Who exactly are the outlaws?

We are all the outlaws in the eyes of America
-- "We Can Be Together" (written by Paul Katner, recorded by Jefferson Airplane, on the CD Volunteers)

Could we be together? Who is we? More important who are "they" -- the ones seeing outlaws?

An exchange took place on Democracy Now! Thursday that made us ponder this topic. From
"Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism:"

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Greg Grandin, what is the "El Salvador Option"?
GREG GRANDIN: Well, the El Salvador Option famously became talked about in the press when things started to go wrong in Iraq, and people like Robert Kaplan -- well, Sy Hersh wrote an article in the New Yorker talking about the U.S.'s support of paramilitaries in order to maintain order in Iraq. And then people, journalists, kind of hawkish journalists such as Robert Kaplan actually advocated that the Pentagon embrace what he called the "Salvadoran Option," the use of paramilitaries, otherwise known as death squads.
But there’s another aspect to the Salvador Option, and if you remember in the Vice Presidential debate in 2004, where Dick Cheney evoked not the U.S. rebuilding of Japan and Germany as the model for what we hope to do in Iraq, but El Salvador as what we hope to do, which was this other aspect, this other dimension of the Salvador Option, the use of this incredibly violent and brutal explicit use of it, unapologetic use of violence and allying with the paramilitaries and death squads, but then justifying it in idealistic terms. And this is the particular contribution, I think, from people like Douglas Feith, who you focused on, reported on earlier. This kind of blending of a real politique militarism with this notion that we're doing it in order to advance democracy, and that's what I think is unique in the new imperialism.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Because even, I would guess, the term "Salvador Option" is a misnomer to some extent, because the same policy was pursued with the militias in Guatemala in the genocide in Guatemala and with the right wing death squads in Colombia up until this day. >> Colombia and Argentina. You could call it the "Argentine Option." You could call it the "Chilean Option."
AMY GOODMAN: And, in fact, some of the very same people who were involved, say in Salvador, actually the mercenaries or the U.S. soldiers or trainers are in Iraq.
GREG GRANDIN: Yes. People like James Steele, who was a colonel, was involved in the U.S. military mission in El Salvador, came out of retirement to work with paramilitaries in El Salvador and "professionalize" them, in quotes.
AMY GOODMAN: Especially for young people, and you're a professor of students at New York University, if you would describe what happened in El Salvador for people to understand what's happening in Iraq today? What would you say was the picture in the 1980s? What did happen?
GREG GRANDIN: What happened is that the United States, in -- well, and not just in El Salvador, in Guatemala and Nicaragua, turned Central America into one of the last killing fields of the Cold War. And this is why Central America has such a pull on the imagination of the neo-cons, is that it occurred simultaneously with the end of the Cold War. Now, Reagan for the most part acted in moderation everywhere else in the world, in other hotspots of the world. In El Salvador and Guatemala and Nicaragua, he gave that policy, U.S. policy to movement conservatives for them to act -- it's kind of wish fulfillment -- to act the way they wished the U.S. would act towards the Soviet Union and the Middle East and in South Asia.
In El Salvador, the U.S. supported an anti-communist regime in order to contain an insurgency that resulted in the deaths of something between 60,000 and 70,000 civilians. In Nicaragua, we supported an anti-communist insurgency, which resulted in the murder of 30,000 to 40,000 civilians. And in Guatemala, we provided moral justification for a regime that was committing genocide, murdering somewhat around 200,000 civilians, mostly Mayan Indians. And that was throughout the 1980s. So when somebody like Margaret Thatcher says that Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot, there’s a certain kind of historical amnesia with those kind of pronouncements which get circulated in the mainstream press.

Maybe it was knowing that The Common Ills community had voted "We Can Be Together" as the song to be highlighted Thursday, but whether we watched or listened to Democracy Now! on Thursday, we all ended up thinking of that song.

What are we getting at here? The physical attacks on those who differ politically. In Iraq or Afghanistan, we see the US administration making over the areas, doing things that they couldn't do here. And what was done in Guatemala or El Salvador or Nicaragua or any of Latin America were acts that couldn't be committed here.

But they were acts that many in the current administration approve of now and did then. (And some like John Negorponte can also be tracked back to Vietnam.) It honestly made us of think of the Tone Talkers and wonder if, in any region in Latin America, as the killings were going on, some New Republican-types were screaming about something as useless as tone?

