Now on ScienceBlogs: Lives of the Saints of Science: Darwin

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination

Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture

Profile

brayton_headshot_wre_1443.jpg Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Blogroll


Science Blogs Legal Blogs Political Blogs Random Smart and Interesting People Evolution Resources

Archives

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb



Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

Read the Bills Act Coalition

My Ecosystem Details



My Amazon.com Wish List

« Stop Warrantless Wiretapping Now | Main | Score One for Mukasey »

Clinton Won't Sign American Freedom Pledge

Posted on: February 7, 2008 9:02 AM, by Ed Brayton

Update: This story is wrong. I picked it up from another source and neglected to check the date. The story at the Nation was from October and a week or so later, Hillary Clinton did pledge her support for this campaign. Mea culpa. Please ignore this story.

Hillary Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who has refused to sign the American Freedom Pledge. There are actually two organizations with nearly identical names pushing nearly identical pledges, one from the left and one from the right. The American Freedom Campaign was formed by Wes Boyd, co-founder of MoveOn.org, and Naomi Wolf. The American Freedom Agenda was formed by Bruce Fein, Bob Barr, John Whitehead and Richard Viguerie, all prominent conservatives. And their goals are virtually identical. Both support a bill submitted by Ron Paul, the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007. Here's how the first group describes their goals:

At critical moments in our history, Americans have been called upon to protect our Constitutional guarantees of liberty and justice. We face such a moment today. The American Freedom Campaign is a non-partisan citizens' alliance formed to reverse the abuse of executive power and restore our system of checks and balances with these ten goals:

Fully restore the right to challenge the legality of one's detention, or habeas corpus, and the right of detained suspects to be charged and brought to trial.

Prohibit torture and all cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Prohibit the use of secret evidence.

Prohibit the detention of anyone, including U.S. citizens, as an "enemy combatant" outside the battlefield, and on the President's say-so alone.

Prohibit the government from secretly breaking and entering our homes, tapping our phones or email, or seizing our computers without a court order, on the President's say-so alone.

Prohibit the President from "disappearing" anyone and holding them in secret detention.

Prohibit the executive from claiming "state secrets" to deny justice to victims of government misdeeds, and from claiming "executive privilege" to obstruct Congressional oversight and an open government.

Prohibit the abuse of signing statements, where the President seeks to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills.

Use the federal courts, or courts-martial, to charge and prosecute terrorism suspects, and close Guantanamo down.

Reaffirm that the Espionage Act does not prohibit journalists from reporting on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution.

And here's how the second group describes their goals:

The American Freedom Agenda's (AFA) mission is twofold: the enactment of a cluster of statutes that would restore the Constitution's checks and balances as enshrined by the Founding Fathers; and, making the subject a staple of political campaigns and of foremost concern to Members of Congress and to voters and educators. Especially since 9/11, the executive branch has chronically usurped legislative or judicial power, and has repeatedly claimed that the President is the law. The constitutional grievances against the White House are chilling, reminiscent of the kingly abuses that provoked the Declaration of Independence.

The 10-point American Freedom Agenda would work to restore the roles of Congress and the federal judiciary to prevent such abuses of power and protect against injustices that are the signature of civilized nations. In particular, the American Freedom Agenda would:

* Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;
* Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
* Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President's say-so;
* Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
* Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President's say-so in violation of federal law;
* Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
* Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
* Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
* Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
* Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.

So far, all of the Democratic candidates have signed on except for Hillary Clinton. I am not the least bit surprised by that. I'm also not surprised that only Ron Paul among the Republican candidates has signed on to it.

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

1

You don't have to be a presidential candidate to register your support the American Freedom Agenda Act.

Note: If other candidates have signed the pledge, great. But none of them, past or present, who, despite being Senators or Representatives, have sponsored or co-sponsored the bill, except for Ron Paul.

Posted by: Jim Babka | February 7, 2008 1:28 PM

2

While I'm not surprised that Hillary won't sign onto it, I'm not sure WHY I'm not surprised. More than that, I question why she won't - does she actually think she'd benefit from that kind of power?

I very much hesitate to make a claim like "this just proves she's a megalomaniac" because I think that's way too extreme a response for such an issue but, it does beg the question.

That said, I am not at all surprised that the Republican candidates won't sign on - to do so would be to repudiate what Bush has done during his presidency and that would be a seen as treason by the Republican party.

It's sickening how a recognition of mistakes made can be so judged merely for party fealty.

Posted by: Patrick | February 7, 2008 1:30 PM

3

So why is Ron Paul still in bed with a party that clearly doesn't agree with him on such an important issue? Or is civil rights not that important to Ron Paul?

As for Hillary, the only reason I can think of for her not to sign this pledge, is her fear of being branded as a traitor, and her total inability to think of a way to counter such ridiculous propaganda. All the more reason for me to consider her unfit for leadership.

Posted by: Raging Bee | February 7, 2008 2:05 PM

4
Hillary Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who has refused to sign the American Freedom Pledge.

Well, thank God that Mike Gravel is on top of things.

Posted by: Brandon | February 7, 2008 2:39 PM

5

I hesitate to comment being a foreigner but this is bigger than us politics. I want to register my support for the general idea and point out that torture and kidnapping are not only wrong they also weaken the ability of your government to advocate for human rights elsewhere.

Posted by: Matt | February 7, 2008 2:55 PM

6

It was unclear from your post, and from the link, as to why she has not signed it.

Ed - If you are aware of her reasons for not signing, could you be so kind as to share with the class?

Posted by: J-Dog | February 7, 2008 3:07 PM

7

You would think that swearing to uphold the Constitution would cover all those goals.

Posted by: Ferrous Patella | February 7, 2008 3:11 PM

8

Ed, you really ought to be more careful:

OCTOBER 4, 2007: WASHINGTON ­ Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) today provided the American Freedom Campaign with a statement expressing a commitment to respecting the Constitution while defending the nation from the threat of terrorism. With Senator Clinton's statement, all of the Democratic presidential candidates have now either signed the American Freedom Pledge or have provided the American Freedom Campaign Action Fund with a detailed statement addressing the issues described in the American Freedom Campaign Agenda.

American Freedom Campaign press release, October 14th, 2007.

Posted by: Elf M. Sternberg | February 7, 2008 3:19 PM

9

She should be shoving people aside to sign either statement. I don't think she's as monarchical as Bush (who is?), but I think she wants to have those "rights" in her bag of tricks if she needs them. She might not even use them. But if she decided she needed to, she'd want them. Sometimes I feel like I've drunk the Obama coolaid but I don't think he'd hesitate to sign those statements and stick by them. I just don't think he's going to screw us over and she *might* not, but then again, she might.

If Hillary wins, she'll be a better president than Bush by some lightyears. On the other hand, the old lady who lives next door to me would make a better president than Bush and so would her poodle.

Posted by: Susan Brassfield Cogan | February 7, 2008 3:21 PM

10

American Freedom Campaign press release, October 14th, 2007.

Hmm, and the Nation article Ed links was from October 3, 2007...

Posted by: Coin | February 7, 2008 3:44 PM

11

Raging Bee,

I think you're probably right about Hillary's reasons, which is why I do not support her. She is governed by fear and political expedience. Disappointing that she has not signed.

Posted by: Karoli | February 7, 2008 3:48 PM

12

Oops. Elf Sternberg is correct, I passed on an old story without bothering to check the dates. Mea culpa. I'll add an update to the top of the story to clear it up. I won't delete it because, unlike our friends at UD, I don't believe in making my mistakes disappear down the memory hole.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 7, 2008 4:22 PM

13

As an old manufacturer obsessed with defect rates and how to reduce them, I'd stack Ed up with any other media source in terms of factual mistakes made relative to total factual assertions. This is an especially impressive record given that Ed is primarily offering commentary rather than mere straight news.

His ability to properly frame the full context of an issue is one of the four primary reasons I'm a daily reader.

Posted by: Michael Heath | February 7, 2008 4:32 PM

14

Ed & Elf:

Thanks for the update.

Posted by: Patrick | February 7, 2008 4:42 PM

15

What's the deal with McCain on this pledge? He seems a lot better on this issue than Romney, what's stopping him here?

Posted by: Chris Hallquist | February 7, 2008 4:45 PM

16

Ed: Thanks for the correction, it was the honorable thing to do. I was about to say you really don't need to keep a story online after the words "This story is wrong;" but then I realized you had a lot of good info about the two pro-fredom organizations, which should indeed stay up.

Posted by: Raging Bee | February 7, 2008 5:15 PM

17

Chris Hallquist wrote:

What's the deal with McCain on this pledge? He seems a lot better on this issue than Romney, what's stopping him here?

McCain is strong on being against torture, but he's not much of a civil libertarian. I've not heard him speak out on the other issues that are part of the pledge, against warrantless wiretapping and so forth.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 7, 2008 5:30 PM

18

Vee haf ways of making you sign zis oath or vould you like me to speak to the Fuehrer?

Maybe I watched too much "Hogan's Heros" but there's something super extra fishy about these oaths and the folks running around insisting people sign them. Who'd be first in line to sign a loyalty oath? The same people who need to appear loyal. The same people who'd wear an armband (red, black and white with a little cross-like doodle in the middle). Signing these petty oaths or any other doesn't mean diddly crap.

Sieg Heil to the oath. Heil. Heil.
Hey, I didn't get a "Heil" outta that guy!

Posted by: WRMartin | February 7, 2008 6:38 PM

19

If Matt Welch's investigations of John McCain are accurate, then McCain doesn't think much of civil liberties and isn't much of a "straight talker." He puts his name on the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law which limits political speech, and then doesn't bother accepting public financing because of the limits involved. He rails against performance enhancing drugs in sports, as if that is something Congress needs to be getting involved in at all. He looks at people like they just grew a second and third head if they propose that the U.S. Army should not spend the next hundred years in Iraq. McCain comes close to scaring me out of the country.

Posted by: Shawn Smith | February 7, 2008 7:41 PM

20
So why is Ron Paul still in bed with a party that clearly doesn't agree with him on such an important issue? Or is civil rights not that important to Ron Paul?

It's the reason I'm not able to get on board with the fiscal conservative branch of the Republican party much more than I I can get on board with the religious conservative branch: The most important "freedom" to them is money and not actual freedom.

Posted by: Troublesome Frog | February 8, 2008 11:21 AM

21

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0804,hentoff,78935,6.html

Nat Hentoff got it wrong too, it would seem.

Posted by: Hume's Ghost | February 9, 2008 12:25 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM