of the Christian Alliance e-mail group.

Family and friends;

I recently sent an e-mail to the Wisconsin governor and the Wisconsin state superintendant. See below. Please consider joining me in this effort by
sending this to anyone you know with the intention of reaching as many Wisconsin residents as possible. I have attached an e-mail from AFA describing what is going on in one of the elementary schools in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin Christian News and Wisconsin Christian Alliance; I have not had time to look over your web-sites. I trust that you are keeping the citizens and Christians of Wisconsin informed of this situation.

If not, please do!

Your brother in Christ,
Keith

Attachment 1
Governor Doyle and Superintendent Burmaster;

Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association informed me of your efforts to remove any reference to Christmas at Ridgeway Elementary School. Mr. Wildmon got it right when he said, "What these schools are doing to our children is not educating, but indoctrinating! And they are using Christmas as an excuse. Following the lead of the National Educational Association, Wisconsin educational leaders preach tolerance and diversity while being highly intolerant!" Highly intolerant... the very thing that many are accusing Christians of being today. Would you change your stance if the majority of the Dodgeville residents chose to home-school their children? Quickly, I believe. That is what some major retailers (Target, Lowes,
Costco, Walgreens, Sears) in the U.S. have recently done when confronted with thousands of signatures of Christians who would not purchase from their stores unless they put Christ back in Christmas.

As a resident of Kentucky I may not be able to exert any significant influence upon your choices but I will use every resource at my disposal to reach as many in Wisconsin that can.

I hope that you choose to let Christmas be what it is... the celebration of Jesus the Christ's birth!

Sincerely,
Keith T

Attachment 2
A Christmas Witch in Wisconsin Public School

Wisconsin Elementary School Changes "Silent Night" to "Cold in the Night" While Decorating For A Christmas Witch!
Dear William,

In Dodgeville, Wisconsin, Ridgeway Elementary School's "winter program" has changed the name of "Silent Night" to "Cold in the Night." Sung to the tune of "Silent Night," the lyrics include: "Cold in the night, no one in sight, winter winds whirl and bite, how I wish I were happy and warm, safe with my family out of the storm."

The "winter program" included decorating classrooms with Santa Claus, Kwanza symbols, Menorahs, and Labafana--a Christmas witch!

Also in Wisconsin, the Glendale-River Hills School District has banned every Christmas song which has any Christian "motive or theme." But while banning Christian Christmas songs, the district permits secular holiday songs as well as songs celebrating Hanukkah. In defending this policy, Frances Smith, the district administrator, says that the Hanukkah songs are more cultural than spiritual.

What these schools are doing to our children is not educating, but indoctrinating! And they are using Christmas as an excuse. Following the lead of the National Educational Association, Wisconsin educational leaders preach tolerance and diversity while being highly intolerant! Most of the residents of Wisconsin are tolerant, but not their educational leaders.

Banning nativity scenes. Banning Christmas songs in school. Banning Christmas in advertising. Calling a Christmas tree a "holiday" tree. Calling a Christmas parade a holiday parade. Refusing to mention the Reason for the season. It is time to take a stand for our children, our families, our faith and our freedom!

Educational leaders in your state could be the next officials to join this anti-Christian bigotry parade.

I urge you to email Wisconsin Governor Gov. Jim Doyle and Wisconsin State Superintendent Elizabeth Burmaster and ask them to stop this intolerant anti-Christian bigotry.

Click Here to Send Your Letter Now!
Very important! Please forward this to your family and friends. They need to be aware of this anti-Christian bigotry.

Thanks for caring enough to get involved.

Sincerely,

Don

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

Our Response

Hi Keith:

The only problem with your letter is that it is based upon lies, as is this whole phony Fox News generated "War on Christmas." Silent Night was sung at Ridgeway, and the school never re-wrote it--rather they were performing a play called The Little Tree’s Christmas Gift.

Please check out these links to get your facts straight. You owe the school's hardworking principal an apology!!!

Channel 3 local news report.

Silent Night Fraud

Rather than generating a phony and divisive campaign that is based upon lies and half-truths, I would ask you and all other Christians to join us in opposing the immoral cuts to Federal programs that help the poor. I am attaching a couple of e-mails for this purpose.

Have a very Merry Christmas!

Yours in Christ,

Wisconsin Christian Alliance for Progress

Attachment 1
Dear Faithful,

We have one last chance to reject this immoral budget. Call your representative now at 1-800-426-8073!

As the world waits for Christmas, poor families are still waiting for a compassionate Congress.

First, the bad news: This morning, the Senate passed a budget hurting low-income families just four days before Christmas. Now the good news: Because of your prophetic voices, the vote was so narrow that Vice President Cheney was forced to cut short a diplomatic trip to the Middle East to break a 50-50 tie. (Civics class flashback: He's the president of the Senate.) More importantly, your voices helped remove some harmful provisions of the bill, changes that will force the members of the House to fly back to Washington to vote on the amended bill.

Bottom line: Because of our hard work, we have one last chance to reject these harmful cuts to children and families struggling to work themselves out of poverty.

Call your representative now at 1-800-426-8073!

After you connect to your representative's office, tell the staffer you reach:
As a person of faith from [your state], I ask you to please vote "no" on the new budget bill that the Senate passed. Before you go home for the holidays, don't take away health care for low-income children and crucial work support for families trying to work themselves out of poverty.
Background

This morning, the Senate approved the budget reconciliation conference report. Vice President Cheney, president of the Senate, cut short a diplomatic trip to the Middle East to break the 50-50 tie. All Democrats and Independent Jim Jeffords (Vt.) opposed the bill, as well as five Republicans: Chafee (R.I.), Smith (Ore.), Collins (Maine), Snowe (Maine), and DeWine (Ohio).

But, just prior to the vote, the Senate removed several provisions from the conference report that the House had passed at 6 a.m. Monday (212-206). Therefore, the House must now approve the Senate's version and could vote as early as Thursday or Friday, or as late as January or February.
What does this mean? We get another chance in the House. We must appeal TODAY to congressional hearts and minds, asking legislators to oppose a budget that hurts the poor. Call your representative now at 1-800-426-8073.

Many in the religious community cannot believe that leaders could pass a federal budget cutting health care, child support, and educational assistance to low-income families while further lowering taxes for the wealthiest Americans and increasing the deficit for our grandchildren. Making this decision just before Christmas does not proclaim goodwill toward all. Although the faith community played a strong role in preventing food stamps from being cut in this budget, we cannot ignore the many other cuts that could become a reality for many of the 36 million people living in poverty in the U.S. Despite clear messages from people of faith that the poor families and children with whom we work need better policies and support, our political leadership is missing the meaning of Christmas. Instead of filling the hungry with good things and sending the rich away empty, this budget process will only fill the rich with good things and send the hungry away empty.

Bipartisan efforts to prevent severe budget cuts continue to provide hope. Congressional leadership may cast today's slight change to the budget bill as a way to delay the inevitable. That is not the case, and your voice can continue to have an impact. Please keep doing the great work you have been doing all year!
Make sure your member of Congress knows you are still watching and praying. Call your representative now at 1-800-426-8073 and ask the your to oppose the budget reconciliation bill.

Peace,

The political and organizing staff at Sojourners and Call to Renewal

Attachment 2

ELCA NEWS SERVICE
December 21, 2005

ELCA Presiding Bishop's Statement on Passage of Budget Reconciliation Bill


The Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, released this statement today following U.S. Senate passage of the budget reconciliation bill:

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's (ELCA) steadfast opposition to the budget reconciliation process has had a direct impact in the U.S. Congress. Countless people of faith, including myself and all 65 ELCA synod bishops, spoke out against the process, which threatened cuts to food stamps, Medicaid, student loans, and other programs that help people living in poverty throughout the United States. We were appalled that these cuts were proposed in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans, and that the deficit would actually increase, contrary to the stated purpose of the reconciliation process. As people of faith, we found tax cuts for the rich paid for by slashing safety net programs to be immoral.

Our voices of opposition were heard, and have provided a tangible sign that the Church is living out the Gospel of Jesus Christ and "proclaiming the greatness of the Lord" in our own day. Though some spending cuts ultimately passed in the Senate, food stamp cuts were eliminated from the final version. For this, we give thanks to the ELCA leaders and members who spoke out, including the ELCA Conference of Bishops, and all Lutherans who have called and written to members of Congress. We also give thanks for the broad ecumenical partnership among Christians working together from the shared scriptural values of justice, compassion, mercy and hospitality. And finally, we give thanks for those members of Congress who heard our cry on behalf of the poor and who voted against this process, in some cases under great pressure and at great political risk. We thank them for their courage and compassion, while we continue to pray for all public officials.