See, what the history reveals is that you are an outlaw in the eyes of many in the administration just for what you believe in -- it doesn't have to be a violent belief. It can be a belief in socialism or communism or a belief that a country with natural resources should profit from them and not foreign corporations. It can even be something as simple as the concept of self-rule that sets their teeth on edge.

Now in the United States, they can't outright kill a person openly (Fred Hampton being one of the many exceptions). But just as Iraq reveals the devastation the comes from capitalism run amuck, you can look at Latin America and realize what they'd really like to do to Americans who disagree with them. Or you can look at Guantamo Bay and see the same thing.

It's not an "exception." For all the pretzel twists the likes of Alan Dershowitz put themselves through, the people involved in the decision making aren't making "exceptions" -- they're operating under the beliefs. That includes the right for Bully Boy to designate anyone an enemy combantant which is why J-Ass' Dept. of Justice was so interested in arguing the Jose Padilla case. Habeas corpus, the cornerstone of the American legal system, was tossed aside.

As Mike Whitney wrote in "The Padilla Case" (CounterPunch):

The presumption of innocence is foundational to any democratic form of government. Without that presumption, the state is free to exert whatever control it arbitrarily chooses in the incarceration or punishment of its citizens. This effectively destroys the firewall that safeguards the individual from the vagaries of government power and intrusiveness. It is absurd to talk about democracy if the most fundamental of protections for its citizens are not provided. When the presumption of innocence is denied, justice is denied, and democracy withers.
For the first time in American history this principle is being challenged outright in the government's case against Jose Padilla. The Bush Administration is claiming that the president has the authority to strip a citizen of his constitutional rights in the name of national security. If they are successful in their efforts, the "inalienable" rights of man will cease to be. Citizens will no longer be protected by clearly articulated due process rights interpreted by an independent judiciary, but quickly dispatched by executive fiat. Justice will be dispensed at the discretion of the president.

Writing on the issue a year later (2005), Mike Whitney again noted what was at stake ("Jose Padilla and the 10 Commandments"):

The case of Jose Padilla appeared in the media again this week, when a lower court ruled (as it has twice before) that the administration must either charge Padilla or release him from prison. The Bush team has no intention of doing either. Padilla is the "test case" to establish that the President can jail a US citizen indefinitely without charging him with a crime. This "precedent" is central to the administration's plans for unlimited power. Tyranny is built on the foundation of arbitrary imprisonment; a principle that Bush and his colleagues fully understand.

What you see, repeatedly and regularly, from the Bully Boy is "test cases." The warrantless, illegal spying on American citizens by Bully Boy was another test case. He tests the will of Americans to see how much they'll tolerate. How far can he abuse the search and seizure provision in the Constitution? How much will Americans be willing to go along with and stomach? More importantly, how much will Congress?

Thus far, Congress has been more than happy to look the other way. When it was revealed that Bully Boy had broken the law by spying on American citizens without court warrants, we heard proposals of how the law could be changed (and even some comments of how the new law could be retroactive so that the Bully Boy would be protected). That's really disgusting. Someone breaks the law and instead of enforcing the law, Congress tries to rush in to change it.

In case they're forgetting the Supreme Court found (in Jones v. Clinton) that no one was above the law. Then there was talk of actions having consequences. That was a case where two people had two different versions of testimony (and, in Jones' case, had varied her testimony over the years). But when even people who helped craft the 1978 FISA system (court and law) stated Bully Boy had broken the law, there was no talk of actions having consequences. As Amy Goodman noted Friday, "But the NSA spy program is even being criticized by former top NSA officials. On Monday, the agency's former Director Bobby Ray Inman said, "This activity is not authorized." Still the Joe Kleins of the world want to act as though nothing's going on. (Nothing in his head, at any rate.)

The statement by Inman on Monday came before Leslie Cauley broke the latest news in USA Today this week: Bully Boy has authorized a program whereby the phone calls of American citizens, purely domestic calls, are now kept track of. We're supposed to take comfort, Bully Boy supporters tell us, that it's just a record of calls placed and received, not a record of what was said. As if that makes a difference. As if the government has a right to find out who you are calling or who is calling you without probable cause. Probable cause being an element of the Fourth Amendment that current CIA director nominee and former NSA national director Michael Hayden doesn't grasp.

