My Wife Faces Homeland Security Part I: Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12

“Yeah, that's it. Just relax.
Have another drink, few more pretzels, little more MSG.
Turn on those Dallas Cowboys on your TV.
Lock your doors. Close your mind.
It's time for the two-minute warning.

Welcome to 1984
Are you ready for the third world war?!?
You too will meet the secret police
They'll draft you and they'll jail your niece”

--Dead Kennedys, "We've Got a Bigger Problem Now”

Have you been PERSONALLY affected by the Bush Administration’s erosion of our Constitutional Rights? Well, now my family is coming face to face with a direct assault on the Bill of Rights, an assault on my wife’s rights. This assault comes directly from Bush with no input from Congress whatsoever.

Homeland Security Presidential Directive Number 12…

This Presidential Directive is all about choice, or so they say. One of those twisted, Orwellian “choices” that isn’t a choice. My wife’s choice is she can either sign over to the Federal Government the right to investigate every aspect of her life (including fingerprinting, credit check, medical records, character references, etc.) or she can “voluntarily” choose to not be allowed entry into the building wherein she works. The choice is hers. The rights that are being lost are those of every single American citizen.

My wife is a graduate student at a joint program between NASA and Columbia University called the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Her department uses satellite data and computer modeling to study the atmosphere, climate and climate change. NASA, of course, has many top secret projects, projects which require high security. No one questions the need for high security and detailed background checks for specific, highly sensitive projects. This is perfectly reasonable.

But the Federal Government under Bush is now insisting that ALL employees, contractors, students, etc. associated with NASA agree to allow an investigation into their lives should the Federal Government deem it necessary for any reason. In short, Homeland Security is demanding that all NASA employees, contractors, etc. right down to students like my wife, agree to undergo the same kind of scrutiny as if they ALL worked in a top secret program. They are treating ALL of NASA as if it was one big secret program. This strikes me as insanely inefficient in addition to highly intrusive.

If you don’t agree to voluntarily submit to this, you do not get issued an ID badge that will allow you into the building where you work. The ID card system is contracted out to a British defense contractor called Ultra Electronics Card Systems, a branch of Ultra Electronics Holdings plc. I guess we can consider ourselves lucky that the contract didn’t go to Halliburton or to a Dubai company.

This is Bush America. You can voluntarily give up your civil liberties or voluntarily choose to lose your job. Those are your “choices.” Is this is what they mean when they say “get government off our backs?”

Keep in mind that Homeland Security Presidential Directive Number 12 is NOT A LAW. Congress and the Supreme Court have had no say in it or in its implementation (covered under FIPS 201 (PDF)). It is a declaration made by Bush, not a law legislated by Congress.

Let me ask you this: When the President of a nation can make a unilateral declaration that invalidates laws passed by Congress (e.g. the Privacy Act of 1974), laws passed by the States, and the Constitution itself, what do you have: a.) a democracy, b.) a republic, c.) a dictatorship. The answer is “c.” When laws and the Constitution are subservient to the directives of a single individual, it is a dictatorship. I am sorry. But I cannot interpret this in any other way. Call it a nascent dictatorship if you prefer. But we now have a system where a directive by a single individual takes precedence over law (Federal and State) and Constitution. THAT is about as un-American as you can get.

The basic idea of the declaration is not bad. The idea is to create a more consistent ID system across government agencies. It applies to contractors the same basic standards that government employees have to go through to get ID badges. So far so good. The implementation, however, amounts to an abandonment of your Constitutional rights and agreeing to a potentially intrusive investigation process that is similar to that carried out for full security clearances. Nothing in the declaration itself requires the level of intrusiveness and trampling on rights that the implementation is insisting on. And yet the implementation goes on, separating government employees from their rights.

NASA scientists are pissed. From the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) in Pasadena, CA, to the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Maryland, to GISS in Manhattan, NASA scientists are checking their Bill of Rights and calling foul on Homeland Security. NASA scientists are insisting that they be treated like American citizens, not like potential terrorists. Yes, my wife is being treated not like an American citizen, not like a scientist, not like a trusted member of society. She is being treated like a potential terrorist.

Well, this isn’t the first time my wife has been viewed as a potential terrorist. After all, the mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg, called all of us New Yorkers who protested the 2004 Republican Convention as being the equivalent of al-Qaeda. My wife, while 8 months pregnant, was one of those protesters who Michael Bloomberg accused of being like al-Qaeda. So Bloomberg and Bush both don’t trust my wife. But in this case, it isn’t anything personal. All NASA scientists are being treated as if they cannot be trusted.

I have been talking with my wife and with Dr. Robert Nelson, Senior Scientist at JPL, about this issue and have permission to quote some of the dialogue that has been going back and forth around NASA. Much of what follows is quoted from emails between NASA labs as NASA employees try to come to grips with what this all means to them as individuals and as American citizens.

So, let’s get down to some real details. Please bear with me as some of it is technical. But I want those with real technical and legal experience to get the details. Dr. Robert Nelson of JPL began his questioning of the new Homeland Security procedure by asking a simple question of NASA security for clarification:

“What is the basis in law of the fingerprinting requirement?”

The response he received from is the following: (emphasis mine)

Executive Order 10450 requires National Agency Checks with Written Inquiries (NACI) for all Federal employees. Recognizing that a large portion of the Federal workforce consists of contract employees…in his capacity as the Chief Executive Officer for the United States Government…George W. Bush signed Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) which extends this requirement to employees of contractors working on Federal contracts. Further, through the implementing document FIPS-201, all individuals accessing Federal facilities or Federal Information Technology (save public facing web sites) are required to undergo the NACI background investigation (at a minimum). Part of the NACI investigation is the collection of fingerprints which must be submitted to the [FBI] for inclusion in the FBI fingerprint database…

Providing this information to the government is voluntary; however, it may affect NASA’s decision to grant access to NASA facilities or Information Technology resources.

So, ANYONE who “accesses Federal facilities” is REQUIRED to undergo the VOLUNTARY background investigation, including fingerprinting. And, by the way, where in the Constitution does it say that the President of the United States is the Chief Executive Officer for the United States Government?

But fingerprinting is just the beginning. According to Dr. Nelson:

A review of the material that we are required to supply to [the] FBI via…NASA indicates that there are concerns in addition to fingerprinting regarding personal privacy associated with HSPD#12. We are being asked to sign blanket waivers that permit investigators to intrude into our personal financial and medical records. The information that we are being asked to supply is very similar to the information requested for a full security clearance.

Let’s look a little closer. This is from the instructions to the form most NASA employees at the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena are likely to use (Form 85p):

1. All persons will be required to sign the General Release, which includes a statement that a credit release and/or medical history release may be required at a later date; and the Certification of Correctness.

2. Persons refusing to sign the General Release and the Certification of Correctness shall not be processed and shall be referred back to their program manager for any discussion and repercussions.

3. Security shall request that persons sign the Credit History and Medical Release Forms to expedite the process and shall advise them that Security/OPM will only access the information if it is needed.

There are four things, as I understand it, that need signing: A General Release (this is the most blanket release), the Certification of Correctness (sounds bad, but it really is a minor thing where you just sign to say your aren’t lying), a Credit History Check, and a Medical Release Form. The instructions REQUIRE the signing of the first two, otherwise security cannot process your paperwork and hence cannot issue a new ID badge usable by the British Defense Contractor’s security system. The second two do not need to be signed, but it will “expedite the process” and the information thus made accessible will only be accessed “if it is needed.” The General Release Form itself also contains disturbingly intrusive items. And often those in charge of informing people about the security process are not being straightforward about these disturbing items. In fact, Michael Braukus, a NASA spokesperson, was quoted by a Pasadena paper that:

We are not asking for financial or personal data. That’s just been some miscommunication; that’s what we need to correct.

And yet even a superficial perusal of the documents (as I outline both above and below) indicates that this is PRECISELY what they are doing: asking for financial and personal data. They even ask for character references and can interview your neighbors about you. The forms CLEARLY demand both financial and personal data. Therefore it is hard to say that the NASA spokesperson is properly portraying the situation to the mainstream media.

Dr. Nelson has analyzed the actual forms and the accompanying instructions in great detail. This is what he finds…and he seems to be a better analyst than those who wrote the instructions to the forms:

There are two different types of questionnaires, one for Non-sensitive positions, the other for Public Trust positions. The relevant questionnaires are called sf85 and sf85p. In addition, we have been supplied with a document that purports to provide guidance regarding which questionnaire applies to any particular type of work. It appears that most scientists and engineers at JPL would be required to respond to questions for the Public Trust…(sf85p) due to…access to spacecraft operations and spacecraft data…

We have also been provided with a document that purports to compare the requirements of the Non-sensitive [sf85], Public Trust [sf85p], and Security Clearance [sf86] classifications…The comparison document:

1. Falsely claims that the sf85p form is distinguished from a sf86 [full Security Clearance form] in that the sf85p…does not request the identification of family members and their citizenship. The form sf85p clearly demands this information in item #15.

2. It furthermore falsely claims that the sf85p form does not require information about the applicant’s military record. The sf85p form demands for this information immediately following question #16b.

3. It further falsely claims that the sf85p form does not request information about financial delinquencies. This information is specifically demanded in question #22a,b on form sf85p.

This gives you both an idea of how intrusive the questions are, as well as how inaccurate the information being provided about the process can be. But the intrusiveness gets worse. Back to Dr. Nelson’s analysis: (emphasis mine)

The final two pages of the sf85p form deserve special attention. These are general release form and the medical release form. These documents require us to permit the investigators to intrude into our personal information including our financial records, and our character references. In addition, these forms contain language that permits the investigators to pass our personal information on to private parties in the form of contractors who they might hire to support their investigations. These waivers permit these investigators to access our medical records including our mental health records. They also contain clauses that permit them to require us to sign an additional waiver downstream should anyone they interview decline to provide the investigators with information in the hope of protecting our privacy. In the event that we refuse to sign such waivers the questionnaire clearly states on the front that they may elect not to process our application, thus depriving the applicant of an identification badge. Page one of the form states:

Giving us the information we ask for is voluntary, However, we may not be able to complete your investigation, or complete it in a timely manner, if you don’t give us each item of information we request. This may affect your placement or employment prospects.

Okay. Those of you who took the time to read that, let it sink in. My wife, who is a pretty level-headed person, considers it pretty damned scary. And so do I. And so do many NASA scientists. Three NASA institutions are expressing concern in email exchanges and publicly. The ripples of protest are spreading from JPL in Pasadena, to GSFC in Maryland, to GISS in NYC. JPL has taken the lead mainly because they figured out what was up first. But NASA employees are exploring legal actions, resigning, protesting, writing Congress, everything they can to fight the intrusion into their life. Many don’t have much time to make a choice. Once you get the email demanding compliance, you have 10 days to comply or you forfeit your right to enter the building where you work. Doesn’t mean you will be immediately barred, but you forfeit your right, so that at any time you may find a new security system that keeps you out. Some emails have already gone out. So far my wife hasn’t received hers. And she is not sure what she will do when she does. But JPL employees have until Sept. 28th to comply with Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12. And some have initiated a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles:

The lawsuit says NASA is violating the Constitution by calling on employees --everyone from janitors to visiting professors _ to permit investigators to delve into medical, financial and past employment records, and to question friends and acquaintances about everything from their finances to sex lives. Those who refuse could lose their jobs, the suit says.

I think it is worth reiterating the scariest part of this. And, again, I am indebted to Dr. Nelson’s articulate analysis: (emphasis, and sarcasm, Dr. Nelson’s this time)

Apparently the forms we are being required to fill out ( sf85 and sf 85p are voluntary. We are being asked to voluntarily waive our constitutional rights. We are not being required to do it. HOWEVER IF WE DECLINE TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION WE WILL NOT BE FIRED. BUT WE WILL NOT BE GIVEN A BADGE. Hence we will not have access to our offices or our computers…Thus we will be derelict in our duties. For further information of this novel management approach please see (Kafka, Franz, The Trial, ISBN 0805209999…)

Well, you might say, NASA is a special case, right? But Homeland Security is initiating this same process not just throughout all of NASA, but the same thing is happening at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of Education (DoEd) and quite probably elsewhere (a friend told me he heard about another department facing this…but I haven’t been able to confirm that). In fact, a woman at the BLM refused to sign these intrusive, un-American waivers, and was dismissed for her refusal. Her actions we interpreted as “quitting” and hence she was denied unemployment benefits. She sued successfully and received unemployment benefits. Of course this lawsuit, though critical, did not address the fundamental civil rights issues of the case.

What gives the Federal government the right to demand this information of you? Even simple fingerprinting is not automatic, let alone medical records, the immigration status of your spouse, etc. All of this is supposed to be private and only under special circumstances (e.g. a Top Secret project or with due process of the law) can the government obtain these. The Constitution guarantees this and it is reinforced by privacy laws (such as the Privacy Act of 1974). Yet Homeland Security claims that HSPD-12 trumps the law and trumps the Constitution. This is just plain unacceptable. No single individual in America is supposed to be able to make a declaration and thereby trump law and Constitution. ANYONE who tells you otherwise is un-American and should be confronted with their un-American beliefs.

And what about efficiency and National Security? How much money and time will be wasted on this? The paperwork, the new security systems (the money going to a British company), the time and money spent investigating all BLM, DoEd and NASA employees… oh but we don’t have the money to screen cargo coming into our ports for radioactive material. This is a wild misuse of Federal funds as well as being an abuse of Federal power. Inspect cargo coming into port, not our shoes as we walk into an airport or NASA employees who are working on basic research with no security issues at stake. The Federal Government under Bush is not only excessively intrusive, but also inefficient and ineffective in dealing with terrorism. And, let’s not discount the potentially negative impact this could have on the morale of people working for the Federal government, since this whole procedure assumes that the employee cannot be trusted and must first be investigated.

A declaration by one man superceding law and Constitution, insulting the integrity and intruding on the privacy of thousands of government employees, costing millions of dollars…and for what. Dr. Nelson puts it precisely:

On 9/12, Osama bin Laden, son of one of Saudi Arabia’s most wealthy families, became a fugitive…The ensuing war on terror has cost 3500 US lives and the lives of orders of magnitude more Iraqi civilians. Despite this, bin Laden remains on the loose. There remains a question of relevance, “How do personal background intrusions and fingerprinting of 5000 JPL colleagues help apprehend bin Laden?”

How indeed…

So that is what my wife is facing…a choice that isn’t a real choice. Sign away her rights or risk her job. And I don’t know what her decision will be. I can’t advise her.

I just want to end with a reminder of the vision our Founding Fathers had regarding freedom and security in America:

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
--often attributed to Benjamin Franklin, possibly really Richard Jackson

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
--definitely Benjamin Frankin

NEXT: In Part Two: The Matrix; the process my wife faces

In Part Three: The Resignation; how to lose your best workers

[UPDATE: a friend, upon viewing this diary, noticed this ad on the page:

Don't you love the ironies online advertising algorhythms produce]


mole333's picture

| | | | | | |

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Clint Curtis2's picture

I completely agree

Homeland Security is intrusion for the sake of intrusion. This is just one example of rules that infringe our constitutional rights without the necessary justification of why the rule exists.


Margaret Bassett's picture

OK, let's keep on this

Silly little thing comes to my mind. During Nixon's years my stepson was in the Navy. He took some staff training and then had a chance to apply for a guard spot at the White House. He told me he didn't consider it because of me, meaning all the things I was saying about Tricky Dick. I am a woman molded by McCarthyism. This big handsome lad was impacted by something so inconsequential as some consider McCarthyism to be.
I would say more but my phone is BellSouth, aka AT&T, and my computer is connected through it. As good old Ben Franklin said, we've got to hang together or we'll hand separately. Best wishes, Margaret


Scott K's picture

To clarify a complaint you made...

First off, let me go on the record as saying that I agree that a lot of these intrusions don't seem justified to me. I myself am subject to a whole slew of checks, but my profession is one that is considered security-sensitive, and there have been long-standing legal requirements associated with security checks for people in jobs similar to me. No biggie... that's something that I expected. I will say, however, that some similar information to what you indicate in Part II can be obtained from the responses to the questions on the MMPI (preliminary psychological evaluation exam) such as whether one has lied, stolen a minor item, etc... the rationale behind asking such questions is that it is essentially expected that a prospective candidate will have done some things in the past, and a squeaky clean record is an indication that some follow-up may need to be done because the individual in question may be gaming the system, so to speak.

All of this is sort of aside from my confusion, you specifically point out the Privacy Act and are angry that the executive branch (who I do NOT approve of, by the way) is side-stepping the law of Congress. Yet in the HSPD, it specifically says... "6) This directive shall be implemented in a manner consistent with the Constitution and applicable laws, including the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and other statutes protecting the rights of Americans." If such actions at NASA are indeed against the applicable laws, then it is more a case of some over-zealous administration officials with respect to their interpretation of what they are supposed to do. Of course, the President put these people in charge of their respective agencies, so blame could still be assigned in that direction. But the gist of what I'm trying to say is that if there are specific people in higher positions who are overstepping the boundaries of the law, the HSPD doesn't cover their butt. Some people need to push back!


mole333's picture

Indeed

Thanks for commenting. I think this is a good point that may get missed in the diary: HSPD#12 itself is relatively harmless. It is in the application by the executive branch that is the problem. And that has been the pattern of this executive branch--ignore the actual law and step on civil liberties in the name of security. It is a general pattern from top down. This is one example. One could cite torture at Guantanamo as another, even worse example of overzealousness in the name of security.