Despite the food stamp victory, the remaining cuts - including cuts to Medicare, child support enforcement, and student loans - are devastating to the "least among us." In the current version, people living in poverty across the United States will see shrinking Medicaid benefits coupled with increased out-of-pocket costs many will be unable to afford. Less money spent on child support enforcement means less child support money going to the children who need it. And cuts to student loans will prevent many from breaking the cycle of poverty through the pursuit of higher education.

The budget reconciliation measure needs to be reconsidered by the House of Representatives due to a substantive change made by the Senate. It is unclear when this action will occur in the House of Representatives.

The 2006 budget process is not over, and the 2007 budget process will begin soon.
The deficit increase resulting from the budget/tax reconciliation process will create more pressure in next year's budget to make more cuts in spending for safety net programs. As people of faith, we will continue to fight for an honest and moral budget in 2006, 2007 and beyond.

The Rev. Mark S. Hanson
Presiding Bishop
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America


So far, I have had no reply.

Many of those Purple Fingers in the Iraq Election Appear to be Giving the US the Bird

Many of those purple fingers in the Iraq Election Appear to have been giving the US the Bird or the Iraqi equivalent. Initial results in the recent Iraq elections indicate that the Iraqi government will be led by religious Shiite Muslims with close ties to Iran. But, beyond this, the most striking features of the election appears to be the total rejection of candidates supported by the US and the strength of religious parties. As the LA Times reports, the
Iraq Election Results Will Pose New Challenges for U.S. Policy. For example, it was clear that the US would have liked to see a strong performance by Mr. Allawi or Ahmad Chalabi. But it is equally clear that neither has much popular support inside Iraq.Tyler Marshall and Borzou Daragahi write as follows:

In Iraq, U.S. officials will have to intensify their efforts to contain ethnic and sectarian divisions that have deepened over the last year and, if allowed to fester, could push the country toward civil war. And as initial results indicate that the Iraqi government will be led by Shiite Muslims with ties to Iran, U.S. officials also may face pressure to establish their own direct working relationship with Tehran. Both tasks could prove crucial if the administration is to achieve its oft-stated goal of creating a stable, unified, democratic and peaceful country...
Allawi's Iraqi National List appears to have won only 21 seats, claiming 8% of the popular vote tallied so far, whereas the religious Shiite-based United Iraqi Alliance has apparently garnered 110 seats with an estimated 44% of the vote. Allawi and other groups are expected to pick up more seats in the 275-member parliament once expatriate votes are tallied.

A secular alliance headed by controversial Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi, a onetime Pentagon favorite to lead Iraq, scored less than 0.5% of the vote — not enough to win a seat...The tension among Iraq's various groups was underscored Tuesday as rival parties traded accusations of vote fraud. The main Sunni Muslim Arab coalition, the National Accordance Front, alleged "flagrant forgery" in the Baghdad electoral district.

"Falsifying the will of the voters in such flagrant way will have serious reflections upon security and political stabilization, and will put the future of the political process in the wind," the group said in a statement.

"We reject these results," Adnan Dulaimi, a leader of the Sunni bloc, said before calling for a rerun of the Baghdad elections.

Allawi's supporters, meanwhile, accused religious Shiites of ballot-rigging and intimidation. Ibrahim Janabi, an Allawi deputy, said armed and masked men roamed the capital's Sadr City district on election day and threatened to kill anyone who voted for Allawi's bloc.

Conservative Court Questions Credibility & Abuse of Power by Bush Administration in Padilla Case

The central theme of the Bush Administration has been that it is the US government most prone to abuse of power of any in recent history. The abuse of the legitimate intelligence resulted in dishonest cherry-picking by pro-invasion neo-con hacks in the Pentagon and VP's office; there were the torture memos, the most corrupt application of American law since the Japanese internment camps; the secret corporate energy plan and the cover-up afterward; the outing of an undercover CIA agent--the list goes on and on. And it's time to add the Jose Padilla case to that growing list.

Yesterday,the very conservative 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, led by Judge Michael Luttig, a conservative who has been a possible Bush Supreme Court pick, chided the Administration for its handling of Mr, Padilla. As Stephen Kaus notes in Huffington Post:"The fourteen-page opinion makes a number of charges against the Administration. Fundamentally, it accuses the government of changing its version of the facts to suit its purposes and improperly seeking to avoid Supreme Court consideration of whether the President has the power to declare a U.S. citizen an "enemy combatant." The Court also castigates the government for at least creating the appearance that there really was not such a great need to hold Padilla as an enemy combatant and that the charges that he had entered the country might not be true...While it is couched in somewhat legalistic language, the opinion basically says that a citizen would conclude that the government is lying by changing the facts. For three and one half years, the opinion states, the government held Padilla militarily, "steadfastly maintaining that it was imperative in the interest of national security." Then, all of a sudden, the need for military custody was gone and it was fine for Padilla to be in civilian court, with lawyer and all.

"Absent explanation," Judge Luttig wrote, "our authorization of Padilla's transfer under the circumstances described and while the case is awaiting imminent consideration by the Supreme Court would serve only to compound the appearance to which the government's actions, even if wholly legitimate, have inescapably given rise.""

AP c/o Yahoo News fills in the story:Appeals Court Refuses to Transfer Padilla The decision, written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, questioned why the administration used one set of facts before the court for 3 1/2 years to justify holding Padilla without charges but used another set to convince a grand jury in Florida to indict him last month.

Luttig said the administration has risked its "credibility before the courts" by appearing to try to keep the Supreme Court from reviewing the extent of the president's power to hold enemy combatants without charges.

Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, was arrested in 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare Airport as he returned to the United States from Afghanistan. Initially, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft alleged Padilla planned to set off a radiological device known as a "dirty bomb."

The administration argued before federal courts in New York and Virginia that Padilla should be held without charges because he had come home to carry out an al-Qaida backed plot to blow up apartment buildings in New York, Washington or Florida.

Last month, a grand jury in Miami charged Padilla with being part of a North American terror support cell that allegedly raised funds and recruited fighters to wage violent jihad outside the United States.

Administration lawyers immediately asked the appeals court to transfer Padilla from a U.S. military brig in South Carolina to the custody of law enforcement authorities in Miami.

Luttig said the Supreme Court must sort out Padilla's fate, either by accepting or rejecting an appeal by his lawyers of the appellate court's decision in September that the president has the authority to order his detention indefinitely.

Tasia Scolinos, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the agency is disappointed by the appellate court's decision. She said the government should be able to charge suspected terrorists with crimes, as well as hold them indefinitely as enemy combatants.

Not The America I Know and Love: FISA Judge Resigns in Protest

The Sound of Music was on the tube this weekend and (as I was on a holiday weekend with the kids) I had little choice but to watch it. Much to my surprise, there is a great scene where the Nazi officer and his gang catch the Von Trapps trying to sneak out of Austria. The Nazi official confronts them, "But haven't you been ordered to Berlin to take up a Commmission with the Third Reich?" Mr. Von Trapp is outraged, "I thought the contents of telegram cables in Austria was a private mattter...At least in the Austria I know and love." The Nazi just sniffs, forced to concede the point.

Perhaps it was something like this which led a FISA court judge to this WA Po headline: Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest. Perhaps he didn't recognize the America of George Bush as the country he knew and loved? There will always be a large number of people, perhaps even a majority, who do not believe privacy and legal procedure are important. But one of the whole points of the Bill of Rights was to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. That's why people like U.S. District Judge James Robertson are so important.

A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Robertson, who was appointed to the federal bench in Washington by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday.

Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.

Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.

Hagel and Snowe joined Democrats Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate judiciary and intelligence panels into the classified program.

The hearings would occur at the start of a midterm election year during which the prosecution of the Iraq war could figure prominently in House and Senate races.

Not all Republicans agreed with the need for hearings and backed White House assertions that the program is a vital tool in the war against al Qaeda.

The Imperial Presidency Redux

Some people in the bricks and mortar media are starting to get it. Witness this great piece,Imperial Assumptions by Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post.

It seems that the Imperial Presidency has been restored. The nation's highest office was cut down to constitutional size three decades ago, when Richard Nixon helicoptered out of town, but listening to George W. Bush in his latest come-out-swinging media blitz has been like an audience with an impatient monarch whose ungrateful subjects won't just shut up and do as he says.

On Saturday, he was wrathful. How dare someone reveal that for years his administration has been eavesdropping on the phone calls and e-mails of American citizens? How dare the New York Times publish its story about the illegal surveillance? Investigations would be convened, he warned, and the leakers could be outed...At his news conference yesterday, he took advantage of the sovereign's divine right to rewrite history. Clearly outraged at the Senate's recalcitrance on the USA Patriot Act, the president issued a challenge: "These senators need to explain why they thought the Patriot Act was a vital tool after the September the 11th attacks but now think it's no longer necessary." The president conveniently forgot to mention that Congress originally set a "sunset" date for the act to expire precisely because members were so deeply concerned about the extent to which it compromised our liberties.