From Democracy Now!'s "Former NSA Head Gen. Hayden Grilled by Journalists on NSA Eavesdropping on U.S. Citizens:"

JONATHAN LANDAY: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue. And that has to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures.
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: Actually, the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. That's what it says.
JONATHAN LANDAY: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
JONATHAN LANDAY: But does it not say probable --
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: No.
JONATHAN LANDAY: The court standard, the legal standard --
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
[. . .]
AMY GOODMAN: The Deputy Director of National Intelligence, former head of the National Security Agency, Michael Hayden, being questioned yesterday at the National Press Club. That last reporter, after Jim Bamford asked his question, was Jonathan Landay of Knight Ridder, editor and publisher pointing out, well, this is the Fourth Amendment: the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Are you surprised that someone with the power to spy on Americans doesn't know the Constitution? You shouldn't be. People taking an oath to serve the people and uphold the Constitution seem to lose sight of that oath when it comes to the Bully Boy. Colin Powell and others talk of the need to 'serve my president.' On your knees and on the backs of the American people? You're not there to serve your president and one of the differences between Nixon's administration and the current one is that some people in Nixon's administration grasped what their oaths meant and who they were supposed to serve. Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus were but two who grasped that they were servants of the American people and sworn to uphold the Constitution. Richard Nixon insisted that they fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Richardson was the Attorney General and he quit. Ruckelshaus was the deputy Attorney General and he quit. This is what's known as the "Saturday Night Massacre" -- when the United States lost both it's Attorney General and it's Deputy Attorney General on the same day.

Cox was fired and guess what lackey in line did it? Robert Bork. There will always be lap dogs eager to have their bellies scratched.

As Robert Parry writes in "This Time, It Really Is Orwellian" (Consortium News):

Even before the USA Today disclosure on May 11, 2006, it was clear that Bush’s spying program was much larger than he had let on. Indeed, the operation was reportedly big enough to generate thousands of tips each month, which were passed on to the FBI.
"But virtually all of [the tips], current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans," the New York Times reported. "FBI officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. ... Some FBI officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy." [NYT, Jan. 17, 2006]
Also, undermining Bush's claims about the limited nature of the NSA's activities is why the administration would need to possess the complete phone records of the 200 million customers of AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth -- if the government were only conducting what Bush and his aides have called a "targeted terrorist surveillance program."
(Qwest, a Colorado-based company with about 14 million customers, refused to turn over its records to the government because there was no court order, USA Today reported.)
The stated goal of tracking phone numbers that had been called by al-Qaeda operatives could be easily done with warrants from the FISA court. There would be no need to compile every personal and business call made by 200 million Americans.
"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," one person told USA Today. The program's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, the person said. [USA Today, May 11, 2006]

(As with all links in this article, there's much more to them than what is excerpted but we'll note on Parry's article that he's also detailing the ways this database could be worked to the Bully Boy's benefit -- such as tracking the calls to reporters, finding out whom political 'enemies' call, etc.)

What we have is a Bully Boy who, oath be damned, doesn't believe in the Constitution of the United States and is willing to actively work to subvert it. The highest law of the land means nothing to him. Now is that because he doesn't believe in it or is it because he thinks his ends justify the means? Or is a combination of the two?

Those are questions worth exploring because that oath isn't to be taken lightly. What has gone is high crimes and misdemeanors. This isn't about sex, so it might not be easily followed (by some people or reporters) but it's alarming. And when you see the Iran-contra felons (pardoned by Poppy Bush) slinking back towards 'respectabilty' via appointments of the Bully Boy, when you see people like Negroponte who either looked the other way with regards to death squads or actively assisted them (we would vote for the latter), you really should be alarmed. The actions they will take outside the United States are actions they justify on the grounds of a 'grave threat.' It's a grave threat that the person they back can't be in charge. That should frighten the hell out of you because what they'll do covertly in other nations isn't some exception, it goes to their character.

And the character they've demonstrated is one where they are bound by no laws, the Bully Boy's word is law. All hail the Bully Boy. As they lop off rights and existing laws, you should be concerned and you should be wondering why Congress is still reluctant to hold them accountable? It's past time that Congress, Republicans and Democrats, stood up to the trampling of the rights of the people and the continual overriding of their own powers. (Best exemplified by Bully Boy's 750 signing statements where he signs legislation they passed into laws but maintains that he's not bound by it -- a curious interpretation of the Constitution and of Congressional powers.) As Cindy Sheehan states, " God protect us from the fools that we elected to protect us!" ( "Mission Accomplished," BuzzFlash).