The New York Times has just published a post by the A.P. in which a judge has just overturned a Bush Executive order allowing Presidents to prevent the publication of any thing coming out of the executive office. The article is here

Here is a copy:

Judge Invalidates Bush Order on Records

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: October 1, 2007

Filed at 5:58 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge on Monday invalided part of a 2001 order by President Bush allowing former presidents to review executive documents before they can be released under open records laws.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that the presidential order eliminated the discretion of the National Archives to control the release historical records. She said the executive order allowed former presidents to delay the release of those records ''presumably indefinitely.''

The ruling was made in a lawsuit filed by the American Historical Association and other organizations, which argued that Bush's Executive Order 13,233 was an ''impermissible exercise of the executive power.''

A bill that would overturn the order is pending in the Senate.

This is another example of a pattern in which the Bushies think they above the law. Thinking an executive order trumps a law is a good way down the road to tyranny.

I also wonder why he thought he needed this power. What is he trying to hide?

The good news is that certain provisions of the U.S. Patriot act have been ruled unconstitutional today.

From an article in the New York Times here .

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — A federal judge in Oregon ruled Wednesday that crucial parts of the USA Patriot Act were not constitutional because they allowed federal surveillance and searches of Americans without demonstrating probable cause.

The ruling by Judge Anne L. Aiken of Federal District Court in Portland was in the case of Brandon Mayfield, a lawyer in Portland who was arrested and jailed after the Federal Bureau of Investigation mistakenly linked him to the Madrid train bombings in March 2004.

“For over 200 years, this nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success,” Judge Aiken’s opinion said in finding violations of the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. “A shift to a nation based on extraconstitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill advised.”

Yet what bothered me was that this only protects U.S. citizens and not those who live in other established democracies with independent judiciaries. Yet upon further research I see that Britain (and perhaps other democracies) has no such legal concept as the right to privacy. The British government can search and eavesdrop at will. The British magazine The Economist has a very good article on this entitled Learning to Live with Big Brother which examines this threat to liberty in both the U.S. and the U.K.

Britain has long permitted the “warrantless” eavesdropping of its citizens (only the home secretary's authorization is required), and few people appear to mind. What does seem to worry people is the sheer volume of information now being kept on them and the degree to which it is being made accessible to an ever wider group of individuals and agencies. The government is now developing the world's first national children's database for every child under 18. The National Health Service database, already the biggest of its kind in Europe, will eventually hold the medical records of all 53m people in England and Wales.

Even more controversial is Britain's National Identity Register, due to hold up to 49 different items on everyone living in the country. From 2009, everybody is to be issued with a “smart” biometric ID card, linked to the national register, which will be required for access to public services such as doctors' surgeries, unemployment offices, libraries and the like—leaving a new, readily traceable, electronic data-trail. America plans a similar system, with a string of personal data held on a new “smart” national driver's license that would double up as an ID.

The key idea behind the concept of liberty is individual control and responsibility. Having any external group, some possibly hostile, able to access your movement and personal data without your permission takes away control over oneself and thus erodes personal liberty. How can any international agreements be made regarding this if many (so called) democracies do not have an internal right to privacy?

EDIT: This link gives the communications intercept laws of various nations. Yet this information is not always clear as to whether the issued warrants must be approved by an independent judge to show probable cause.

The Spanish Inquisition: A History

Joseph Perez

My review of this book covering the origins of the Spanish Inquisition can be found here. Yet the Inquisition's treatment of various groups provides insight into the mentality of cultural defense, a phenomena now seen is several Islamic states. The conclusion of the book summarizes this well:

"In Spain, the civil power was not content to simply back the Church. It took the initiative in repression and granted those agents privileged status. The Council of the Inquisition was one of the great state bodies on a par with the Council of Finances and the Council for the Indies. The confusion of the temporal and spiritual spheres contained the seed of one of the most dangerous temptations of the modern world: the tendency to make ideology the obligatory compliment of politics. In Nazi Germany and in the Communist regimes, to be considered a good citizen it was not enough to pay one's taxes and obey the country's laws; it was also necessary to adhere to the dominant ideology, on pain of being regarded as a suspect."

The author, Joseph Perez, then goes on to list the many similarities of these "cultural purity" (my term) regimes such as the use of secret trials with secret accusers and secret charges, guilt by association, objective complicity (using phrases similar to those of heretics made you guilty no matter what the context of their use),  guilt from not reporting others, public confession of these supposed crimes, and punishment extending to one's family.

The Rationists

The Inquisition began burning books in 1497 when it ordered the court in Valencia to publicly burn all books related to  Judaism, medicine, surgery, and other sciences as well as Bibles written in the vernacular. Valencia resisted this order for the time being but it was carried out in Barcelona (page 181). The following years saw all Arabic works including Korans burned. By 1511 all Islamic and all Jewish texts were officially banned although most medical and philosophic works were spared.

The rise of the printing press scared the Catholic church as evidenced by the papal bull of May 4, 1515 (the Inter sollicitudinis) which while praising the printing press goes on to recommend measures designed to prevent "thorns from growing among the good plants and poison from mixing with medicine"  (page 180). This eventually led to Catholic institutions and nations making lists of banned books. The French Sorbonne led the way in 1544, then the University of Louvain in 1546. The Republic of Venice made its list in 1549. The list from the Catholic Church dates from 1551.

The first Spanish Inquisition banned book list dates from that same year. Over time these lists kept getting larger. In 1559 the banned list included 701 books. The banned books in the vernacular included 14 book by the humanist Erasmus, 18 translations of the Bible, 13 catechisms, 20 Books of Hours, 10 prayer books, 5 books on religion, 4 books on history, 1 on medicine, 1 on botany, 36 on spirituality, and 19 literary works.

In 1572 the Inquisition declared that it would not follow the Pope's list of banned books but only follow its own list (page 183). In 1583 the banned book index listed 1,315 books plus corrections in others in which pages or paragraphs were to be blocked out. A new category in this list were books involving magic, astrology, and witchcraft and those involving disrespect for the leaders of the church. In 1632 it banned all works by Copernicus who suggested a sun centered universe and any subsequent works related to that thus preventing Spain from taking part in the scientific revolution.

Erasmus, whose books were banned in 1559, tried to use rationalism and spirituality as a way reform the Catholic church enough to re-united it with the Protestants led by Martin Luther. In opposition to the Catholic Church he attacked its dogma and empty ritual that reeked of superstition without scientific or Biblical foundation. In opposition to Luther he defended free will and argued against schism. Initially the works of Erasmus gained widespread popularity in Spain until they were squashed by becoming associated with the mystical movement of Illuminism.

The Mystical Illuminists

Illuminists, in the tradition of mystics throughout history, gave inner experience priority over external dogma. They declared they were motivated and inspired directly by the love of God. Their most extreme members declared that because God dictated their conduct they no longer had any will of their own and therefore they could not sin. Their more moderate members came together for Bible study and seem to have independently come to the Protestant conclusion that one did not need external rituals to have a relationship with God or Jesus, one could have a spiritual relationship directly. Consequently, they rejected the authority and dogma of the Catholic church and its traditional forms of piety.

From 1525 on the Inquisition moved forcefully against them. The only thing that the followers of Erasmus had in common with the Illuminists were the rejection of dogma and the desire for a more personal spirituality but this was enough for the two movements to be considered as one by the Inquisition, especially once some Illuminists started claiming they were followers of Erasmus in the hopes of fending off the Inquisition.

The Witches

In contrast to the mysticism of the Illuminists which directly challenged the dogma of the church the mysticism of  witches was mostly viewed as silly superstition, perhaps because of the claims which an illiterate people made for them such as walking through walls and shrinking their bodies. In general by 1539  the Inquistion had wrested authority for dealing with witches from most of the local authorities (page 79). In 1554, Valdez (the head of the Inquisition) stated his belief that episodes of witchcraft stemmed from weak women taking on an imagined role because they could be made to confess to anything. In most cases the best thing was just to send them home (page 82).

Because of this attitude, persecution of witches was much less in Spain than elsewhere in Europe. For example, in the cities of Cuenica and Toledo torture was seldom used on witches and of the 307 witch trials that took place no death sentences were ever passed. In the province of Galacia between 1560 and 1700 out of 2,203 trials only 140 were witch trials. All but 2 witches were released after a simple confession of error. In the city of Cordova the demonic charge of witchcraft was almost never mentioned, instead the charges were that their magic could influence love, effect cures, or discover secrets. Of these witches, 5 were men and 74 were women with the women generally being between ages 25 and 35.

Yet this tolerance seems to have faded over time for the last death sentence handed out by the inquisition in 1781 was to an old witch known as the Blind Zealot who had confessed to seducing young clerics and performing magic.

The recent May 21, 2007 edition of Time magazine has a great article entitled "Inside the Scandal at Justice" providing the latest information of the firings of respected U.S. attorneys for political reasons. The shortened (and thus incomplete) online article is here.

As with most things I read regarding politics the most signifcant items are rarely the headline items. In this case it was this paragraph.

"What Gonzalas' team wanted in U.S. Attorneys, according to an email sent by Sampson (a Gonzalas aid) sent to the White House, was "loyal Bushies". And thanks to a provision they quietly slipped into last years reauthorizationof the Patriot Act, they were able to put their candidates in without going through the customary route of Senate confirmation."

"When Gonzales testified last month before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a former U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island, produced documents and charts showing that under Bill Clinton, a policy was carried out that allowed only four people at the White House — the President, Vice President, White House counsel and deputy counsel — to discuss pending criminal cases with anyone at Justice and only with the top three officials of the department. Under Bush, that policy was loosened so that 417 White House staffers had that authority and could contact more than 30 people at Justice."

I am just extremely appalled by this assault on American liberty. The Bushies are attempting to use the justice system to enhance their own power, to protect their friends and punish their enemies. This is something that they cannot even use the cover of "fighting terrorism" to explain. One has to wonder what other laws they have corrupted for their own ends.

Of course this is all part of a larger national and international pattern by the Bushies. I have never thought of any administration as evil before but the Bushies are just outright evil.

Here in the college town of Champaign-Urbana, Illinois both cities passed a rule prohibiting smoking in any public place including bars and restaurants effective this past January 31. The city council discussions about this ban as reported in the paper were sincere and difficult for all members involved as they weighed freedom of action versus public health. What seemed to sway the vote in favor of the ban was the desire to protect the health of the bar workers from the smoke.

Now the cities are repealing the ban since the state of Illinois just passed a law making such a ban state wide this January 1, 2008. I am not sure why they are doing this at this time but the comments from bar owners has been enlightening.

Despite predictions that the bars would suffer drastic revenue losses the opposite seems to be the case. The largest locally owned bar chain says revenues are up 8% since the ban went into effect so they are keeping the ban even though they don't have to. Another bar owner is doing the same thing. I should add that the bars keeping the smoking bans are good quality "hang out" bars and not dives.