He also sought to explain why he believes he has the right to order the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans without first getting a warrant. He cited Article II of the Constitution, which of course doesn't mention telephones or the Internet. When it's convenient, the president recognizes that "strict constructionism" has its limits.

None of this is really unexpected from a president whose apparent goal from the beginning has been to reinflate the presidency and unshackle it from those inconvenient restraints that Congress or the courts might seek to impose.

Think about the powers this White House has asserted: to detain terrorist suspects indefinitely, without charges or due process. To kidnap suspects and hold them in secret CIA-run prisons, with no acknowledgment that the suspect is even in U.S. custody. To inflict on these prisoners inhumane and degrading treatment that amounts to torture.

And now the president claims the unilateral right to tap your phone and mine whenever he wants. Never mind that there is a legally established procedure to obtain warrants for such domestic surveillance; never mind that this lawful process is conducted quickly and in total secrecy. The imperial president does not bow to lowly courts. He just does what he believes he needs to do.

The Emperor Has No Legal Argument: Sen. Boxer Raises Impeachment

Sen. Boxer has raised the question of whether President Bush has admitted to an impeachable offense. As Raw Story reports, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean’s statement that President Bush admitted to an “impeachable offense” when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.Boxer said, “I take very seriously Mr. Dean’s comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future.”

Is this an extreme reaction? Imagine a corporate CEO being asked about a questionable legal strategy--he just smiles and says "Well, we did it because we needed to--" A reporter persists: "But under what legal authority?" "Don't ask me, I'm not a lawyer," the CEO smirks. How long would such a person last?

But that's exactly the response both President Bush and former National Security Advisor Condi Rice have given over the past couple of days. Bush told Jim Lehrer he was no lawyer last week. And here's Rice on Sunday as quoted by CNN: "I'm not a lawyer, but the president has gone to great lengths to make certain that he is both living under his obligations to protect Americans from another attack but also to protect their civil liberties," Rice said on "Meet The Press." That's not an argument, that's just empty rhetoric. It was her job to know and evaluate the legal arguments. The buck should stop with either Ms. Rice or the President.

What about President Bush? He has offered no legitimate argument. As ABC News reports, Sen. Russ Feingold believes President Bush is acting more like a sovereign monarch than an elected leader by authorizing the National Security Agency to listen in on Americans' phone calls. "We have a system of law," Feingold said. "He just can't make up the law … It would turn George Bush not into President George Bush, but King George Bush."

Even conservative columnist David Brooks, speaking on tonight's Lehrer News Hour said conservatives will find it hard to find a legal argument in the President's rambling and sometimes angry news conference. Brooks said there may have been reasons to seek changes in the law, "But should they have tried to change the procedure as opposed to just doing it surreptitiously, yes. Why didn't they try to do that -- no good answer from the president this morning."

That is likely because the legal case is a very hard one for the President to make, as Prof. David Cole argues in this excellent Salon piece, "Bush's illegal spying." It is well-settled law that even wartime Presidents do not have unfettered power. They are still subject to checks and balances, as Pres. Truman learned in the famous steel seizure case. In that case, as Cole cites: Justice Jackson noted, "The Constitution did not contemplate that the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy will constitute him also Commander in Chief of the country, its industries, and its inhabitants..." (And)where the president acts in defiance of "the expressed or implied will of Congress," Justice Jackson maintained, his power is "at its lowest ebb," and his actions can be sustained only if Congress has no authority to regulate the subject at all..."

Clearly that is not the case with domestic spying by the NSA. As Prof Cole writes, "In FISA, Congress expressly addressed the subject of warrantless wiretaps during wartime, and limited them to the first 15 days after war is declared. Congress then went further and made it a crime, punishable by up to five years in jail, to conduct a wiretap without statutory authorization." Prof Cole concludes, "The president acted in clear contravention of a criminal law enacted by Congress, and a Supreme Court precedent, both directly on point. Bush acted, in other words, as if there are no checks and balances in the American system of government. Some things changed drastically after 9/11, but we cannot allow that to be one of them."

The Emperor simply has no legal argument.

Responding to President Bush

President Bush was speaking to many of us tonight when he said:
"I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt," Bush said. "I do not expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom."

With all due respect Mr. President, why should I believe you that this is now a fight for freedom? You told us over and over before that it was about weapons of mass destruction and you ignored the whole world that told you to slow down to make sure. You lied with no regret when you said that the UN inspections hadn't worked--when they had worked and had eliminated the threat you trumped up beyond credibility, beyond any fair analysis of the facts. You preyed on the nation's fear after 9/11--in a shameless way that will cause history to judge you forever harshly. You have also blurred the line between countries that torture and those that follow the rule of law, including international law. Your negligence has meant that the words "Abu Ghraib" will be more associated with America than Saddam.

And it is neither "despair" nor a "desire to give up" that shapes my view of your failed leadership. It is that you lied about why we went to war and that half a trillion dollars and thousands of lives will have been spent for reasons that don't hold up. It is your lack of recognition of what you have wrought, some sense of the magnitude of your miscalculation or deception, and the knowledge that we will likely eventually turn Iraq over to people who will hate us even more than they did before the war. It is the near certainty that you will have helped Iran more than the West, and more than our other allies in the region. That the end result of all of this leaves the world a more dangerous place. That does bring real sorrow, a sorrow that is beyond the reach of your platitudes and tattered credibility.

The Times: It Is A-Changing---Sat on NSA Domestic Spying Scandal

My wife and I have been long-time subscribers and readers of the New York Times. But the Times it is a changing in ways that make it less and less the true paper of record. (I only wish I could get the LA Times out here in the Midwest.) First, there was the Judy Miller phony WMD stories and taking a dive for the old Bush team on the CIA leak scandal. Then they made people start paying for Paul Krugman's column. Now we hear that the Times sat on the potentially explosive story of Bush authorizing what may be illegal wiretaps. Tim Grieve at Salon brings us up to date. The president's plan for spying on Americans

As the Bush administration was paying lip service to the rule of law Thursday, the New York Times was preparing to publish an extraordinary report on how the Bush administration has been eavesdropping on the telephone conversations and reading the e-mail messages of hundreds or even thousands of Americans without first obtaining warrants.

The secret spying began not long after 2002, the Times says, when Bush signed an order purporting to authorize it. Under Bush's order, the National Security Agency has been running a "special collection operation" in which it listens in on international phone calls and reads international e-mail messages that originate in the United States.

As the Times explains, the NSA's rules previously allowed the agency to intercept phone calls and e-mail messages transmitted within or between foreign countries. If calls and e-mails originated in the United States, the government generally could monitor them only if it obtained a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court first. And it was the FBI, not the NSA, that usually sought such warrants. The Bush plan was a "sea change," a former senior official with expertise in the area tells the Times. It may also be illegal. Some officials familiar with the Bush program believe that it is "unlawful and possibly unconstitutional," the Times says.

The administration's justification? The attacks of 9/11 were really bad, the United States needs more information about possible terrorists, and John Yoo said we could do it.

Yoo is the former Justice Department lawyer who wrote memorandums in which he opined that the president has virtually limitless power in a time of war and that an interrogation technique would have to cause suffering akin to that caused by a major organ failure before it could be considered torture under U.S. law. The Times says Yoo had a hand in writing memos justifying the secret spying program as well.

Yoo is teaching at UC-Berkeley now. But perhaps the White House can lure him back for a return engagement at Justice, where he can interpret away the words in McCain's torture ban and the PATRIOT Act when the Bush administration decides that it wants to ignore them.

-- Tim Grieve

Quote of the Week: Orhan Pamuk

As tomorrow’s novelists prepare to narrate the private lives of the new élites, they are no doubt expecting the West to criticize the limits that their states place on freedom of expression. But these days the lies about the war in Iraq and the reports of secret C.I.A. prisons have so damaged the West’s credibility in Turkey and in other nations that it is more and more difficult for people like me to make the case for true Western democracy in my part of the world.

Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk, who is facing charges for "anti-Turkish" statements, writing in this week's New Yorker.

Religious Leaders Arrested--Can't You at Least Call?

Jim Wallis being arrested--photo care of Sojourners.

Message below care of the Coalition on Human Needs:

Yesterday it was my honor to stand, kneel, and sit with more than 110 splendid people of conscience and faith who were arrested in front of Congress while speaking against the shameful budget cuts our elected officials are considering.

This civil disobedience action was beautifully organized by Call to Renewal and further publicized by the Emergency Campaign for America's Priorities. The press and some members of Congress took notice.