Legal procedings are in the works. Hopefully that will resolve the issues raised in this diary (though there will still be other issues that I bring up in the second part). And pushing back is exactly what needs to be done!

And I also want to emphasize that I am not objecting to security clearances for actual sensitive projects. I am objecting to the more blanket application of security measures to a wider and wider area of society. Remember that this is, in theory, happening to all government employees. JPL just seems to have wised up first.


Scott K's picture

Just wanted to clarify the gist of the bone of contention

It's my pleasure to comment, I just wanted to point that out since you put much of this material up front and center in your article, and that may take a little away from the intellectual rigor of your basic argument. I do certainly agree with you on the substance of your complaint (among others about the current administration ;-))!

I just hope that all of this doesn't cause a lot of decent people to leave the government... or MORE than the ones who have already left. Government today may be incompetent and pursuing the wrong aims, but that doesn't mean it'll always be that way. With science, especially, reaching substantial conclusions requires so many years of research and theoretical work that one can't afford to wait until the bureaucracy is the way one likes it... more efficient in the long run to do one's work when things aren't going well, and then release the results when things improve. Just food for thought insofar as your lady is concerned, despite the insult to her personal liberties.

I would also certainly advocate that these grievances get aired on a local level... such a story involving an agency that employs a significant number of people in one specific area has some chance of garnering some local interest and building up some support that can escalate. On a national level, at least for right now, I don't know if it will get as much attention since there are way too many different problems to cover, not to mention that reporting at that level leaves much to be desired.

Good luck to both of you!


mole333's picture

National attention

I am hoping to get some national attention...and Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly has picked up this very article, which may be one reason why traffic to this diary is skyrocketing.

As a blogger I am always faced with a trade off between making the diary interesting and my natural tendency to be somewhat pendantic. What gets attention isn't always the intellectual rigor. I try to get attention THEN introduce the rigor.


s9's picture

Opportunity for Selective Enforcement

You neglected to mention the obvious: not everyone who refuses these agreements will be denied badges or employment.

Some people will refuse, and they'll still be issued badges anyway. Others will not have exceptions made for them. You can guess who will be who.

More importantly, guessing is the best you can do— the decision to waive will be left to the discretion of politically appointed managers on a case-by-case basis. Hmmm. One wonders what factors will go into their decision process.

See, this is why I refuse to take U.S. government contracts anymore.


mole333's picture

Yes

Deep down my wife feels she is unlikely to be targeted. But she also finds the whole process abhorent. There also is very, very little in the way of an appeals process. It kind of makes a mockery of due process.

Thanks for commenting.


A plaintiff's picture

As a plaintiff in the JPL

As a plaintiff in the JPL lawsuit, I'm mystified by your comment. I do not believe it to be the case. Do you have anything to back this up?


A plaintiff's picture

A correction to the story

The vast majority of us at JPL have to fill out SF-85, not SF-85P. All the defendants in the lawsuit are all classified as "low-risk" and as such, are subjected to SF-85. It hardly matters though. There's not much difference, and even SF-85 requires signing the open-ended waiver.


mole333's picture

Thanks

The last definitive word I had heard from JPL was that it was 85p, though was hearing otherwise second hand. I am glad to hear it directly that it is 85, for what it's worth.

And, of course, the open-ended waiver is what is really of concern.


John B.'s picture

> And, by the way, where in

> And, by the way, where in the Constitution does it say that the President of the United States is the Chief Executive Officer for the United States Government?

Art 2, Sec 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

That means *all* of it. If it counts as executive power, the President has it and no one else. Unless there's been a lawful delegation.

Just as the Congress is the legislative branch, the person of the President is the executive branch. Congress can pass laws about how the executive branch operates--- agencies and so forth. But they cannot interfere with the President's prerogatives as the executive, which plainly include coming up with increased security procedures.

I agree with you that this is bad policy. But it's all certainly legal.


A plaintiff's picture

It's not legal if it's

It's not legal if it's unconstitutional.


Is Made Of People's picture

Looks Familiar

I just finished filling out my Personnel Security Questionaire for DOD. And not only do these questions look familiar, I'd swear the section (or question) numbers are the same.

So here's the way I see it. All Federal Employees (and by extension all contractors, etc.) are now being required to fill out the same Security Clearance forms as someone who is applying for a SECRET clearance. In essence, all Federal jobs are now classified. And I would swear there's a law against classifying things without a specific reason.

But even if this is legal (which I doubt); how in the world will they process that many applications? They'll have to hire more help. Of course, the help will now be Federal contractors, so they'll need to fill out the PSQ and get cleared prior to working...

And let's not forget how expensive this will be...


mole333's picture

And so on...and so on...

Perpetual need for more contractors? Enter Halliburton?

The cost will be enormous. The paperwork will be enormous. And the intrusion into private lives enormous. Again...how is this getting government off people's backs?

And how does this help catch Osama bin Laden?


Patrick Henry's picture

Sounds like Richard Branson

Sounds like Richard Branson will soon have more applications than he knows what to do with.

Stand your ground.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever."
George Orwell


FredFreedom's picture

SF-85P

The argument that "if you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about" is plain wrong. Bush passed the law to give agencies much greater power in getting rid of people and/or firing them later. Additionally one of Homeland Security's goals is to destroy unions.
Unfortunately, there are many good "Germans," contractors and Government alike that will simply not pay attention to the destruction of other peoples careers, or livelihood because "they got theirs".


mole333's picture

So far so good...

Some JPL personnel are suing. Although the judge ruled against them, an appeals judge issued an emergency injunction blocking the implementation of this. So it all seems on hold right now. So cross your fingers. Sometimes American democracy still works despite Bush's attempts to destroy it.


yourdysfunctionhere's picture

You do have a choice

So I am not a fan of HSPD#12, but the fact remains that your wife does not have to work there. She can work somewhere else in the US that does not require this level of "intrusiveness." Buy a house near the airport and, guess what, you will hear airplanes.


mole333's picture

But see that makes no sense

What the government is doing (and right now it is stopped for JPL by a court order pending an appeal) is requiring people who are NOT doing top secret work to accept almost the level of intrusion that a top secret lab requires. Working in a top secret lab is, to use your metaphor, living near an airport and expecting to hear airplanes. Working in a not top secret lab you do NOT expect to be treated this way. This is more like if they, without any warning, build an airport across from your house.

I also should remind people that many of those working in the NASA facilities are not government employees. My wife for example. She is a Columbia University grad student. As such, she was offered a choice of labs to work in, and some are ALSO jointly NASA. She chose one that was connected with NASA. So she is NOT a government employee. She is a grad student, yet this applies to her.

HSPD#12 per se is not really a problem. It makse some sense. It is the implementation that is insane. It is unnecessary to have this level of intrusion, it is not cost effective to handle it this way, and let's remember that when someone gets a job with the government they are NOT signing away their Constitutional rights. The implementation is wrong on just about all levels.


Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Who's online

There are currently 2 users and 2222 guests online.

Online users

Words to live by

Who could have imagined that in the United States, with its independent judiciary, thousands of men could be rounded up in the night -- many only because of their Muslim religion or foreign nationality -- without recourse to a trial, without even an acknowledgment that they had been arrested? Who could have dared to suggest that there would ever be "desaparecidos" in America? And there it was as well, torture being discussed as a legitimate option to protect a community in peril, and then being used in Guantanamo and Afghanistan, and even obscenely photographed in Iraq -- yes, there they were again, the depressing echoes of my Chile.

But worse perhaps than all of this was the erosion of the moral compass of America, the seeming indifference of the seeming majority to the suffering of others, the casual acceptance of "collateral damage" as an unquestioned consequence of the war on "terrorism," the demonization of an ubiquitous foe who had to be destroyed without second thoughts -- and often without first ones as well; without, in fact, any thoughtfulness at all. That was far more terrifying than the criminal attacks on New York and Washington: To realize that the Chile of strongman Augusto Pinochet was not that far away, not that difficult to imitate, that it was already hovering in the future and ready to materialize if we were not vigilant.


— Ariel Dorfman, Memories of Chile in the Midst of an American Presidential Campaign
TomDispatch - Tomgram: Ariel Dorfman on the struggle for America’s soul


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify