Her decisions against an oppressive government were many as she served in a 5 to 4 swing as a member of the Supreme Court.
Cases in Which Sandra Day O'Connor Cast the Decisive Vote (7/1/2005)
http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2004/13935res20050701.html
After leaving the bench she has not been silent.
Dictatorship is the danger
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1729350,00.html
Former top judge says US risks edging near to dictatorship
· Sandra Day O'Connor warns of rightwing attacks
· Lawyers 'must speak up' to protect judiciary
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1729396,00.html
Dictatorship is the danger
A Reagan-appointed supreme court justice voices her fears over attacks on US democracy
Jonathan Raban
Monday March 13, 2006The Guardian
Linking the words "America" and "dictatorship" is a daily staple of leftwing blogs, which thrive on the idea that Bush administration policies since 9/11 are taking the country ever closer to totalitarian rule. Liberal fears that democracy is endangered by Republicans in Congress are so widespread, so endemic to the jittery political climate in the US, that they hardly bear repeating. It'll surprise no one to learn that another voice was added to the chorus last Thursday, warning that recent attacks on the American judiciary were putting the democratic fabric in jeopardy and were the first steps down the treacherous path to dictatorship.
What is surprising - more than that, electrifying - is that the voice belonged to Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired a few weeks ago from the supreme court. O'Connor is a Republican and a Reagan nominee. Regarded as the "swing vote" on the court, she swung the presidential election to George Bush in 2000.
Equally surprising is that O'Connor's speech to an audience of lawyers at Georgetown University was attended by just one reporter, the diligent legal correspondent for National Public Radio, Nina Totenberg. No transcript or recording of the speech has been made available, so we have only Totenberg's notes to go on. But - assuming they are accurate - the notes are political dynamite.
O'Connor's voice was "dripping with sarcasm", according to Totenberg, as she "took aim at former House GOP [Republican] leader Tom DeLay. She didn't name him, but she quoted his attacks on the courts at a meeting of the conservative Christian group Justice Sunday last year when DeLay took out after the courts for rulings on abortions, prayer and the Terri Schiavo case.
"It gets worse, she said, noting that death threats against judges are increasing. It doesn't help, she said, when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with."
Then she spoke the D-word. "I, said O'Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former communist countries where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O'Connor said we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."
Delivered by someone who was, until recently, one of the nine guardians of the US constitution, these are spine-chilling opinions, and you might have thought they'd have been all over the papers the next day. Not so. I happened to catch Totenberg's NPR report last Friday, and have been following up references to it. A cable TV talkshow and a handful of blogs have mentioned Totenberg's piece: otherwise there's been a disquieting silence, as if the former justice had laid an unsavoury egg and had best be politely ignored.
Why did O'Connor choose such a closed forum to air her thoughts? Why was Totenberg the only reporter present? The possibility that America is sliding toward dictatorship or an unprecedented form of corporate oligarchy ought to be a matter of world concern. And if O'Connor believes what she is reported to have said, surely she owes it to the world to make public the prepared text of her remarks, which so far have the dubious character of the scores of unverifiable leaks that have passed for news in the compulsively secretive world of the Bush administration. It's unsurprising that, say, Colin Powell chooses to leak rather than speak out, but when a supreme court justice prefers to whisper her fears to a coterie audience, it's hard to avoid the inference that the whisper itself speaks volumes about the imperilled democracy it purports to describe.
Death threats to judges figured importantly in O'Connor's speech, with good reason. Last year, an Illinois federal judge found her husband and mother murdered, and a Georgia state judge was shot dead in his courtroom. Within days, Senator John Cornyn of Texas mused: "I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence."
DeLay, speaking of the judges who had ruled that Schiavo be allowed to die, said: "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behaviour."
These are peculiar times, and when Republican politicians appear to endorse the killing of judges who make rulings of which they disapprove, it's maybe understandable that a distinguished judge like Sandra Day O'Connor, expressing views calculated to enrage Republican politicians, might sensibly look to a small podium with a weak sound system for fear of being heard too clearly by the likes of Cornyn and DeLay.
· Jonathan Raban's latest book is My Holy War: dispatches from the home front. Nina Totenberg's report is at: http://tinyurl.com/lt5ls
Today Cooper is in Afghanistan because of the 'heating up' of the war with the Taliban. It isn't a war about terror. It is however a military stand against the Taliban.
In Afghanistan it is also a controversial war.
This from 2004.
Karzai Says Taliban Movement Dead, Noncriminal Members Can Return
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2004/n02272004_200402272.html
By John D. Banusiewicz
American Forces Press Service
KABUL, Afghanistan, Feb. 27, 2004 – The Taliban is dead as a movement or a military factor in Afghanistan, the country's president said here Feb. 26, and former Taliban leaders seeking to return home will be allowed back if they don't have criminal records.