But to be really effective I need to take one more step - I'm going to call my Senators and Representative.

I'm asking you to call your Senators and Representative too - even though you're tired of these emails, and tired of calling. Your calls are needed to make sure that Congress knows that concern about cuts is not limited to a few people blocking the doors of a House office building. These cuts slash health care, nutrition aid, child support, aid to people with disabilities, student loans, and services for abused and neglected children -- and they are the concern of millions of Americans.

Our calls and events have made it harder for Congress to cement a deal on budget cuts. But if they think you're forgetting about it, low-income people are in trouble. So please call using the information below.

Debbie Weinstein
Executive Director,
Coalition on Human Needs

Use the toll-free number: 800-426-8073 (Thanks to AFSC for providing this number!)
We've changed the message slightly:

"My name is ___________ and I live in (your town/city).

- I would like Representative/Senator [name] to vote NO on the final version of the budget cuts (the deal between the House and Senate bills - H.R.4241 and S.1932 ) .

- Do not allow billions in cuts to vital services for vulnerable people, including Medicaid, SSI, foster care, Food Stamps, student loans, and child support. These cuts are the wrong priorities.

- In addition, I'm calling on Representative/Senator [name] to oppose the proposed across-the-board cut that would mean one in thirty needy children and families will be denied services in 2006."
_________________________________________


The Latest Threat: Many right-wing members of Congress think this budget bill does not cut enough! They plan on introducing "across-the-board" cuts to all programs, including services for families with children and low-income people. This highlights how wrong their priorities are and why we need to call NOW.

The toll-free number is provided courtesy of the American Friends Service Committee which has launched a budget campaign, www.saveourservices.org. AFSC welcomes groups to circulate and use the toll-free number in support of the non-partisan budget goals towards which CHN always works and without linking the alert to a website soliciting donations or actions which may be used to support partisan lobbying or work.

No "Good News for the Poor" from GOP House Leaders

Earlier this month, the U.S. House passed a so-called budget-cutting measure that would directly transfer $50 billion from the poor to the rich by cutting taxes for the wealthy and food stamps for the hungry. The bill also imposes new fees on Medicaid recipients (fees that many won't be able to afford), squeezes student loan eligibility, and cuts child-support enforcement funds. House negotiators are trying to reach agreement with the U.S. Senate, which passed a slightly better $35 billion budget cut that spares some programs for the poor. This was a National Week of Prayer and Action that included many local events to protest the pending cuts in essential programs that serve those at the lower end of the income scale. In Washington, more than 100 religious leaders were arrested as they sought to draw attention to this bad news for the poor.

On Wednesday a group of about 20 of us, led by Madison Area Urban Ministry, gathered in snowy Madison outside the Dane County Jobs Center. We were a very diverse group—racially, religiously and in terms of our personal economic circumstances- but we were united in our belief in the power of prayer and our effort to bring good news to the poor. After we had heard the prayers and thoughts of numerous church leaders (including FP speaking for the Wisconsin Christian Alliance for Progress), we had an extended conversation with a job-seeker named Christopher who came to ask us what we were doing there.

Christopher had been released from prison just two weeks ago, and he had been unable to find a job or a suitable place to live. He was literally living on the street and had already run through his allotment of food stamps and had been cut off--he was hungry and a little desperate, but he was greeted warmly by MUM staff who promised to get him set up with a place to live to make it through the harsh Wisconsin winter. What was striking was the sense that we should be increasing are currently inadequate services to the poor, but that instead the Republican leaders in the Congress are hell-bent on cutting them instead--just in time for winter and the holiday season.

Man, even Scrooge didn't actually steal from the poor during the holidays! Jesus said he came to bring "good news to the poor," and they need this more than ever given the bad news brought to them by Speaker Hastert and the GOP House.

War in Iraq Aids Holocaust-Denying Iranian Regime

Yesterday we wrote about the single biggest unreported story of the past year--the growing influence of Iran over Iraq. Today there are reports of truck loads of fake ballots seized at the Iranian border. The reaction of many on the right is utter denial of the influence of Iran; on the left one encounters mostly indifference. Why should it matter that the Iraq war has helped regional superpower Iran's strategic influence more than those of the allied west?

First off, it's an idiotic waste of lives and money--it's the primary reason an Israeli military historian called this war the dumbest in the past 2000 years; secondly, Iran is truly a threat to regional security. Anyone who has read Richard Clarke's book should remember how the Clinton Administration forcefully let Iran know that it would not tolerate Iranian aggression. But the Bush team openly embraces Iranian spies like Chalabi. Finally, there's this new reason to fear Iran: the extremist new President. Iran Leader Escalates Holocaust Rhetoric:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad escalated his anti-Israeli rhetoric Wednesday, calling the Holocaust a "myth" used by Europeans to create a Jewish state in the heart of the Islamic world.

"Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets," Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in the southeastern city of Zahedan.

His remarks drew swift condemnation from Israel, Germany and the European Commission. Germany said the remarks would affect upcoming negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.

Ahmadinejad last week questioned whether the Nazi destruction of 6 million European Jews during World War II occurred and said Israel should be moved to Europe. He also provoked an international outcry in October when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

But Wednesday was the first time he publicly denied the Holocaust. Touring southeast Iran, Ahmadinejad said that if Europeans insist the Holocaust happened, then they are responsible and should pay the price.

"If you committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?" Ahmadinejad asked rhetorically.

"This is our proposal: if you committed the crime, then give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country," he said, developing a theme he raised in Saudi Arabia last week.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier called the remarks "shocking and unacceptable." He said the German government had summoned the Iranian charge d'affaires to make "unmistakably clear" its displeasure.

"I cannot hide the fact that this weighs on bilateral relations and on the chances for the negotiation process, the so-called nuclear dossier," Steinmeier said, referring to European talks with Iran on its nuclear program.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said: "The repeated outrageous remarks of the Iranian president show clearly the mind-set of the ruling clique in Tehran and indicate clearly the extremist policy goals of the regime.

"The combination of fanatical ideology, a warped sense of reality and nuclear weapons is a combination that no one in the international community can accept," Regev added, referring to allegations that Iran is developing nuclear bombs.

In Brussels, Belgium, European Commission spokeswoman Emma Udwin said the president's comments were "completely unacceptable."

"We feel very strongly that Iran is damaging its own interests with these kind of remarks," she said.

Ahmadinejad said the West had harmed Muslims, invaded their countries and plundered their wealth.

"If your civilization consists of aggression, making oppressed people homeless, suffocating the voices of justice and bringing poverty to a majority of the world's people, we say loudly that we hate your hollow civilization," he said.

Ahmadinejad has been unapologetic about taking Iran on a more openly defiant course, insisting on Iran's right to develop its nuclear program — which it insists is peaceful — and often using rhetoric reminiscent of the 1980s heyday of the Islamic Revolution.

The president's views sharply conflict with those of predecessor Mohammad Khatami, a moderate who used to call for dialogue among civilizations and promoted a low-key understanding with the United States that stopped short of diplomatic relations.

Call Congress to Influence Budget cuts

According to the weather service, we will get 3 to 7 inches of snow today in Madison. Still, a hardy group of us is planning to stand outside the local Job Service Center (on Aberg Avenue) to try to be a part of the national campaign to achieve a more just federal budget. Our work over the past year towards a moral federal budget comes down to this week--Congress is trying to come up with a final deal to cut services. Details below.

Call Your U.S. Representative And Senators Toll-Free This Week:
800-426-8073

Your voice is needed to say NO to cuts that hurt millions of people in need. Even if you're tired of calling, please pick up that phone. Silence may get these results:

255,000 people cut off from Food Stamps -- including working families with children and immigrants who have been working legally in the U.S. for years.
Health care more expensive for 17 million to 27 million low-income people due to cuts in Medicaid, and 70,000 to 110,000 cut off entirely because they cannot afford the higher premiums they would be forced to pay.
330,000 fewer low-income children will get child care help in 2010 than now .
Child support payments 40 percent lower because enforcement of payment orders would be scaled back.
It is simply wrong to hurt vulnerable people while handing tens of billions in tax breaks that favor the well-heeled.
Millions of people are depending on you to call -- and it only takes a minute:
Use the toll-free number to reach the Capitol switchboard. After you are connected with a staff person at the office of your Representative or Senator, tell them:

"My name is _______________ and I live in (your town/city). I would like Representative/Senator [name] to vote NO on the final version of the budget cuts (the deal between the House and Senate bills - H.R.4241 and S.1932 ) . Do not allow billions in cuts to vital services for vulnerable people, including Medicaid, SSI, foster care, Food Stamps, and child support. These cuts are the wrong priorities. I also would like the Representative/Senator to announce to constituents that he/she opposes this bill."

Making Sure You Get Through To Your Members' Offices
If you can't get through on that line, please call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Attend An Event In Your Area To Highlight Opposition To Cuts In Services
All over the country, state and local organizations are planning press conferences, Congressional district office visits, vigils and other activities to express opposition to the cuts in human needs programs that are being made to pay towards tax breaks for millionaires. To find an event in your area, click here:

The toll-free number is provided courtesy of the American Friends Service Committee which has launched a budget campaign, www.saveourservices.org. AFSC welcomes groups to circulate and use the toll-free number in support of the non-partisan budget goals towards which CHN always works and without linking the alert to a website soliciting donations or actions which may be used to support partisan lobbying or work.

Meanwhile Back in Reality: Iranian Influence Over Iraq Government Grows

President Bush has been giving a series of speeches highlighting his spin on the glories of the new Iraq. Meanwhile back in reality, Knight Ridder offers this piece highlighting the great unspoken truth of this war: we fought a war that helped our most threatening regional adversary's interests far more than our own. Iran gaining influence, power in Iraq through militia:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iranian-backed militia the Badr Organization has taken over many of the Iraqi Interior Ministry's intelligence activities and infiltrated its elite commando units, U.S. and Iraqi officials said. That's enabled the Shiite Muslim militia to use Interior Ministry vehicles and equipment - much of it bought with American money - to carry out revenge attacks against the minority Sunni Muslims, who persecuted the Shiites under Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein, current and former Ministry of Interior employees told Knight Ridder.

The officials, some of whom agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity for fear of violent reprisals, said the Interior Ministry had become what amounted to an Iranian fifth column inside the U.S.-backed Iraqi government, running death squads and operating a network of secret prisons. The militia's secret activities threaten to derail U.S.-backed efforts to persuade Sunnis to abandon the violent insurgency and join Shiites and Kurds in Iraq's fledgling political process. And by supporting Badr and other Shiite groups, Iran - a member of President Bush's "axis of evil" that sponsors international terrorism, is thought to be seeking nuclear weapons and calls for the destruction of Israel - has used the American-led invasion to gain influence in Iraq.

"They're putting millions of dollars into the south to influence the elections ... it's funded primarily through their charity organizations and also Badr and some of these political parties," said Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. general in Iraq. "A lot of their guys (Badr) are going into the police and military."


Current and former ministry officials said the American military hadn't interfered with Badr's infiltration of the ministry, either because U.S. officials weren't fully aware of what was happening or because they didn't want to risk arresting militia leaders who had powerful political positions and tens of thousands of followers. Interior Ministry and Badr officials have denied any involvement in the prisons or death squads, but Gen. Muntadhar Muhi al-Samaraee, a former head of special forces at the Interior Ministry, said the prisons were run by Badr operatives. "All prisons in the south and most of those in Baghdad are run by the Badr militia," al-Samaraee, a Sunni, said in an interview in Amman, Jordan. Al-Samaraee said he left the country for medical treatment and decided not to return because of death threats. He's denied Interior Ministry accusations that he fled to Jordan after stealing a car.


Badr's leader, Hadi al-Amari, has denied maintaining ties to Iran, but in a fit of anger during a recent interview with Knight Ridder he admitted as much while striking out against U.S.-backed secular Shiite politician Ayad Allawi.

"Allawi receives money from America, from the CIA, but nobody talks about that. All they talk about is our funding from Iran," he said, raising his voice. "We are funded by some (Persian) Gulf countries and the Islamic Republic of Iran. We don't hide it."

Badr was formed and trained in Iran in cooperation with the Iranian government, and its members staged raids into Iraq during the war between the neighboring countries in the 1980s.

Republicans in Congress: "Arrogance, greed and complacency" Put Off Voters

This article from today's Washington Post by Fred Hiatt points out the historic opportunity Democrats have to take advantage of the public's disgust with the Republican leaders of the Congress and to forge a clear alternative. Under the new and improved Democratic leadership of Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi, Democrats have been speaking more clearly and with more unity. Democrats need to stick together and throw the arrogant, greedy and complacent bums out!

Chinks in the Republican Armor

Today it is conceivable, though by no means assured, that Democrats' vote total in 2006 could grow, and Republicans' shrink, by enough to shift control of the House or Senate. Even a whiff of such uncertainty may prompt donors to hedge their bets.

It may seem obvious, but the distinction between what the Republicans have created and a government truly impervious to public sentiment is worth noting. After all, there are regimes -- in Russia, for example -- that so pervert the forms of democracy that they insulate themselves from changes in public sentiment, unless those are drastic or somehow expressed outside the law. That's not where we are. A healthy dose of cynicism about the goings-on here is appropriate; an overdose of cynicism is not.

This doesn't mean the analysis of Republican ambitions was wrong. Much of it was right, and much of what the Republicans have done -- their Texas redistricting, for example -- merits all the contempt that it has engendered, and more.

Norman J. Ornstein, an expert on Congress at the American Enterprise Institute, says that a shift in public sentiment comparable to the one that swept Republicans into the House majority in 1994, with a gain of more than 50 seats, would produce a shift of only 20 or so seats for Democrats today. That would be enough to unhorse the Republicans, but barely. And that's in large part because Republicans have given themselves larger cushions in nominally competitive districts, he says. So the House, which was designed to be most responsive to public opinion, may now be less responsive than the Senate.

"There's no such thing as a perfect machine," he said. "But they have built in a lot of advantages, and Texas may have made the difference."

But the imperfections are increasingly visible. Some are internal: the arrogance, greed and complacency that swell with time in office, and the disparate interests of supporters that become harder to paper over. Drug companies, seniors' lobbies and chambers of commerce may all support you, but they also may have different ideas of the proper design and cost of a Medicare drug benefit. The result may make no one happy.

There are external stresses, too. Unlike in Russia, it turns out that prosecutors and judges can't be controlled, no matter who appoints them: just ask DeLay, Jack Abramoff or Scooter Libby. Unlike in Russia, neither can the press. The congressional Republicans' cringing abdication of their branch's traditional oversight role has helped diminish attention to scandal and malfeasance, but it can't erase bad news altogether.

And unlike in many pseudo-democracies, the mechanics of elections, including, not least, the counting, can't be controlled by those in power -- which means that they do need to worry about what voters think.

None of this guarantees that the Democrats will win next year. But it does mean their fate isn't entirely out of their hands; much will depend on them -- on the policies they develop, the candidates they recruit. The machine isn't indestructible.

National Week of Prayer and Action for Compassionate Priorities: December 12-16

Maybe we should call this "the real war on Christmas." Just in time for Christmas and other religious holidays, the Republican leaders of Congress are set to take up yet another bill that makes life harder for the middle class and the poor in this country. Next week the House and Senate will attempt to pass a final version of a bill slashing funding for programs that help the most needy Americans. Before the Thanksgiving recess, both the House and Senate approved their own version of a budget reconciliation bill that cuts funding to mandatory programs. As the Coalition on Human Needs reports:

The Senate bill cuts $35 billion and the House cuts $50 billion.
The difference between those two bills must be ironed out in the next few days. The final bill that emerges from the conference committee will be voted on in each chamber. The reconciliation bill represents the top priority for right-wing members – yet many representatives and senators have voiced concerns over a wide variety of provisions under consideration. It is not yet clear Republican leadership will find enough votes to pass any final bill. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) has threatened to keep the House in session until December 20 or later until the House agrees to the budget cuts. Although right-wing members claim the cuts are necessary to reduce the deficit, any money “saved” from cutting services is being directed to pay for new tax cuts benefiting the wealthy. In fact the coupling of two reconciliation bills – one cutting services and one cutting tax cuts – actually increase the deficit. For more information about the tax cuts, see related article in this issue.

To combat the budget cuts, low-income advocates are planning a National Week of Prayer and Action for Compassionate Priorities for December 12-16. Advocates are being encouraged to call their representatives and senators next week and the Emergency Campaign for America's Priorities is staging more than 90 events across the country. The faith-based organization Sojourners will hold a prayer vigil at the U.S. Capitol on December 14. Dozens of other prayer vigils will be held elsewhere in the country that week.

There are stark differences between the House and Senate versions of the budget-cutting bill – and those differences could trip up negotiators. If Congress is not able to approve the final bill before the end of the year, they could attempt to bring it up again in January. The budget resolution for fiscal year 2006, which Congress approved in the spring and which granted authority for the reconciliation bill, will remain in effect until Congress passes the next budget resolution for fiscal year 2007.

Call Your Senators and Representative and Urge Them To Oppose Both Bills

Once again, the toll-free number 800-426-8073, made available by the American Friends Service Committee, can be used the week of December 12 to reach the Capitol switchboard. From there you can be connected to your Representative. Even if you are not sure who your Representative is, the people at the switchboard can figure it out for you and connect you. Then you can hang up and call back two more times to be directed to both your Senators. For a flier with the information you need to call, click here:

I am going to a local event in Madison this Wednesday at noon. We will be holding some large Christian Alliance for Progress signs that say: Justice, Compassion, Equality. To find an event near you, clivk here.

Rove's Lawyer Deposed in CIA Leak Case

FP has been a lawyer for nearly 20 years and has been involved in 100's of trials and hearings, both criminal and civil. FP has never been deposed in connection with any work on behalf of a client. Karl's Rove's lawyer apparently has just been deposed by Mr. Fitzgerald--a very interesting development indeed.

Patrick Fitzgerald has questions -- for Karl Rove's lawyer by Tim Grieve Salon War Room.

Patrick Fitzgerald has questions -- for Karl Rove's lawyer
As we noted earlier today, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald took the deposition of Time reporter Viveca Novak today. That part we expected. What we didn't expect was something that appears a few paragraphs into a CNN report on the Novak deposition: Last week, CNN says, Fitzgerald deposed Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin.

How odd is that? Very. It's not often that a judge will let one lawyer depose the lawyer for an opposing (or potentially opposing) party, and it's probably even less often that a lawyer would volunteer to undergo such a deposition without a court order requiring it.

So how did Luskin find himself on the receiving end of Fitzgerald's questions? We don't know the answer to that yet. We do know that Luskin told Fitzgerald about his conversations with Novak as part of an eleventh-hour effort to keep his client from being indicted back in October. As the Washington Post noted the other day, it has never been clear why Luskin thinks that his conversations with Novak might help Rove. But if he does -- and he wouldn't have told Fitzgerald about the conversations otherwise -- then maybe he wouldn't mind testifying about them himself.

On the other hand, why would Fitzgerald need Luskin's deposition testimony about his conversations -- rather than his more informal descriptions of them -- unless he thought there might be some kind of disconnect between what Luskin was telling him and what Novak would be telling him today?

We've got a lot more questions than answers on this one for now, but they all lead back to what one legal expert told the Post yesterday: The work Fitzgerald is doing now is, at the very least, a sign that his investigation is still active.

Sec. Rice Condoleezza Rice's "contradictory, misleading and false" Statements on US Torture Policy

Update: Rice Faces NATO Queries on Terror Policy:
Rice has refused to answer directly whether the United States keeps terrorist suspects in detention centers that violate European legal and human rights guarantees. She assured German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday that the United States would work to rectify any mistakes it has made in its war on terror.

Reports of secret prisons have roiled Europe for a month. Rice has asserted that the United States acts within the law and tried to argue that the Europeans are safer because of tough U.S. tactics.Sustained criticism in the media and open skepticism from some European leaders indicate that the issue isn't going away.

Before Rice arrived in Brussels, Europe's leading human rights watchdog group said it hoped to be able to see satellite images of sites in Romania and Poland as part of its investigation into alleged secret CIA prisons and air transport of terrorists in Europe. A top Council of Europe official said the body had been granted permission to look at images in the archives of the European Union's main satellite center, as well as log books held by the EU's air safety organization.

Rene van der Linden, chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, also said America's war on terror was not a real war. There is ... a difference of opinion between Condoleezza Rice and the Council of Europe, because the law of war doesn't exist. We have international conventions. We are fully in favor of fight against terrorism, but we have to be aware that certain cases can not be accepted," van der Linden said.The Strasbourg, France-based Council of Europe is the guardian of the European Convention on Human Rights, a legally binding treaty signed by all 46 council members.

Salon has a great Sidney Blumentahl piece, Condi's trail of lies.

In Britain, the Foreign Office released a diplomatic disclaimer that it has "no evidence to corroborate media allegations about the use of UK territory in rendition operations." But upset members of the House of Commons have launched a parliamentary inquiry into whether the U.K. has violated the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Foreign Minister Jack Straw sent Rice a letter requesting any "clarification the U.S. can give about these reports in the hope that this will allay parliamentary and public concerns."

When the Washington Post reported on the eve of Rice's trip that CIA prisons holding U.S. detainees exist in Romania, Poland and other Eastern European nations, it triggered an explosion. Even though Romania and Poland denied the report, the European Commission and the Council of Europe began investigations. The E.C. declared that for any member state to harbor a CIA prison would be "extremely serious" and bring down sanctions upon it.

In Germany, Rice was greeted by the new chancellor, Angela Merkel, eager to repair relations with the Bush administration made awkward by former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's opposition to the Iraq war. Rice's visit was supposed to smooth over the conflicts of the past, but instead it surfaced new ones that indicated that the divisions between Germany -- and Europe -- and the U.S. are rooted in the Bush administration's fundamental policies.

Rice arrived in Berlin on the heels of a Washington Post report about the rendition, to a secret CIA jail in Afghanistan called the Salt Pit, of a German citizen, Khaled el-Masri, who was tortured and imprisoned for five months in a case of mistaken identity. After meeting with Rice, Merkel announced that Rice had acknowledged that the U.S. had made a "mistake" in the case. But Rice countered with a statement denying she had said that at all. The reconciliation with Germany was botched; Merkel was embarrassed; and Rice's credibility, at least in the German press, was left in tatters.

Rice had hoped to quell the controversy before she landed. On Monday, as she boarded her plane at Andrew Air Force base in Washington, she delivered a lengthy statement on torture. Her speech was remarkable for its defensive, dense and evasive tone. It was replete with half-truths, outright falsehoods, distortions and subterfuges.

Her remarks can never sway or convince any European leader, foreign ministry or intelligence service, which have the means to make their own judgments. In her effort to persuade world opinion and reassure the American public, she raised the debate over torture to greater prominence and virtually invited inspection of her claims.

Rice has made memorable statements in the past. There was her appearance before the 9/11 Commission, in which she had trouble recalling the CIA's Presidential Daily Briefing of Aug. 6, 2001, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US," and dismissed its significance. There were her many assertions about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." There was her attack on Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism chief on the National Security Council, for his disclosure that both she and the president did not regard al-Qaida as an urgent threat before Sept. 11, 2001, as a "scurrilous allegation." But her remarks on torture may turn out to be her most unforgettable full-length speech, tainting her tenure as secretary of state as indelibly as Colin Powell's speech making the case for the Iraq war before the United Nations blotted him.

"Torture is a term that is defined by law," said Rice. "We rely on our law to govern our operations." She neglected to explain that "torture" as she used it has been defined by presidential findings to include universally defined methods of torture, such as waterboarding, for which U.S. soldiers were court-martialed in 1902 and 1968 specifically on the basis of having engaged in torture.

But the Bush administration has rejected adherence to the Geneva Conventions as "quaint," in the term of then White House legal counsel and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; rejects torture as it is defined in the United Nations Convention Against Torture (although the U.S. is a signatory); and rejects torture as it is interpreted by other international expert bodies, including the European Human Rights Court, whose judgments are binding on the nations of the Council of Europe.

"The United States does not permit, tolerate or condone torture under any circumstances," Rice insisted in her statement. "Moreover, in accordance with the policy of this administration: The United States has respected -- and will continue to respect -- the sovereignty of other countries." But was the kidnapping of the Egyptian suspect in Italy that has resulted in the 22 indictments of CIA operatives a fiction? Have the Italian prosecutors been made aware that the event was a figment of their imaginations? Was holding el-Masri, the innocent German, not a violation of the sovereignty of another country? .....

Rice presented as the administration's position precisely the position it opposes: "Detainees may only be held for an extended period if the intelligence or other evidence against them has been carefully evaluated and supports a determination that detention is lawful. The U.S. does not seek to hold anyone for a period beyond what is necessary to evaluate the intelligence or other evidence against them, prevent further acts of terrorism, or hold them for legal proceedings." But the Bush administration has refused to place detainees within the criminal justice system. Instead, they have been kept in a legal limbo, denied the protections of both the U.S. justice system and the Geneva Conventions. The administration has hid "ghost detainees" from the International Red Cross. If the suspects are criminals, they have not been tried as criminals.

Rice cited two cases to make her point: Carlos the Jackal, the international terrorist captured in Sudan in 1994, and Ramzi Youssef, the 1993 World Trade Center bomber. But, unlike current detainees, both were put on public trial, Carlos in France, Youssef in the United States. And the European Commission on Human Rights issued a report that Carlos' rights were not violated. Both cases refuted in their particulars the larger argument Rice was making.

One case Rice did not cite was that of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a captured al-Qaida operative, whose claims about Saddam Hussein's possession of WMD were used by the administration to build the case for the Iraq war. "We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases," President Bush said on Oct. 7, 2002, drawing on al-Libi's information. Al-Libi also provided the basis for a dramatic high point of Secretary of State Powell's U.N. speech: "the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaeda. Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story. I will relate to you now, as he himself, described it." But al-Libi had been tortured and repeated to his interrogators what they had suggested to him. The Defense Intelligence Agency reported in February 2002 that al-Libi's information was dubious, and the CIA also questioned its credibility in a report in January 2003 -- both reports made before the war. Rice's various statements created a pandemonium across Europe that she tried to quiet with a clarification Wednesday in Ukraine. The policy she had just declared we did not follow she announced we would no longer pursue. "As a matter of U.S. policy, the United States' obligations under the CAT [U.N. Convention Against Torture], which prohibits cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment -- those obligations extend to U.S. personnel wherever they are, whether they are in the United States or outside of the United States," Rice said at a press conference with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko.

Rice's erratic journey also raises the question of her own part in the policy. The Washington Post story on el-Masri reports that Rice intervened on the side of informing the German government, a disclosure that resulted in el-Masri's release. This fact suggests that Rice has a degree of authority and knowledge in the realm of detainees and "black sites."

Since 2003, Rice has repeatedly told representatives of Human Rights Watch and other similar organizations that the U.S. does not torture. There is no trail of memos tracing her involvement in the titanic struggle over U.S. torture policy between Powell and the senior military on one side and Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft's Justice Department on the other. Was the national security advisor completely out of the loop? On Nov. 19., ABC News reported, "Current and former CIA officers tell ABC News there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, approving the [harsh interrogation] techniques, including waterboarding."

That technique has its origin in the Spanish Inquisition. Indeed, in 1490, a baptized Christian who was a secret Jew, a converso named Benito Garcia, was subjected to water torture. The process drew out of him a confession of the ritual murder of a Christian child by crucifixion to get his blood for a magic ceremony to halt the Inquisition and bring about Jewish control. The incident greatly helped whip up the fear that led to the expulsion of the Jews in 1492, as described by James Reston Jr. in his new book, "Dogs of God: Columbus, the Inquisition, and the Defeat of the Moors."

Since the Inquisition, the method of waterboarding has been little refined. But Rice, like Bush, says we did not and will not torture anymore.

Progressive Faith Blog-Con Set to Launch

Here's a great new idea we intend to support. We received e-mails from our friends Thurman of Xpatriated Texan and from Rachel at Velveteen Rabbi about a new site called Progressive Faith Blog-Con.

Rachel writes as follows:

FP:

I'm writing to let you know about a new grassroots endeavor I'm involved with -- we're calling it Progressive Faith Blog Con.

Basically, several other bloggers and I have been thinking that it would be terrific to have a weekend conference next year, bringing together progressive bloggers of faith to learn, schmooze, talk, network, study, pray, and generally have fun together. Right now we're seeking a venue in the greater New York area, and once we have a venue, we plan to nail down a date; meanwhile we're trying to spread the word within the liberal religious blogosphere.

You can read my post about it here.
And you can find it online here.

If this appeals to you, please join the party! You can sign up for our mailing list at the Progressive Faith Blog Con site; beyond that, please let me know what would make you want to come to something like this, and please help us spread the word by sharing this information with your readers, colleagues, and friends.

Thanks so much for reading this, and for giving our enterprise some thought, and for being a part of the blogging world.

Take care,

Rachel Barenblat

Rice Defense of Outsourcing Torture Doesn't Hold Up

It's pretty obvious that, under President Bush, the US has adopted some absurd legal arguments that allow the Administration to spin any circumstance to maintain plausible deniability. For example whatever they do is not torture--even if there is no other word for, say, waterboarding a suspect. Now we have Sec. Rice's silly and insulting defense of the practice of kidnapping suspects and sending them to places that practice torture. Rice says this practice, known as rendition, is a tool in the war on terror. But as David Luban, a law professor at Georgetown University, observes, "Rendition doesn't become a tool in the war against terror unless people are being sent to a place where they can be interrogated harshly."

The Guardian c/o Common Dreams
US Defense of Tactic Makes No Sense Says Legal Expert
by Suzanne Goldenberg

The robust defense of rendition offered yesterday by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, marks the export to a European audience of a position on torture that is becoming increasingly uncomfortable for the Bush administration.

Ms Rice's arguments yesterday hinge on her insistence that rendition was a legitimate and necessary tool for the changed circumstances brought by the war on terror. "The captured terrorists of the 21st century do not fit easily into traditional systems of criminal or military justice," she said.

Ms Rice went on to note that the practice had been deployed "for decades" before the terror attacks of September 11 2001. "Its use is not unique to the United States, or to the current administration," she said.

However, her assurances that spiriting terror suspects away to clandestine prisons is a legitimate tactic did not carry much weight with human rights organisations or legal scholars yesterday.

They argued that the sole use of extraordinary rendition was to transport a suspect to a locale that was beyond the reach of the law - and so at risk of torture.

"The argument makes no sense unless there is an assumption that the purpose of rendition is to send people to a place where things could be done to them that could not be done in the United States," said David Luban, a law professor at Georgetown University who is presently a visiting professor at Stanford University.

"Rendition doesn't become a tool in the war against terror unless people are being sent to a place where they can be interrogated harshly."

In her statement yesterday, Ms Rice said rendition was necessary in instances where local governments did not have the capacity to prosecute a terror suspect, or in cases where al-Qaida members were operating in remote areas far from an operational justice system.

However, the majority of the two dozen or so terror suspects known to have been subjected to rendition were captured in urban areas. Some were taken in Europe.

"Most of the ghost detainees on the list were captured in major cities like Bangkok and Karachi," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

Amid the outrage in Europe over the secret prisons, the administration faces calls at home from Democrats for an investigation into the treatment of so-called "ghost detainees". The vice-president, Dick Cheney, meanwhile, has been criticised for resisting efforts to include the CIA in a ban on "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of detainees.

However, in her remarks yesterday, Ms Rice appeared to offer repeated and firm assurances that al-Qaida suspects transported to clandestine prisons for interrogation would not be subjected to torture. "The US does not permit, tolerate or condone torture under any circumstances," she said.

Critics say that depends on one's definition of torture. During the last four years, they say the Bush administration has adopted an exceedingly narrow definition of torture, allowing interrogators to use a variety of harsh techniques such as stress positions, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding, where suspects are strapped to a board and plunged into water.

"The reason she is able to say that the United States does not engage in torture is that the administration has redefined torture to exclude any technique that they use," said Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch. "What makes this awkward for Secretary Rice is that the state department has continued to condemn as torture techniques such as waterboarding when they are used by other countries - in other words the very techniques the CIA has used against these high level detainees."

Bush Admin Brings More Shame on America: Scrambling to Move Tortured Prisoners Out of Europe

ABC News reported last night that the Bush Administration was scrambling to move tortured prisoners out of Europe before Sec. of State Secrets Rice arrived. More shame on our great country caused by what we have called the Ugly American Presidency.

By BRIAN ROSS and RICHARD ESPOSITO

Dec. 5, 2005 — Two CIA secret prisons were operating in Eastern Europe until last month when they were shut down following Human Rights Watch reports of their existence in Poland and Romania.

Current and former CIA officers speaking to ABC News on the condition of confidentiality say the United States scrambled to get all the suspects off European soil before Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived there today. The officers say 11 top al Qaeda suspects have now been moved to a new CIA facility in the North African desert.

Quote of the Week: Paul Cezanne

Quote of the Week Paul Cezanne

The human spirit is part of nature.
Even skeptical old Paul Cezanne
acknowledged deeper spiritual yearnings
in the course of his rigorous study
of the meaning of landscape...

He wrote...”All that we see disperses,
vanishes: is it not so?
Nature is always the same,
but nothing remains of it,
nothing of what comes
in our sight. Our art
ought to give the shimmer
of its duration with the elements,
the appearance of all its changes.

It ought to make us taste it
eternally.
What is underneath? Nothing perhaps.
Perhaps everything. You understand?”

Spiritual Progressives Internet Town Hall Meeting Today

Spiritual Progressives Internet Town Hall Meeting Today

Dear Faithful,

Spiritual Progressives know that we live in an incredibly interdependent world. In fact, if you think about it, no one is really a "self-made" person, for each day we benefit a hundred ways from the insight, inventions and resourcefulness of those who have come before.

At a recent Houston conference, lead by the Rev. Dr. James Forbes of the Riverside Church, there was a call to create a Declaration of Interdependence to address the shameful inequality vividly revealed by the Gulf hurricanes. In the words of Dr. Forbes: "We must seize this historic moment together to lead social change in our nation. There is no more important moment in my lifetime for [us] to speak forcefully on what all people of conscience must do."

To begin this work there will be an Internet Town Hall meeting on Monday, Dec 5. You participate via the Internet from any computer for one hour. No special programs are needed. Registration deadline is 11:59 p.m. (Eastern), Saturday, December 3.


People of conscience all across America will gather online for 60 minutes to begin writing a Declaration of Interdependence. Join them! You may choose any appointment time, available on the hour starting at midnight. To learn more and register, please go to www.interdependencedeclaration.org If you participate, please pass on your experience, by sending your story to info@spiritualprogressives.com.


The sponsoring organization says, "We anticipate that this Declaration of Interdependence will serve as a new -- a progressive -- "contract for America" that will help our leaders get our country back on track."

This is being organized by Faith Voices for the Common Good.
Onward with courage.

Yours for peace,

Simone Richmond

Karl Rove Forgets to Remember the Truth Again

Today's NY Times piece by By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and DOUGLAS JEHL, In C.I.A. Leak, More Talks With Journalists, gives us a window into the world view of the mendacious and deceitful people who run our country. They speak in the black and white language of moral certainty, but they possess no real sense of right and wrong, only lies and omissions that they can spin into half-truths that give the appearance of a moral vision. That's how 9/11 was used to sell the invasion of Iraq. It's not what's true that matters to them, it's what they can plausibly spin as the truth that matters the most. So it is no surprise that Karl Rove's version of the truth-- even his sworn testimony as to it--depends on what he thinks the prosecutor knows. So when Mr. Fitzgerald became aware of Rove's phone call to Matt Cooper, by way of a conversation between his lawyer and his dear friend Time reporter Viveca Novak, Karl Rove had to call the prosecutor to change his testimony. In Watergate parlance, the "limited hangout" had to be modified to a slightly more forthcoming version of the truth. It's sickening and one can only hope that Mr. Fitzgerald can sort through this sewer of of self-serving half-truths to restore justice and respect for the truth back to our nations's capitol. From the Times:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 - A conversation between Karl Rove's lawyer and a journalist for Time magazine led Mr. Rove to change his testimony last year to the grand jury in the C.I.A. leak case, people knowledgeable about the sequence of events said Thursday.

Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, spoke in the summer or early fall of 2004 with Viveca Novak, a reporter for Time. In that conversation, Mr. Luskin heard from Ms. Novak that a colleague at the magazine, Matthew Cooper, might have interviewed Mr. Rove about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the case, the people said.

Time reported this week that the prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has summoned Ms. Novak to testify about a conversation she had with Mr. Luskin, but provided no explanation of what Mr. Fitzgerald might be looking for. The account provided Thursday by people with knowledge of the discussions between Ms. Novak and Mr. Luskin suggests that Mr. Fitzgerald is still trying to determine whether Mr. Rove was fully forthcoming with investigators and whether he altered his grand jury testimony about his dealings with reporters only after learning that one, Mr. Cooper, might identify him as a source.

Ms. Novak declined to comment, as did Mr. Luskin and Randall Samborn, Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman. Jim Kelly, Time's managing editor, said he would not comment on the matter. Mr. Cooper and James Carney, the magazine's Washington bureau chief, also declined to comment.

The people who agreed to discuss the case were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter and could face reprisals if they did so. Ms. Novak's involvement is the latest twist in a case that has cast light on the close relationships between journalists, lawyers and government officials in Washington. I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is the only person who has been charged with a crime, in an indictment that says he misled a grand jury and investigators about his conversations in 2003 with journalists about the Central Intelligence Agency officer, Valerie Wilson.

Lawyers in the case have said that Mr. Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, remains in legal jeopardy because his initial statements to investigators and to the grand jury were not accurate.

Months before the conversation between Ms. Novak and Mr. Luskin, Mr. Rove testified to the grand jury that he had held a conversation about the C.I.A. officer with only one journalist, Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist. Mr. Rove did not disclose that he had also spoken to Mr. Cooper either in his first grand jury testimony, in February 2004, or in an earlier interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

But after his conversation with Ms. Novak, who is not related to the columnist, Mr. Luskin asked Mr. Rove to have the White House search for any record of a discussion between Mr. Rove and Mr. Cooper around the time that Ms. Wilson's identity became public in July 2003.

The search turned up an e-mail message from Mr. Rove to another senior White House official, Stephen J. Hadley, who was the deputy national security adviser, that recounted a conversation between Mr. Rove and Mr. Cooper. On Oct. 14, 2004, Mr. Rove went before the grand jury again to alter his earlier account, by saying he had also discussed the C.I.A. officer with Mr. Cooper.

Associates of Mr. Rove said that he did not initially recall the conversation with Mr. Cooper amid the hundreds of calls and e-mail messages he deals with each day, and that once the message to Mr. Hadley was uncovered he took it to prosecutors and testified fully.

They have said that Mr. Rove had signed a waiver to allow reporters to testify about their confidential discussions with him and that he testified about his conversation with Mr. Cooper long before Mr. Cooper did.

But Mr. Fitzgerald appears to be evaluating whether Mr. Rove came forward with the e-mail and his new testimony only after it became apparent that Mr. Cooper might be compelled to testify about it. It is not clear precisely what Ms. Novak told Mr. Luskin, or what the context for their conversation had been.

People involved in the case said that at a minimum Ms. Novak communicated to Mr. Luskin that Mr. Rove might face legal problems because of potential testimony from Mr. Cooper, her colleague. They said Ms. Novak had told Mr. Luskin that Mr. Cooper might have been in contact with Mr. Rove about Ms. Wilson in the days before her identity became public. Mr. Cooper helped write an article on Time's Web site in July 2003 that was among the first, after Mr. Novak's column, to divulge Ms. Wilson's identity, using her maiden name, Valerie Plame.

Please Pray for Christian Peacemaker Teams

Personally, I am too much of the world to be a pacifist. But I greatly admire those who arrive at that posture as a result of deeply held religious conviction. One is truly blessed to know such sincere people of God. Christians are directly called to be peacemakers and few have heard this call more profoundly than the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) working in Iraq. As you all no doubt know, four members of Christian Peacemaker Teams working in Baghdad--Tom Fox, Harmeet Sooden, James Loney, and Norman Kember-- were abducted there this past Saturday, November 26. A moving response was posted on the website of the Voices for Creative Nonviolence:

In the course of this year alone, many thousands of Iraqis have experienced anguish because their loved ones have been abducted, tortured, disappeared and murdered. The Christian Peacemaker Team members dedicate themselves to living alongside ordinary Iraqis during this time of intense suffering. They have steadily reported the effects of occupation and war on the many people whom they’ve befriended since they first began working in Iraq in October 2002.

Tom Fox, one of the four CPT members being held, maintains a blog which we recommend for further insight into CPT’s work.

Reporters and human rights worker around the world are indebted to the careful work done by Christian Peacemaker Team members as they documentated abuses suffered by people detained in U.S. run prisons.

CPT has consciously chosen to not take sides in the conflict that rages in Iraq—other than to take the side of advocating for Iraqis who are treated unfairly and are suffering during this war.

Members of CPT willingly undertook the risks of living amongst Iraqis, in a common neighborhood outside of the infamous Green Zone. They sought no protection in arms or armed guards—trusting in, and benefiting from, the goodwill of the Iraqi people.

We harbor no ill will towards those responsible for the abduction of our friends and colleagues. Just as we hope no harm will befall our friends and colleagues—we trust that no harm will befall those who abducted them. We hope and pray that those responsible for the abduction of the four CPT members will recognize the common humanity they and their captives share and release them unharmed.

I have read Tom Fox's blog Waiting in the Light and it is indeed well worth reading. It was there that I learned that there were several key changes in the recently adopted Iraqi Consititution, including deleting a reference to not allowing foreign bases in Iraq.

The draft constitution for Iraq that has been published in the Western press has been widely reviewed and commented upon by many individuals. There have been ongoing revisions to the constitution. The most recent version was released internally on Sept. 13th. This version has not been disseminated to either Western or Iraqi press or to the Iraqi public. CPT Iraq was sent a copy by a contact in the government. While much of the document is similar and most changes are more in terms of replacing a word or two there are some significant differences.

Perhaps the most dramatic change is the omission of a section of the “Transitional Provisions.”

The published draft reads:
1. “It is forbidden for Iraq to be used as a base or corridor for foreign troops.”2. “It is forbidden to have foreign military bases in Iraq.”
3. “The National Assembly can, when necessary, and with a majority of two-thirds of its members allow events stated in #1 and #2 to take place.”This provision is completely missing from the current unpublished version.

There is no doubt that Tom Fox, Harmeet Sooden, James Loney, and Norman Kember were in Iraq for the best possible reasons and that they were doing important work that brought the world a little closer to peace. Please keep them in your prayers.