NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts

14 April 2011

A WARNING TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS ON THE BUDGET & 30,000 people fasting 12APR11


"Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey!"
- Isaiah 2:1-2
Doom to you who legislate evil, who make laws that make victims — laws that make misery for the poor, that rob my destitute people of dignity, exploiting defenseless widows, taking advantage of homeless children. What will you have to say on Judgment Day, when Doomsday arrives out of the blue? Who will you get to help you? What good will your money do you?  (Isaiah 10:1-3, The Message)

So far, more than 30,000 people are participating in a rolling fast to protest the immoral budget cuts Republicans are pushing in Washington. We never imagined this would spread so far, so quickly. In fact, 28 progressive members of Congress have now joined in.

With some help from Grammy-nominated recording artist Moby, we've put together a short, powerful video about this fast. Please check it out and then help spread the message by passing it on: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=207766&id=26909-17549061-7aiuYax&t=1
Watch the powerful new videoWatch the video
This is about sending the message that balancing the budget on the back of the most vulnerable is simply immoral—and the need for that message has never been greater.
Last week's budget agreement—now public—contains cuts to critical programs but does little to make corporations and the rich pay their fair share.1
More than half of the $38 billion in cuts target education, labor, and health programs.2
The worst cuts and riders didn't make it into the budget—but that was the Republican plan all along: propose the unthinkable, threaten to shut down the government, and then walk away with cuts that would have been beyond the pale just a few months ago.
Now Republicans are pushing a new round of proposals to abolish Medicare and make far deeper cuts to education, nutrition, health care, and other essential programs—while giving even bigger tax breaks to millionaires and corporations. And this time, after winning so much in the last round, the Republicans actually have a shot at getting every last cut they want.
We need to restore a moral dimension to the warped debate going on in Washington. Sharing this video is a simple way to start.
Thanks for all you do.
–Daniel, Michael, Tate, Sarah, and the rest of the team
Sources:
1. "Historic Spending Cuts the Centerpiece for Final Continuing Resolution (CR) for Fiscal Year 2011," House Committee on Appropriations, April 12, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=207753&id=26909-17549061-7aiuYax&t=4
2. "Budget deal: Cuts of $38 billion include accounting gimmicks, target Obama priorities," the Washington Post, April 12, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=207751&id=26909-17549061-7aiuYax&t=5
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

20 February 2011

Balancing The Budget: The Problem Might Be You from NPR 16FEB11

A well written and very true story from NPR...

President Obama faced a battery of questions about his budget Tuesday during a news conference at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington. One problem Obama and other politicians confront when it comes to the budget is that most voters want more government than they're willing to pay for.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
President Obama faced a battery of questions about his budget Tuesday during a news conference at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington. One problem Obama and other politicians confront when it comes to the budget is that most voters want more government than they're willing to pay for.
The federal government's mounting debt is often blamed on a failure of leadership. But the leaders may not be the only ones at fault.
As unhappy as Americans claim to be about the government's red ink, surveys show most voters want more government than they're willing to pay for.
If We Build It, Who Will Pay?
Even as he proposes budget cuts in some areas, President Obama wants to spend more federal money to update and improve the country's overstretched roads and bridges.
Traffic-weary commuters can only honk in support when the president calls for stepped-up investment in infrastructure, as he did in Michigan last week.
"If we want new jobs and businesses here in America, we've got to have the best transportation system. And the best communication network in the world," he said. "It's like that movie Field of Dreams. If we build it, they will come. But we've got to build it."
A survey for the Rockefeller Foundation found overwhelming support for infrastructure investment. Pollster Jay Campbell, who conducted the survey, says that backing cuts across party lines.
"In a time and place when Republicans almost pride themselves on disagreeing with everything that President Obama stands for," Campbell says, "66 percent of Republicans said that they agreed with this approach."
But even the most ardent supporters of highway spending hit the brakes when pollsters started asking if they would be willing to help pay for it.
The overarching problem is people want everything to change, and they want nothing to change at the same time. It puts elected leaders in a really tough position.
"Where support did start to drop off — and did so quite dramatically — is when voters themselves are asked to help foot the bill," Campbell says.
Survey respondents rejected the idea of paying for roads with higher gasoline taxes by a better than 2-to-1 margin. Additional toll charges were almost as unpopular.
In other words, if you build it, Americans will come, so long as they don't have to pay for it.
Change But No Change, Please
"The overarching problem is people want everything to change, and they want nothing to change at the same time," Campbell says. "It puts elected leaders in a really tough position."
For years now, elected leaders have dealt with that challenge by indulging Americans' desire for services, without trying to collect. That's one reason we're now staring at a $1.6 trillion deficit.
While congressional Republicans are proposing dramatic cuts in discretionary spending, most Americans are hard-pressed to identify specific parts of the government they are willing to do without. A survey by the Pew Research Center found the only government program that got anything close to a cutting consensus was foreign aid.
"Foreign aid is the least popular aspect of the budget typically. And you see that in this survey as well," says Carroll Doherty of the Pew Research Center. "But even here, you still get less than 50 percent saying, 'Cut it.' It's not overwhelming. Even though that's the largest area on our list."
Foreign aid accounts for about 1 percent of the budget.
Doherty says for the most popular programs, like Medicare and education, only about 1 in 10 people favors cuts.
'Sinking In'
Still, there are some signs the growing deficit is making people more careful about what they wish for. Fewer survey respondents now ask for more government spending in areas like defense and health care than they did just two years ago.
"I think it's a recognition that the government can't spend as it has been," Doherty says. "I think that's sinking in on the public. But taking that next step and really applying the knife to these programs is a more difficult thing."
So when political leaders seem timid about cutting the biggest government programs or asking people to pay more for them, they're simply taking their cues from the people who elected them.

Related NPR Stories

12 January 2011

Man Arrested For Threatening Rep. Jim McDermott’s Life 12JAN11

THE people making these threats against politicians and civil servants need to be investigated and charged and punished...nobody has the right to threaten our nation with violence from outside or inside...

Man Arrested For Threatening Rep. Jim McDermott’s Life

In the midst of a national discussion over the country’s political tone, a California man has been arrested for threatening the life of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), apparently because McDermott opposed an extension of Bush tax cuts for wealthy Americans. Charles Turner Habermann of Palm Springs, CA was charged with threatening a federal official after he left disturbing voice mails at McDermott’s office on December 9:
In the first call, Habermann said he’d seen McDermott on television and was enraged by his comments opposing tax cuts for the rich.
“He’s a piece of human filth. He’s a liar, he’s a communist, he’s a piece of [expletive] garbage,” Habermann said in the recorded message, according to the criminal complaint. Habermann said George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other U.S. founding fathers would “blow his [McDermott's] brains out” if they met him.
Habermann then threatened to kill McDermott as well as his friends and family, the complaint says. In a second call, Habermann said he had “a lot of money” and “a lot of friends” and that McDermott was “going down.”
Yesterday, a Colorado man was arrested for threatening to shoot aides for Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO). John Troy Davis, 44, was apparently upset over his Social Security benefits and told staffers on the phone that “I’m just going to come down there and shoot you all.” According to police, Davis also threatened to set fire to the office and stated that he “may go to terrorism.” Threats against members of Congress have increased 300 percent in the first few months of 2010, and 400 percent against the White House since January 2009. The U.S. Marshals Service reports that “inappropriate communications” directed at the judiciary, U.S. attorneys and other court officers have risen from 1,111 in 2006 to 1390 in 2009.

03 June 2010

How Soon Until the Free Market Stops the Oil Spill? & Closing the Hole in the Gulf: A Petroleum Engineer Responds 2JUN10

(Two updates added below.)
I'm sitting here at my desk watching the oil droids hack away at the blowout preventer in preparation for the "cap" portion of the "cut and cap" procedure, which, contrary to what I'm hearing on cable news, is intended to do something other than stopping the flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, this latest solution isn't a solution for stopping the flow of oil at all. The oil will continue to gush from the well, only now BP will be able to more effectively harvest some of the oil -- a more reliable version of what they were doing with the riser insertion tube for the better part of last month.
Good for them. So they can resume drinking their milkshake between now and August when, we hope, the relief well will be completed. At which time, corporate milkshake drinking will carry on via more conventional methods.
And why not? It's the free market after all. As I watch these robots slice the riser from the blowout preventer and read the news about lakes of oil moving towards the coasts of Florida, I'm wondering who to blame for this. The list is long, but, in part, I blame anyone who bought into the lines: "government is the problem" and "the era of big government is over." It's been systematic deregulation and the elevation of free market libertarian laissez-faire capitalism that have wrought this damage and allowed potentially destructive corporations to write their own rules and do as they please.
Does anyone seriously believe that BP has suddenly become a philanthropic venture interested in doing whatever it takes -- sparing no expense -- to make the Gulf region whole again? It will do the absolute minimum necessary to weasel its way through this crisis. Not a red cent more.
Last week, while the "top kill" procedure was failing, BP continued its effort to fight regulations in Canada mandating relief wells for every offshore rig. Simultaneously, Rayola Dougher, a lobbyist with the American Petroleum Institute laughed off the notion of requiring relief wells here in America.
Dougher said on MSNBC, "That would be -- that would really make it unviable [sic]. I couldn't even imagine such a suggestion." A relief well costs around $100 million. That would cut into revenues and so -- nope.
This is one of many reasons why Robert Reich's plan makes sense at this point. Temporary receivership. Despite the political peril involved in such an endeavor, the government should take over BP, its manpower and assets, and eliminate the corporate revenue motive from the capping and cleanup process. BP has proved itself incapable of tackling this job with the best interests of Gulf coast livelihoods and the marine environment in mind, and so they ought to lose their privileges to operate in the Gulf of Mexico for a while.
After all, the nature of any corporation is to mitigate losses and increase revenues. Keep the shareholders as happy as possible, spend the least amount of money necessary, hire the best lawyers to avoid paying punitive fines and get back to drilling and selling oil for profit. This is what corporations do.
So it comes as no surprise that the only achievements since the rig explosion have involved releasing a syllabus of weasely remarks designed to ameliorate any damage to the BP brand, and literally harvesting oil from the riser.
At the peak of the riser insertion tube's efficacy, BP was successfully harvesting around 200,000 gallons of oil per day with a total capacity to process around 15,000 barrels per day. That's a lot of milkshake drinking in the middle of an unprecedented oil spill. And so BP will probably do what they always do. Refine and sell those barrels for a profit. And once the relief wells are completed, they'll do the same.
Regardless of Justice Department investigations or lawsuits or cleanup costs, BP will emerge from this disaster and continue to profit from the drilling and selling of petroleum, including the oil from Macondo prospect.
Exxon, as precedent, is now Exxon-Mobil and is doing just fine. It endlessly appealed the fines imposed as the result of Valdez oil spill and whittled the down the cost of the disaster to corporate pocket change, and whatever money they paid out was covered by insurance policies.
Read that again. Exxon almost entirely escaped financial damages from the Valdez. In fact, it spent most of the last 21 years appealing its financial liability related to the Prince William Sound disaster. Why? Mitigating losses, and increasing revenues. There's no reason or evidence to believe that BP will be any different, lest anyone think they're in this to take full responsibility and do whatever it takes to repair the Gulf waters and its coastline.
Predictably, BP has lied or misrepresented the truth all along the way.
Are we to believe that this is a corporation acting responsibly and with the best interests of the Gulf in mind? Not a chance in hell. This is a spoiled, petulant and entitled corporation operating in a largely deregulated free market atmosphere, and BP is so arrogant that it expects this atmosphere to carry it through this thing.
Simultaneously, most of the small businesses along the Gulf coast, which have nothing to do with the oil industry, have been crushed. Someone explain to those people how they shouldn't sweat it -- their businesses are just small sacrifices in the grander scheme of unregulated capitalism on the march. Clear the way, Mr. Gump with your shrimp boat, the free market has to drill, baby, drill. Didn't you hear? The "era of big government" ended back in the 1990s. You obviously didn't get the message, so, you know, buh-bye.
Forty years of corporate deregulation by conservative Republican Ayn Rand fetishists (and their Democratic enablers) have successfully poisoned the Gulf of Mexico. Ironically, the most liberal pro-regulation president in this same span of time -- the president who has announced on several occasions a significant break from Reagan's "government is the problem" mantra -- appears to be the only politician being blamed for this so far. One of many reasons why I fear it'll be another 40 years before we roll back this free market monster.
And, as I watch this video, the solution occurs to me: they should just plug the oil leak with every single existing copy of Atlas Shrugged.
UPDATE: I can't believe I have to do this, but for the record, I'm not opposed to capitalism. I'm opposed to deregulated, laissez-faire, irresponsible capitalism. The mini-McCarthys in the comments are clearly incapable of, you know, reading.
UPDATE 2: Robert Reich reports:
A petroleum engineer who's worked in the oil industry tells me BP is doing the minimum to clean up the oil and everything it can to protect its bottom line. According to the engineer, here's what BP should be doing right now to mitigate the damage.
I rest my case.

AND THE ROBERT REICH REPORT NOTED ABOVE

Closing the Hole in the Gulf: A Petroleum Engineer Responds

user-pic
A petroleum engineer who's worked in the oil industry tells me BP is doing the minimum to clean up the oil and everything it can to protect its bottom line. According to the engineer, here's what BP should be doing right now to mitigate the damage. If the President were to put BP into temporary receivership, he'd have the power to get BP to:
1. Stop releasing dispersants. So-called dispersants are toxic, and it's crazy to add more poison to the Gulf. Dispersants do nothing to assist the environment in naturally cleaning the oil; their main use is PR. They reduce the number of ugly pictures of birds covered in pure black crude. Dispersants break the thick layer of crude into smaller globs, but that doesn't help the Gulf and its wildlife. Most of the crude just mixes with the water to produce a goop that looks like chocolate ice cream but is highly poisonous.
2. Mobilize every possible tanker to siphon up crude from as close to the leak points as possible. Oil industry leaders as John Hofmeister (president of Shell Oil from 2005 until 2008) have recommended this, but inexplicably neither BP nor the federal government are talking about even trying this idea. BP currently has only one spot where they have inserted a tube into a riser, or pipe, that is leaking oil from the sea floor. The company is gathering the crude oil and siphoning it up to a drill ship for storage.
They should have at least a dozen collectors. BP has 24 tankers that are being used to make money for BP, not for clean-up duty. (President Obama should also use all necessary federal power -- or money, and send BP the bill -- to put as many tankers and refineries from other companies on the task.)
Mile-long pipes could be dangled down into the crude spewing from the wellhead and at each breach in the riser pipe, and the tankers could pump the crude mixed with water back into the tankers. They could then separate the crude and water in the tanker, and pump the water out on the spot. This should continue until each tanker is full of oil. The crude should then be taken to a refinery for processing, as other tankers take their place. Submersibles can be used to monitor the uptake into the dangling pipes, moving them as needed to keep them picking up as much crude as possible.
Even after some separation time in the tankers, the crude will be contaminated with water beyond the typical water contamination levels acceptable at refineries. This would drive up the price of gas in the short term. The president will need to go on TV and ask all Americans to cut their gasoline and energy usage in half, as an emergency response to the disaster in the Gulf, so that tankers and refineries can enact these far-from-perfect cleanup measures.
3. Restart work on the second pressure relief well. BP did start work on two relief wells as the government requested, but the second has been shut down to cannabalize parts from it for the primary well kill effort. The President must order BP to spend whatever money it takes to get another blow out preventer on site, to re-start work on the second pressure relief well. A recent blow-out off the coast of Australia required five pressure relief wells to successfully shut it down.

16 April 2010

Tea Party Economics & Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated 14APR10

From tea party supporter Jodine White of Rocklin, California, trying to explain how she reconciles her desire for smaller government with her support for Social Security:

That’s a conundrum, isn’t it? I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security. I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.

Fighting Against the Tea Party

According to a New York Times poll, Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45. I'm guessing you're not surprised.

They also told the Times they were in favor of smaller government, "even if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut."

But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security—the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on "waste."

This is always the problem, of course. It's a good bet they don't want to cut defense spending either, and interest payments on the national debt can't be cut. But once you take out those things, you have less than a quarter of the federal budget left. Even if 20 percent of that were waste—and that's an improbably high number—cutting it out would only reduce spending by 5 percent.

Welcome to the incoherence of the Tea Party movement. They don't really know what they want, they just know that someone, some liberal, is doing something they don't like. But in a way, incoherence is the whole point. The movement may have started at a grass roots level, but it's increasingly funded by some very well-heeled right-wing groups who figure that incoherence is a virtue. They don't really care about government waste, after all. They mostly care about making cynical use of shock troops who can help them put a stop to any progressive legislation that threatens corporate special interests. They need anger to channel, not activists with pesky ideas that might interfere with their agenda.

Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?hp

By KATE ZERNIKE and MEGAN THEE-BRENAN
Published: April 14, 2010
Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Why has the age of Obama given rise to the Tea Party movement?

The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.

They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as “very conservative” and President Obama as “very liberal.”

And while most Republicans say they are “dissatisfied” with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as “angry.”

The Tea Party movement burst onto the scene a year ago in protest of the economic stimulus package, and its supporters have vowed to purge the Republican Party of officials they consider not sufficiently conservative and to block the Democratic agenda on the economy, the environment and health care. But the demographics and attitudes of those in the movement have been known largely anecdotally. The Times/CBS poll offers a detailed look at the profile and attitudes of those supporters.

Their responses are like the general public’s in many ways. Most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as “fair.” Most send their children to public schools. A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers. They actually are just as likely as Americans as a whole to have returned their census forms, though some conservative leaders have urged a boycott.

Tea Party supporters’ fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.

The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11 percent of the general public.

They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people.

Asked what they are angry about, Tea Party supporters offered three main concerns: the recent health care overhaul, government spending and a feeling that their opinions are not represented in Washington.

“The only way they will stop the spending is to have a revolt on their hands,” Elwin Thrasher, a 66-year-old semiretired lawyer in Florida, said in an interview after the poll. “I’m sick and tired of them wasting money and doing what our founders never intended to be done with the federal government.”

They are far more pessimistic than Americans in general about the economy. More than 90 percent of Tea Party supporters think the country is headed in the wrong direction, compared with about 60 percent of the general public. About 6 in 10 say “America’s best years are behind us” when it comes to the availability of good jobs for American workers.

Nearly 9 in 10 disapprove of the job Mr. Obama is doing over all, and about the same percentage fault his handling of major issues: health care, the economy and the federal budget deficit. Ninety-two percent believe Mr. Obama is moving the country toward socialism, an opinion shared by more than half of the general public.

“I just feel he’s getting away from what America is,” said Kathy Mayhugh, 67, a retired medical transcriber in Jacksonville. “He’s a socialist. And to tell you the truth, I think he’s a Muslim and trying to head us in that direction, I don’t care what he says. He’s been in office over a year and can’t find a church to go to. That doesn’t say much for him.”

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted April 5 through April 12 with 1,580 adults. For the purposes of analysis, Tea Party supporters were oversampled, for a total of 881, and then weighted to their proper proportion in the poll. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for all adults and for Tea Party supporters.

Of the 18 percent of Americans who identified themselves as supporters, 20 percent, or 4 percent of the general public, said they had given money or attended a Tea Party event, or both. These activists were more likely than supporters generally to describe themselves as very conservative and had more negative views about the economy and Mr. Obama. They were more angry with Washington and intense in their desires for a smaller federal government and deficit.

Tea Party supporters over all are more likely than the general public to say their personal financial situation is fairly good or very good. But 55 percent are concerned that someone in their household will be out of a job in the next year. And more than two-thirds say the recession has been difficult or caused hardship and major life changes. Like most Americans, they think the most pressing problems facing the country today are the economy and jobs.

But while most Americans blame the Bush administration or Wall Street for the current state of the American economy, the greatest number of Tea Party supporters blame Congress.

They do not want a third party and say they usually or almost always vote Republican. The percentage holding a favorable opinion of former President George W. Bush, at 57 percent, almost exactly matches the percentage in the general public that holds an unfavorable view of him.

Dee Close, a 47-year-old homemaker in Memphis, said she was worried about a “drift” in the country. “Over the last three or four years, I’ve realized how immense that drift has been away from what made this country great,” Ms. Close said.

Yet while the Tea Party supporters are more conservative than Republicans on some social issues, they do not want to focus on those issues: about 8 in 10 say that they are more concerned with economic issues, as is the general public.

When talking about the Tea Party movement, the largest number of respondents said that the movement’s goal should be reducing the size of government, more than cutting the budget deficit or lowering taxes.

And nearly three-quarters of those who favor smaller government said they would prefer it even if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut.

But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

Others could not explain the contradiction.

“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”

Marjorie Connelly, Dalia Sussman and Marina Stefan contributed reporting.
A version of this article appeared in print on April 15, 2010, on page A1 of the New York edition.

11 February 2010

RACHEL MADDOW ON GOP TERROR TRIAL SMEAR 3FEB10

Here is what the 6th amendment of our constitution says about trials, notice it is not limited to American citizens, and then watch the video from Rachel Maddow's show and the last link is for the letter from A.G. Eric Holder to Sen Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the terrorism trial on 3 FEB 10.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[1] ”

Rights under the Sixth Amendment
Speedy trial
See also: Speedy trial
Defendants in criminal cases have the right to a speedy trial. The U.S. Supreme Court laid down a four-part ad hoc balancing test for determining whether the defendant's speedy trial right has been violated in the case of Barker v. Wingo:

1.Length of Delay: A delay of a year or more from the date on which the speedy trial right "attaches" (the date of arrest or indictment, whichever first occurs) was termed "presumptively prejudicial", but the Court has never explicitly ruled that any absolute time limit applies.
2.Reason for the delay: The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations.
3.Time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right: If a defendant agrees to the delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim that he has been unduly delayed.
4.Degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused.
In Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434 (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that if the reviewing court finds that a defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated, then the indictment must be dismissed and/or the conviction overturned. The Court has held that, since the delayed trial itself is the state action which violates the defendant's rights, no other remedy would be appropriate. Thus, a reversal or dismissal of a criminal case on speedy trial grounds means that no further prosecution for the alleged offense can take place.





http://www.scribd.com/doc/26325635/Eric-Holder-letter-to-Mitch-McConnell-2-3-2010

GOOGLE AND THE NSA 10FEB10

Just click the header to participate in this ACLU action....

The Washington Post reported that Google -- the world’s largest search engine company is negotiating an information-sharing agreement with the National Security Agency (NSA) -- the world’s largest network for routine, mass communications surveillance.

The NSA is part of the military, and its primary mission is spying. How can we trust that it will fix any security holes that it discovers, rather than make use of them to secretly spy on our communications -- especially given the agency’s record in the past 8 years of carrying out unconstitutional warrantless domestic wiretapping?

The ramifications of companies like Google working with the NSA are frightening. Please join me in taking action today by sending a letter to Google. Tell Google that you object to such a deal and value your privacy online. http://action.aclu.org/nsagoogle