President Hamid Karzai held a joint news conference with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld after they met in Afghanistan's presidential palace. He challenged the implications of a question posed by a correspondent from the Arab satellite television network al Jazeera that implied al Qaeda and the Taliban were becoming increasingly active in the country.
"Everything that happens in Afghanistan is not terrorist-related," Karzai said. "Lack of security at times is not Taliban-related or security-related. There is banditry too. There is theft too. There is armed robbery too." He said ascribing crimes common in any country and any major city to the Taliban because it happens in Afghanistan is vastly overstating the case.
"We strongly believe, with evidence, that they are defeated. They're gone," Karzai said, referring to the Taliban. For example, he said, a terrorist who recently killed 19 children in Kandahar tried to hide in a house, but the woman living there delivered him to the police. Citizens have turned in terrorists in four or five other cases in recent months, he noted.
Rumsfeld echoed Karzai's assessment of the Taliban. "I've not seen any indication that the Taliban pose a military threat to Afghanistan," he said.
"We don't see a resurgence of the Taliban," Karzai said. "The Taliban as a movement does not exist anymore. You'd be surprised, gentleman from al Jazeera, if I disclosed to you as to how many approaches we have from the Taliban on a daily basis – individuals (and) groups coming to talk to us to let them back into the country."
He acknowledged that terrorist incidents and even some Taliban-related activities still occur, but repeated that most crime in the country is "normal life."
The Taliban leaders contacting Afghan officials "recognize that Afghanistan is now a better place for all of us to live in" and would like to return and benefit from that. Karzai said all Taliban who do not have criminal records and were not involved with al Qaeda or terrorism "are free to return to their country and live a normal life."
While today:
Karzai rejects security fears
From correspondents in Washington
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20380253-1702,00.html
September 09, 2006
AFGHANISTAN President Hamid Karzai has overnight rejected any notion that security in his country was worsening, after a suicide blast in Kabul left two US soldiers and 14 civilians dead and shook the presidential palace, Time magazine has reported.
"Look, we have enemies," Mr Karzai told the magazine in an interview minutes after one of the deadliest attacks in the heavily secured Afghan capital.
"The same enemies that blew up themselves in London, the same enemies that blew up the train in Madrid or the train in Bombay or the twin towers in America are still around," he said, recalling some of the major terrorist attacks.
The Taliban militia, which is waging a guerrilla-style insurgency and claimed responsibility for the attack, "are on the run and hiding and they come out from their hiding and try to hurt us when they can manage it," Mr Karzai said.
He adamantly rejected any suggestion that the security situation in Afghanistan was deteriorating, Time said in its report.
The O'Connor here is the Canadian Defense Minister. In recent weeks the Brits have reinvested in Iraq and the Canadian military is feeling the brevity of their presence in Afghanistan. They seem to believe the circumstances can be 'won'/reversed in favor of stability but there needs to be a larger commitment to the effort by the rest of the NATO forces.
Canada needs help fighting Taliban, allies told
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060908.wxafghanhelp08/BNStory/National/home
O'Connor complains of military burden as NATO seeks contributions from others
GLORIA GALLOWAY
From Friday's Globe and Mail
OTTAWA — Canada's Defence Minister says Canadian troops cannot defeat the Taliban "militarily" in the dangerous southern part of Afghanistan and Canada is shouldering an unduly large part of the mission that has claimed 16 soldiers in the past three months.
"We cannot eliminate the Taliban, not militarily anyway," Gordon O'Connor told Reuters in an interview yesterday from Australia. Instead, the Defence Minister said, "we've got to get them back to some kind of acceptable level, so they don't threaten other areas."
Mr. O'Connor's uncharacteristically pessimistic statements would seem to be at odds with his government's unwavering support for Canadian involvement in the NATO operation.
The minister, who could not be reached for comment on his published remarks, went on to complain about the military burden being borne by Canada.
The issue of responsiblity for the upsurge of violnece in Afghanistan lies directly on the shoulders of Don Rumsfeld and his failed attempts at securing a nation. Neither of the countries of Afghanistan or Iraq are so large that victory over terrorist networks such as the Taliban cannot be achieved. The circumstancers in Iraq are different. And to that in a minute.
In Afghanistan the USA according to Cooper's reporting has claimed victory, yet, there still remains at large Osama bin Laden and his extensive influence over the oppressed and self righteous in Islam. He continues today to serve as a leader misguided and misguiding by violent interpretations of the Quran. The text of the Quran in reference to 'Jihad' in particular are primarily validations to the right of self defense in a world where nomads once dominated the reality of life. That does not apply to the modern world. It is chaotic and self defeating in a world where infrastructure supplies order and advances/enhances quality of life leading to burgeoning democracies.
It is the democracies that bin Laden seeks to destroy with a 'fundamental' desire of vast oppression of people while calling it Islam. Islam is not about war, it is not about aggression and it is not about control. It is about providing a 'guidepost' to living. The fundamentalists need to address these texts through writing of their Imams and Aytollahs no differently than the Jewish find 'commentary' an important link to past teachings and modern day. I realize that analogy will not 'set well' among many, but, it is the truth. By allowing people such as Mullah Omar the opportunity to linger in past 'strategies' of survival by the majority of Muslims, there is justification for 'individual' Jihadists. This anarchy that al Qaeda teachs is very contrary to the over riding cornerstone of Islam, which is community. But, that is getting off the subjects at hand.
It is 'easy' for Bush and the USA seeking higher value of their one time influence in the country of Afghanistan to claim victory and walk away without a scatch of blame for the current circumstances, while elements of the underground there and in Pakistan continue to reek havoc in places that Mr. Karzai named above.
The fact that Britain began to take a greater interest in Afghanistan and the defeat of the Taliban, whom shelter bin Laden, after the London bombings brings even greater controversey to the USA attacks into Iraq. The business of 'dealing with' bin Laden and al Qaeda was hardly over when Bush and his administration set their cites on Iraq, which was already a disarmed victory for Bush's father and the United Nations. After the Kuwait attacks and having beaten Saddam Hussein the efforts of global proportions worked only to be destroyed at the hand of Bush's son and oil ambitions of his self appointed vice president. To put it bluntly, the USA abandoned it's 'War on Terror' a long time ago when it allowed al Qaeda to continue to flourish without destroying bin Laden in Tora Bora.To make a long dialogue short Bush diverted the war against al Qaeda into a larger picture for an agenda of war and cronies. It's just that simple. The war against al Qaeda is a complete failure by the simple fact it's mastermind and mentor, Osama bin Laden, is still actively engaging terrorist networks globally, ie: Hezbollah. The real heroes, I am hoping are not the Americans and their ever expanding debt ceiling, but, the Brits whom have hunkered down with the reality of their own failed allied relationship with the USA.
Reporting on British Trials a Challenge
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801011.html
By PAISLEY DODDS
The Associated Press
Friday, September 8, 2006; 2:41 PM
LONDON -- The complete story of how suspected terrorists planned to blow up U.S.-bound airplanes may take a year or so to tell because of reporting restrictions that keep journalists from publishing details before a trial.
Britain's tough contempt laws and reporting restrictions on covering court cases _ intended to protect suspects' rights _ mean key facts are hidden from the public even as terror plots multiply, leaving international media struggling to respect the law of the land while reporting the news to global audiences.
It is my estimation the security surrounding the proceedings of trials and investigation will continue for some time. I appreciate that. There seems to be little the Brits are not determined to 'dig up' about these networks, when in reality it is just one huge network of 'misguided beliefs' by a mastermind convinced of his purpose. I hold great hopes for the Brits to be able to do what the USA has not been able to do and that is destroy ever aspect of funding and infrastructure that allows terrorist networks to exist. I am confident they will and quite frankly I don't see that it should have taken five years to do it.
As to Afghanistan. The reflection alone of the flourishing Poppy crop is proof enough that Afghanistan has little desire to change it's ways, so much as placate warlords to allow a 'place' for government when in fact the government cannot even provide the world with a country of benevolence and a national product to find legitimacy on the world market, except, in underground networks that supply funding to terrorist networks. To that end, Karzai's words are empty and should be regarded as misguided in the 'politics of the day.' In other words, due to Rumsfeld's failed war against al Qaeda and the Taliban, we are faced with an Afghanistan where it's government settles for a 'foot hold' rather than a governance.That is NOT acceptable. But, to what end can war subdue such influences in Afghanistan? The country is war torn and poverty stricken. It's time to realize war has it's limits of influence after five years of commitement by forces allied with freedom rather than oppression. A change in strategy is direly needed while the current forces are armed enough to reclaim lost ground to the Taliban. Some of that strategy has to be a change in leadership in Pakistan as well where loyality to peace is highly questionable. The infrastructure of Afghanistan has to change or otherwise we are facing a chronic issue of a global menance with a figure head government.
Upto now the 'military solutions' are the only strategies put forth. What has failed globally is an active State Department that can bring 'change' without destroying a country completely. The diplomacy of the USA has been nonexistant except where it provides fiscal well being for cronies and a platform for war. When in any administration has a president been met with assassination attempts both in Georgia and South America? Let's face it, Bush has no ability to govern or lead so much as march armies of munitions from one place to another, killing Americans while corporate profits source in their wake.
The false speeches of this administration over the last five years have confused the reality of Iraq as well.
Pre-invasion Iraq, was simply a country contained. It was divided ethnically no different than today. In the south, under the "No Fly Zone" were always the Shi'ites. In the north, under the "No Fly Zone" were always the Kurds. In the middle was a paranoid dictator with only a rifle and a balcony to declare war on anyone.
The Sunnis were always Saddam Hussein's military. They still are today. Bush calls them 'dead enders.' That is not the case. This is the military that has survived from Iraq's initial invasion by the Coalition forces. It is still today trying to take the country from the clutches of occupation. In an attempt to secure it's place, the Sunnis began a war against the Shi'ites. They tried to stop the Shi'ites from cooperating with the new authority in Iraq. What resulted instead were militias determined to survive the Sunni onslaught without protection from the USA.
The Shi'ites under the guidance of the Grand Ayatollah al Sistani were always the 'compliance' sheep where 'low profile' under a benevolent Ayatollah, a man of peace above all else, insured survival of those peoples. The Gand Ayatollah al Sistani came from Iran to lead the most endeared members of Shi'ite ethnicity to a life of compliance and survival. For the most part he was successful with attacks even on the Shi'ite water supply and an uprising that cost the Shi'ites 50,000 members in 2002 at the hand of Saddam's Sunni military. To attempt to separate the Iraqi Shi'ites from the Iran Shi'ites is fruitless. They will always identify with each other to insure their existence while devoting themselves to the love and loyalty of Islam.
In realizing the 'survival strategy' of the Grand Ayatollah al Sistani it is easy to grasp why the majority Shia have adhered to elections and votes in the face of fearing the Sunnis. It is the directive of their Grand Ayatollah, a man who sees survival in majority rule as well as peace as a tool to a better quality of life he has longed for with these people whom love him more than they love themselves. With repeated offenses by the USA there began a resistance to USA domination and occupation within the Shi'ite majority. Let's face it, if Bush is going to attack precious Mosques and the clerics that defend them and live within them there is going to be a huge abandonment of loyalty to any influence by the USA.
Add to that mix a Bush military intent on 'having it's way' through oppression of Shi'ite militias and by making a higher callling of protection of the innocent. The reality is that a large number of Iraqis are refugees in the surrounding countries such as Jordan and now the burgeoning Kurdistan.
Iraq Begins to Take Formal Control of Its Armed Forces
The government now oversees one of 10 army divisions, along with a nascent air force and navy. No big U.S. troop cutbacks are seen.
By Patrick J. McDonnell, Times Staff WriterSeptember 8, 2006
BAGHDAD — The Iraqi government began to assume formal control of the nation's armed forces Thursday, in a highly symbolic move linked to a possible future drawdown of U.S. troops.Even as U.S. and Iraqi officials lauded the move, however, violence raged in the capital, and an Iraqi official said Baghdad had recorded more than 1,500 violent deaths in August — not far behind the record level of July. The bloodshed continued despite a massive security crackdown in the capital that began Aug. 7.
To remain in Iraq is futile. It only serves a larger agenda of war that is completely counter productive to peace in the entire region. The leaders of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan seek resolution of hostilities, especially since the war between Hezbollah and Israel. It is foolish to continue to attempt control in a region of the world that largely has rejected Bush's war and it's influence toward a greater instability creating a 'birth place' for an invasion into Iran.
That will never happen.
Islam is 'on to Bush' and simplistic concept of escalating wars while increasing the chaotic economic environments where terrorist networks flourish is completely abhorrent to the majority of Arab nations. They seek peace with Israel and want Iraq to fall in line with that peace including the adverse influences in Syria and Iran. A peace is at the threshold if only the USA would abandon it's hideous war in Iraq and shouting match with Iran.
Quite frankly.
I see economic sanctions while offering Iran incentive and direction to global economic inclusion, as well as the same for Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria a far better directive than Bush's 'Global War on Terror' which never really existed and today has little definition in fact.
Sandra Day O'Connor could not be more correct. To allow, a war on 'terror' - a concept - is to open the entire world to attacks in it's name.
An enemy is a noun and not a verb or adjective. An enemy has a name and place for attack. Intelligence and the undermining of networks is where any war on terror will find it's success. Not in the killing of innocent people for the pure 'chance' the right amount and the right ones will finally die that a peace through annihilation will result. If that is Bush's plan then he has the 'survival strategy' of the MEEk to contend with and even according to Bush's god, "The meek shall inherit the Earth."
end
