Criticize Bush in a lecture...end up on the "no fly" list

One of the most persistent claims you hear from apologists of the current runaway administration is that "civil liberties haven't been diminished. After all people protest and criticize Bush all the time." I suppose these same apologists are unaware of the fact the anti government protests are sometimes allowed in places like Iran, China and Zimbabwe but that doesn't make those countries "free". But more importantly Bushites seem oblivious to the fact criticizing the "great leader" is not always without consequence. We've all heard (or should have heard) of Cindy Sheehan being carted off from the capitol for wearing an "offensive" t-shirt. But what about a professor and former marine who finds himself on the infamous "no fly" list for, of all things, criticizing the Bush administration's abuse of power? Well it happened. Here's his story.

===================================================================

Another Enemy of the People?

Mark Graber

I am posting the below with the permission of Professor Walter F. Murphy, emeritus of Princeton University. For those who do not know, Professor Murphy is easily the most distinguished scholar of public law in political science. His works on both constitutional theory and judicial behavior are classics in the field. Bluntly, legal scholarship that does not engage many themes in his book, briefly noted below, Constitutional Democracy, may be legal, but cannot be said to be scholarship. As interesting, for present purposes, readers of the book will discover that Murphy is hardly a conventional political or legal liberal. While he holds some opinions, most notably on welfare, similar to opinions held on the political left, he is a sharp critic of ROE V. WADE, and supported the Alito nomination. Apparently these credentials and others noted below are no longer sufficient to prevent one from becoming an enemy of the people.

"On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving."

"When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years."

"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said. "

"After carefully examining my credentials, the clerk asked if he could take them to TSA officials. I agreed. He returned about ten minutes later and said I could have a boarding pass, but added: "I must warn you, they=re going to ransack your luggage." On my return flight, I had no problem with obtaining a boarding pass, but my luggage was "lost." Airlines do lose a lot of luggage and this "loss" could have been a mere coincidence. In light of previous events, however, I'm a tad skeptical."

"I confess to having been furious that any American citizen would be singled out for governmental harassment because he or she criticized any elected official, Democrat or Republican. That harassment is, in and of itself, a flagrant violation not only of the First Amendment but also of our entire scheme of constitutional government. This effort to punish a critic states my lecture's argument far more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could. Further, that an administration headed by two men who had "had other priorities" than to risk their own lives when their turn to fight for their country came up, should brand as a threat to the United States a person who did not run away but stood up and fought for his country and was wounded in battle, goes beyond the outrageous. Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush's false claims by "outing" his wife, Valerie Plaime, thereby putting at risk her life as well as the lives of many people with whom she had had contact as an agent of the CIA. ..."

"I have a personal stake here, but so do all Americans who take their political system seriously. Thus I hope you and your colleagues will take some positive action to bring the Administration's conduct to the attention of a far larger, and more influential, audience than I could hope to reach. "
===================================================================

Fighting over Rosie's view

The lines have been drawn, the die has been cast. For years since 9/11 various people have gone public with their doubts about the official story. Some have been high level government officials such as Dr. Paul Craig Roberts who was treasury secretary under Ronald Reagan. (For anyone who things this is a "liberal left wing" issue). Others have been people with science credentials such as Physics professor Stephen P. Jones. Even former republican congressman and staunch Bush supporter Curt Weldon has publicly questioned the official 9/11 story. And as for the victims of 9/11? William Rodriguez, the last man pulled from the towers, went public on his doubts about the official story years ago. You may recall that he was the last man pulled from the towers because he had gone back to rescue others. Or...you may not recall that. Since he's gone public with his assertion that he heard explosions coming from the basement of the towers (as opposed to where the airplanes struck) there has been a virtual media blackout on coverage of this hero.

So why is it such a big deal that Rosie O'Donnell went public with her unconventional views? Well this is, unfortunately, a nation that is obsessed with celebrity. We've spent countless hours talking about the judge in the Anna Nicole Smith case having a breakdown and smoking weed. Rosie O'Donnell isn't the first celebrity to go public. Charlie Sheen went public over a year ago. Despite a viscous smear campaign against Sheen his TV show has remained popular. Sheen wasn't the first celebrity to go public either. Actor Gary Busey was in the documentary 9/11 The Greatest Lie Ever Sold. And Ed Begely Jr. was in the early 9/11 film Confronting the Evidence. But in the "15 minutes of fame" world of Hollywood it's "out of sight, out of mind". Rosie and Charlie are the biggest people in the current limelight to go public. They simply are too big to ignore. So the other possibility is to try to squash them.

Charlie at least didn't have to worry as much about being fired because, lets face it, he's the main attraction for the hit show Two and A Half Men. But Rosie's situation is different. Hosts on "The View" come and go and there was already rumblings about Rosie due to the Donald Trump spat. So the anti free thought forces have pulled out all of the stops. As with Charlie Sheen there's been a smear campaign, although that's having little effect since anything anyone might say about Rosie has already been said. They've been the public death threats by the likes of drug head Danny Bonnaduce, but if Rosie scared that easily she wouldn't have gone public in the first place.

The latest desperate attempt is the online petition drives to get her fired from "The View". The main site, StopRosie.com, was launched March 3, 2007. As of this post it boasts "23,957 people who thing the U.S. is a noble country." (Earth to neocon twits. Those of us who question 9/11 believe the U.S. is a noble country. We just believe our leaders our corrupt. That's no different than those who wanted to see Clinton impeached over selling technology to China or who wanted to see Nixon impeached for wanton abuse of power.) Well now the other side is fighting back. Two websites supporting Rosie are also taking petitions. They are defendrosie.com (also using the URL supportrosie.com ) and keeprosie.com. Keeprosie was launched on March 4, 2007. Defendrosie was launched March 5th. Both sites have over 5,000 signatures. Acutally Keeprosie is close to 5,500. But here's the interesting part. The signatures at StopRosie.com have tapered off! It was at about 22,000 this morning and now it's only at 23,957. KeepRosie and DefendRosie are growing like gangbusters. This despite the fact that DefendRosie.com still doesn't show up in a Google search. Also about 10 percent of StopRosie.com's signatures are obvious fakes with names like "Rosieis Great" or "Thankgodfo Ro" or "Stooproossie Isnwofront", and unlike DefendRosie.com and KeepRosie.com the StopRosie site doesn't allow you to post comments when you sign. (I guess they are really against free speech). We shall see how it pays off. But things aren't looking very good for the signatures of the Project for a New American Century.