Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » rumpel Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
rumpel's Journal
Posted by rumpel in Election Reform
Tue Aug 25th 2009, 01:45 AM
received via e-mail alert

Public Citizen

Once upon a time, corporate titans bankrolled our elections with no limits. There were no social safety nets, no real labor laws, and no voting rights for most Americans. There were the haves and have nots.

This fall, a century of modest limits on corporate influence in politics could be completely rolled back, crushing progress on health care, the environment, energy, economic recovery … on everything!

The Supreme Court on September 9 hears a case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that reopens the question of unlimited corporate money in our elections. In a stunning move, the Court will reach back and reconsider two other pivotal campaign finance cases settled long ago. The potential result? A century-old pillar of campaign finance doctrine could be swept away.

Sound like a good idea? Sounds so very last, last century — except this time it wouldn’t be the robber barons — it would be the giant, multinational corporations buying our politicians outright.

Don’t let our elections and progress get rolled by corporate power!


More including case info at:
http://action.citizen.org/t/5489/petition....
Read entry | Discuss (4 comments) | Recommend (+22 votes)
Posted by rumpel in Election Reform
Fri Jan 19th 2007, 02:44 PM
Today, I would like to welcome the new Senator and former Congressman, Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, new member of the Judiciary Committee. Last night, I watched the Judiciary Gonzales hearings in it's entirety, somewhat late from other DU'ers , but likewise impressed of a potential progress on the horizon.
Senator Cardin's exchange with Attorney General Gonzales is case in point of what is going on inside the Department of Justice' Civil Rights Division.

Long lines in two counties of at best 2 hours, more commonly 3 hours, was the experience of voters in two counties on November 7, 2006. While this is attributable to several factors, he said, of too few machines, inadequate training of supervisors and many additional factors, these lines were only experienced in yes, predominantly black counties. Senator Cardin expressed his serious doubts whether election officials were in fact acting in good faith to ensure equal access to the ballot box in the November 7 election.

Senator Cardin then continued to inquire whether the Justice Department was doing anything at all in relation to a deceptive campaign flyer, which was distributed the day before the election in his district, laden with false endorsements. Ah, I thought - here in Southern California, I received one of those, too.
Senator Cardin mentioned that an inquiry on this matter was sent to Gonzales in a letter from Senator Schumer, and what I now personally believe to be a common response by Gonzales: simply ignored.

The familiar prelude of these soldiers of Bush in answering questions are the usual, of course it is one of "their biggest concerns", as they too, are minorities, and oh, how much they care personally of the fundamental equal right of a vote. Well, Mr. Gonzales, your actions speak louder than your empty words. The majority of this country now see, that time and again, comments such as yours reek of insincerity at best.

The excuse not to investigate starts with the State rights to conduct their own elections, oh, Senator Cardin bites back; "The Voting Rights Act is a federal law, is it not? Gonzales quickly escapes into the, "this is hard work" mode, not having the "tools" in such matters as enforcing "campaign tactics and rhetoric".
As Senator Cardin rightly points out, we here activists of election reform know and document, it is an orchestrated effort to deceive, and that it is not isolated to his district but we suspect in the entire nation. Well, I received mine. One would think, it is the obligation of the DOJ to investigate -unless it is de facto condoned. Mr. Gonzales don't embellish, we are well aware you gutted the staff at the Civil Rights Division, you deliberately removed your resources.

The entire hearing made one thing crystal clear to me. One of the US attorneys who was forced to resign in San Diego, Ms Lam, was in fact the prosecutor of Duke Cunningham's shenanigans. Dear San Diego, with the opinions of the appeal pending until April on CA-50, I am afraid you will have to fight harder, especially for the minorities, as you will not have an US attorney looking to enforce the Voting Rights Act in the near future. Gonzales duped Spector to insert a clause for no oversight for replacements of US Attorneys in the Patriot Act late last year. Combine that with the stance of Gonzales that judges are inferior to the Almighty Executive.

Who said that the Department of Justice represents the people? Mr. Gonzales made clear yesterday that the Department of Justice and it's US Attorneys are the Executive Branch, while denying, we know that you are executing the litmus test of loyalty to the president and not "We The People". In this regard, I was quite amused with the questions of another new member, Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island, a former US Attorney himself. Perhaps it was a mere gut feeling of mine, or did I in fact see a glimpse of "oops" moment in the demeanor of Mr. Gonzales? I am looking forward to Senator Whitehouse's efforts.

No, Senator Cardin it is obviously not in the interests of the Executive Branch to enforce the laws on it's own party and or allies in any matter, including The Voting Rights Act, among many others. But I am grateful for you addressing this issue and I thoroughly applaud and agree with you: "Any form of intimidation should not be tolerated".

Mr Gonzales may I remind you that you and the president are on payroll graciously provided by "We The People".

Congratulations Maryland and Rhode Island, you have elected some fine people to represent you.

December 5, 2005

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Gonzales:

We are writing to follow up on Chairman Specter’s letter to you dated November 22, 2005 requesting a report to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the current priorities of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). We want to re-emphasize the depth of concern regarding trends away from vigorous civil rights enforcement in light of recent news reports. The information reported in the press and available to the Congress shows an unacceptable decline in the number of traditional civil rights cases filed by the Division under this Administration, particularly in the important area of voting rights; a disturbing attrition of experienced attorneys from the Division, and an increasing diversion of the Division’s resources to non-civil rights issues, such as immigration enforcement.

We are particularly concerned about reports that the conclusions of experienced career DOJ attorneys have been overruled by DOJ officials for what appear to have been politically motivated reasons. The Washington Post recently reported that the Division overruled the recommendation of career DOJ attorneys by approving a Texas congressional redistricting plan that the career attorneys believed would discriminate based on race and ethnicity. As reported in the December 2, 2005 article by Dan Eggen, “Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal: Voting Rights Finding On Map Pushed by DeLay Was Overruled,” six lawyers and two analysts in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division unanimously concluded that the Texas redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because it eliminated several districts where minorities had substantial voting power and illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power. However, according to the article, political appointees overruled their recommendation that the redistricting plan not be approved, and the approved redistricting plan resulted in significant Republican political gains.

This new revelation follows on other recent reports of political appointees overruling the conclusions of career employees regarding the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Earlier this month, The Washington Post reported that Civil Rights Division officials overruled a 5-1 career staff recommendation against approving a Georgia voter photo identification requirement, which disadvantaged African Americans and other voters. As you know, the Georgia law, which The New York Times has called “a national disgrace,” was recently enjoined by a federal court.

These disclosures highlight the urgent need for your report and for increased oversight of the Civil Rights Division. We request that your report include an explanation of the decision-making process which led to the approval of the Texas redistricting plan and the Georgia voter ID requirements, in addition to an explanation of the decline in civil rights enforcement and the increase in attorney attrition. The vital work of the Civil Rights Division demands that the civil rights enforcement decisions made by experienced career attorneys not be curtailed for political reasons.

Thank you for your prompt response to this request regarding the protections of the Voting Rights Act, which guarantee that no individuals or groups are without a voice in this democracy.

Sincerely,

Sen. Patrick Leahy
Sen. Edward Kennedy
Sen. Christopher Dodd
Sen. Barack Obama
Rep. John Lewis

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200512/12050...

....and with that I apologize, I will not be able to post the usual collection of news as found on the net, today -
so I appreciate:

All members welcome and encouraged to participate.


Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.

If you can:

1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web.

2. Post stories using the "Election Fraud and Reform News Sources" listed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu... ...

3. Re-post stories and announcements you find on DU, providing a link to the original thread with thanks to the Original Poster, too.

4. Start a discussion thread by re-posting a story you see on this thread.


If you want to know how to post "News Banners" or other images, go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu... ...

Link to previous Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu... ...
Read entry | Discuss (5 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by rumpel in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Thu Sep 28th 2006, 05:27 PM
the Bush administration's refusal to accept the International Criminal Court, which is now jeopardizing the foundation of this country and democracy.

Fighting terrorism is not a "war", as per legal definition. "A new kind of War", they say - to justify something they legally can not.

The "terrorists" are a lose group of people of multi-national origin and affiliation. It is a border-less crime. What gives the US sole jurisdiction over a terror act against US interests, i.e. embassy, installations, businesses or it's citizens that are "guests" of a sovereign country, to try those that commit an act of terror when such act is committed in that sovereign country? It does not, and Clinton wisely supported the International Criminal Court.

In contrast, the current administration resorts to pre-historic methods of a de facto "retaliation" and unilaterally asserting absolute dominance, in violation of negotiated and accepted International standards of conduct, by secretly abducting citizens of other nations from their domicile, by pre-emptily attacking sovereign countries as the "president" solely deems proper? " I am the decider, and I will interpret any law congress passes as I see fit." At what cost?

I believe, the only unbiased way to try such crimes is by either a third party or better yet, a tribunal consisting of many nations. The latter is and has been in place: The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998 & 1999. By utilizing such tribunal the US would never be a target of "increased" hatred around the globe.

The attack on US soil had elicited a solid unified condemnation by the International community. Had this government acted to bring Bin Laden et. al to the International Court, when there was universal approval to do so, whether ultimately it ended in utilizing military force, this would have provided true justice, acceptable and agreeable throughout the entire global community. No questions asked or debated anywhere in the World, and the terrorists would have been diminished in it's power.

In short, the recent NIE estimate of having created more radicals against US policies, thus increasing the threat to this country and it's citizens could have been prevented.

The administration and the GOP talk as if there only exists Geneva Article 3. None of these bills are necessary - the interpretations and clarifications are already spelled out. It is a matter of adopting the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

One can only conclude that the true intent of this government is not to fight terrorism or bring justice to the victims of the crimes of terrorism.

reference:



PART 2. JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW Article 5Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:

(a) The crime of genocide;

(b) Crimes against humanity;

(c) War crimes;

(d) The crime of aggression.

Article 8 War crimes
1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

(i) Wilful killing;

(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

(viii) Taking of hostages.


(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

(vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

(vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;

(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

(ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

(x) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

(xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

(xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given;

(xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

(xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;

(xv) Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war;

(xvi) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

(xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons;

(xviii) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;

(xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;

(xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

(xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(xxii) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;

(xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;

(xxiv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

(xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

(xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.


(c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:

(i) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(ii) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(iii) Taking of hostages;

(iv) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.


(d) Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.
(e) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:


(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

(v) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

(vi) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;

(vii) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities;

(viii) Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;

(ix) Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary;

(x) Declaring that no quarter will be given;

(xi) Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

(xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;


(f) Paragraph 2 (e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.
3. Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.


in it's entirety:
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/...

Definitions of Terrorism (UN)

The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.

The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".

If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers' residences could not be included in the statistics.

In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes".

Proposed Definitions of Terrorism

1. League of Nations Convention (1937):

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

2. UN Resolution language (1999):

"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;

2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

4. Academic Consensus Definition:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988


http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_defin...
Read entry | Discuss (5 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by rumpel in Health
Sat Sep 23rd 2006, 12:32 PM
I have switched to alternative products some time ago, and rarely use the national brands of products.

I personally think the public should be informed of the ingredients we expose ourselves to and pump into the environment. The labeling of any of the products sold does not allow us to make informed decisions which leads us all to unknowingly put the environment our pets, wildlife and the planet at risk.

As with many issues discussed here at DU - we now know - unless we ourselves make an effort to find the information, it will not be known.

In the past several years, I have one dog that had developed a tumor that started in his nose and grew to occupy a large part of his brain. By the time the Vets found this tumor - nothing could be done. Another dog, died of kidney failure. I am not going to elaborate on the last few weeks of his life.
While no one ever will know what caused these illnesses I have my suspicions about the household products I used for many years.
Never again.

It is an extra effort to seek out the information but well worth it.

Here I Will post the database information page I found for anyone's perusal.
All common products and their ingredients are listed. Albeit - the government appears to allow some ingredients to be under wraps indicated as "unspecified".

You can search by product name, ingredient - exposure signs and symptoms - human effects and animal effects etc.

National Institute of Health, National Library of Medicine, Specialized Information Services
http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/produ...

Cheers to your health!

rumpel
Read entry | Discuss (5 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by rumpel in Election Reform
Fri Aug 11th 2006, 12:59 PM

Wampum Belts ca 1870s
http://www.canadiana.org/citm/imagepopups/...

Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News Friday 8/11/06

All members welcome and encouraged to participate.

Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.

If you can:

1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web.

2. Post stories using the "Election Fraud and Reform News Sources" listed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu... ...

3. Re-post stories and announcements you find on DU, providing a link to the original thread with thanks to the Original Poster, too.

4. Start a discussion thread by re-posting a story you see on this thread.


If you want to know how post "News Banners" or other images, go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu... ...

Link to previous Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu... ...

All previous daily threads are available here:
http://www.independentmediasource.com/DU_a... ...

Excerpts of "The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations"

GAYANASHAGOWA

1. I am Dekanawidah and with the Five Nations' Confederate Lords I plant the Tree of Great Peace. I plant it in your territory, Adodarhoh, and the Onondaga Nation, in the territory of you who are Firekeepers.
I name the tree the Tree of the Great Long Leaves. Under the shade of this Tree of the Great Peace we spread the soft white feathery down of the globe thistle as seats for you, Adodarhoh, and your cousin Lords.
We place you upon those seats, spread soft with the feathery down of the globe thistle, there beneath the shade of the spreading branches of the Tree of Peace. There shall you sit and watch the Council Fire of the Confederacy of the Five Nations, and all the affairs of the Five Nations shall be
transacted at this place before you, Adodarhoh, and your cousin Lords, by the Confederate Lords of the Five Nations.


Rights, Duties and Qualifications of Lords

19. If at any time it shall be manifest that a Confederate Lord has not in mind the welfare of the people or disobeys the rules of this Great Law, the men or women of the Confederacy, or both jointly, shall come to the Council and upbraid the erring Lord through his War Chief. If the complaint of the people through the War Chief is not heeded the first time it shall be uttered again and then if no attention is given a third complaint and warning shall be given. If the Lord is contumacious the matter shall go to the council of War Chiefs.
The War Chiefs shall then divest the erring Lord of his title by order of the women in whom the titleship is vested. When the Lord is deposed the women shall notify the Confederate Lords through their War Chief, and the Confederate Lords shall sanction the act. The women will then select another of their sons as a candidate and the Lords shall elect him. Then shall the chosen one be installed by the Installation Ceremony.
When a Lord is to be deposed, his War Chief shall address him as follows:

"So you, __________, disregard and set at naught the warnings of your women relatives. So you fling the warnings over your shoulder to cast them behind you.
"Behold the brightness of the Sun and in the brightness of the Sun's light I depose you of your title and remove the sacred emblem of your Lordship title. I remove from your brow the deer's antlers, which was the emblem of your position and token of your nobility. I now depose you and return the antlers to the women whose heritage they are."


Rights of the People of the Five Nations

93. Whenever a specially important matter or a great emergency is presented before the Confederate Council and the nature of
the matter affects the entire body of the Five Nations, threatening their utter ruin, then the Lords of the Confederacy must submit the matter to the decision of their people and the decision of the people shall affect the decision of the Confederate Council. This decision shall be a confirmation of
the voice of the people.

94. The men of every clan of the Five Nations shall have a Council Fire ever burning in readiness for a council of the clan. When it seems necessary for a council to be held to discuss the welfare of the clans, then the men may gather about the fire. This council shall have the same rights
as the council of the women.

95. The women of every clan of the Five Nations shall have a Council Fire ever burning in readiness for a council of the clan. When in their opinion it seems necessary for the interest of the people they shall hold a council and their decisions and recommendations shall be introduced before the
Council of the Lords by the War Chief for its consideration.

96. All the Clan council fires of a nation or of the Five Nations may unite into one general council fire, or delegates from all the council fires may be appointed to unite in a general council for discussing the interests of the people. The people shall have the right to make appointments and to
delegate their power to others of their number. When their council shall have come to a conclusion on any matter, their decision shall be reported to the Council of the Nation or to the Confederate Council (as the case may require) by the War Chief or the War Chiefs.

source: http://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.ht...
Read entry | Discuss (31 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by rumpel in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Thu Jul 20th 2006, 01:35 PM
Thanks to blondee who privided this link
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...



May 26, 2006
Iran offered 'to make peace with Israel'
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with Israel and cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and to pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders, according to a secret Iranian proposal to the United States.

The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-US agreement covering all the issues separating the two countries, a copy of which was obtained by Inter Press Service (IPS), was conveyed to the US in late April or early May 2003.

Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies who provided the document to IPS, says he got it from an Iranian official this year but is not at liberty to reveal the source.

The two-page document contradicts the official line of the Bush administration that Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel and the sponsorship of terrorism in the region.

snip

The March 2002 Beirut Declaration represented the Arab League's first official acceptance of the land-for-peace principle as well as a comprehensive peace with Israel in return for Israel's withdrawal to the territory it had controlled before the 1967 war. Iran's proposed concession on the issue would have aligned its policy with that of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, among others with which the United States enjoyed intimate relations.

Another concession in the document was a "stop of any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc) from Iranian territory" along with "pressure on these organizations to stop violent actions against civilians within borders of 1967".

Even more surprising, given the extremely close relationship between Iran and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah Shi'ite organization, the proposal offered to take "action on Hezbollah to become a mere political organization within Lebanon".

The Iranian proposal also offered to accept much tighter controls by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for "full access to peaceful nuclear technology". It offered "full cooperation with IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments (93+2 and all further IAEA protocols)".


Which means, ALL of these wars, could have been prevented.
Gore would have sat down with them in an intelligent discussion
Circumstantial evidence of * & Co creating the current crisis




http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/H...

added link to article
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by rumpel in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Tue Jul 11th 2006, 09:47 PM
Haudenosaunee, and speaking on behalf of the Indigenous People of North America, this Great Turtle Island. Mr. President, distinguished delegates, Chiefs, Clan Mothers, Leaders and Members of the World's Indigenous Nations and Peoples, we thank you, The General Assembly, for the recognition and the proclamation of "1993, The International Year of the Indigenous Peoples," for the theme of, "Indigenous Peoples, a New Partnership." We thank Madam Chairman Repal Chur (sp?) of the Working Group for Indigenous Populations for consistent, enthusiastic support, and Diaz. And at this time, we recognize the inspiration and spiritual force of Augusto Williamson Diaz, for his vision of such a day as this, and our gratitude to those leaders of Indigenous Peoples and people who also had the vision of this day for our people, who put their blood, their sweat and their tears into this moment. And to those who are no longer here, our profound gratitude and appreciation.

This proclamation brings home inspiration and renewed dedication to our quest for self-determination, justice, freedom and peace in our Homelands and our Territories. Indeed, the quest is a renewal of what we enjoyed before the coming of our White Brothers from across the sea. We lived contentedly under the Gai Eneshah Go' Nah, The Great Law of Peace. We were instructed to create societies based on the principles of Peace, Equity, Justice, and the Power of Good Minds. Our societies are based upon great democratic principles of the authority of the people and equal responsibilities for the men and the women. This was a great way of life across this Great Turtle Island and freedom with respect was everywhere. Our leaders were instructed to be men of vision and to make every decision on behalf of the seventh generation to come; to have compassion and love for those generations yet unborn. We were instructed to give thanks for All That Sustains Us. Thus, we created great ceremonies of Thanksgiving for the life-giving forces of the Natural World, as long as we carried out our ceremonies, life would continue. We were told that 'The Seed is the Law.' Indeed, it is The Law of Life. It is The Law of Regeneration. Within the seed is the mysterious force of life and creation. Our mothers nurture and guard that seed and we respect and love them for that. Just as we love I hi do' hah, our Mother Earth, for the same spiritual work and mystery. We were instructed to be generous and to share equally with our brothers and sisters so that all may be content. We were instructed to respect and love our Elders, to serve them in their declining years, to cherish one another. We were instructed to love our children, indeed, to love ALL children. We were told that there would come a time when parents would fail this obligation and we could judge the decline of humanity by how we treat our children. We were told that there would come a time when the world would be covered with smoke, and that it would take our elders and our children. It was difficult to comprehend at the time, but now all we have to do is but to walk outside to experience that statement. We were told that there would come a time when we could not find clean water to wash ourselves, to cook our foods, to make our medicines, and to drink. And there would be disease and great suffering. Today we can see this and we peer into the future with great apprehension. We were told there would come a time when, tending our gardens, we would pull up our plants and the vines would be empty. Our precious seed would begin to disappear. We were instructed that we would see a time when young men would pace back and forth in front of their chiefs and leaders in defiance and confusion.

snip

So then, what is the message I bring to you today? Is it our common future? It seems to me that we are living in a time of prophecy, a time of definitions and decisions. We are the generation with the responsibilities and the option to choose the The Path of Life for the future of our children , or, the life and path which defies the Laws of Regeneration. Even though you and I are in different boats, you in your boat and we in our canoe, we share the same River of Life -- what befalls me, befalls you. And downstream, downstream in this River of Life, our children will pay for our selfishness, for our greed, and for our lack of vision. 500 years ago, you came to our pristine lands of great forests, rolling plains, crystal clear lakes and streams and rivers. And we have suffered in your quest for God, for Glory, for Gold. But, we have survived. Can we survive another 500 years of "sustainable development?" I don't think so. Not in the definitions that put 'sustainable' in today. I don't think so. So, reality and the Natural Law will prevail: The Law of the Seed and Regeneration. We can still alter our course. It is NOT too late. We still have options. We need the courage to change our values to the regeneration of our families, the life that surrounds us. Given this opportunity, we can raise ourselves. We must join hands with the rest of Creation and speak of Common Sense, Responsibility, Brotherhood, and PEACE. We must understand that The Law is the Seed and only as True Partners can we survive.

On behalf of the Indigenous People of the Great Turtle Island, I give my appreciation and thanks.
Dah ney' to. Now I am finished.


(Oren Lyons received a standing ovation and shouts of approval from Indian spectators.)

http://fraktali.849pm.com/text/lyons/oren2...

Haudenosaunee Faithkeeper, Chief Oren Lyons
addressing delegates to the United Nations Organization
opened "The Year of the Indigenous Peoples" (1993)
in the United Nations General Assembly Auditorium,
United Nations Plaza, New York City, December 10, 1992.

on edit, I wish I could post the entire speech - but suffice it to say - an important section can be read at the link - as well as Mr. Lyons other work
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.