Admiral James Loy, the nation's top aviation security official, confirmed at an August 22 press conference what thousands of immigrant airport screeners have dreaded for nearly a year. Loy promised that the Transportation Security Administration would without question meet the Congressionally mandated deadline to replace America's 30,000-member screener force with government-trained federal employees.
For Loy to accomplish this task, the TSA must remove an estimated 8,000 immigrant screeners from security checkpoints by November 19 because they fail to meet the new citizenship requirement. "The law of the land is the law of the land," Loy replied, when asked how the TSA justifies the impending shakeout at a time when the agency is scrambling to train and place an additional 16,000 employees at airports nationwide over the next eleven weeks.
Indeed, Loy is merely obeying the demands of Congress. Signed into law following a post-September 11 flurry, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act created the TSA and charged the agency with placing airport security under federal jurisdiction. Section 111 of the ATSA requires US citizenship for all screeners, which sets the absurd precedent that immigrants can join the military (no citizenship required) but not scan sneakers at airline security posts.
Both the TSA and members of Congress offer careful replies when it comes to explaining the reasons for the citizenship requirement. An aide for Senator John McCain, one of the ATSA's main proponents, did not want to comment on the provision's rationale. The Justice Department, however, came close to touching on the truth in a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of nine screeners trying to keep their jobs. "It bears repeating that the ATSA was passed in the aftermath of an attack on the US by non-citizens, who penetrated the US aviation system," the motion stated.
The case, Gebin v. Mineta, names Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and his former No. 2, John Magaw (who was replaced by Loy), as the defendants. Federal Judge Robert Takasugi promised a decision on the case in early June but still has not issued a ruling.
All nine plaintiffs are noncitizens, lawfully living in the country as permanent residents. The lead plaintiff, Jeimy Gebin, believes that her three years in the US Army should be enough to allow her to stay employed at Los Angeles International Airport. Erlinda Valencia, a leader of the San Francisco airport's screening force, is another plaintiff. Two years ago Valencia's security firm honored her when she detected a toy hand grenade and two weeks later, a loaded handgun. But federal attorneys argue that the government can do as it pleases with its "alien guests," and that Congress acted rationally when, in the interest of airport security, it required screeners to formalize
their "loyalty" and "commitment" through citizenship.
The situation between the government and immigrant screeners begs the comparison of Japanese-Americans who were fired from their jobs after the bombing of Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, and were then herded into internment camps. Ironically, Secretary Mineta and Judge Takasugi were among those interned.
In addition to being unfair to immigrants, dismantling experienced screening units at the nation's 429 commercial airports could itself be a major security risk. By the November deadline, 80 percent of San Francisco International Airport's 915 screeners will be forced out of their jobs because they are not citizens. Washington-Dulles will also lose 80 percent of its existing force;
Los Angeles International Airport will lose 40 percent; and Miami
International Airport will lose 70 percent. Even worse, their replacements
are being whisked through the training process: one new screener working at the Norfolk, Virginia, International Airport told Alan Gathright of the San Francisco Chronicle that he received only fifteen minutes of explosive detection training. There is also the matter of how the remaining 40,500 screeners waiting to be hired will complete the federally mandated 100 hours of classroom and onsite instruction before they begin work in late November.
While it is true that most federal employees and civil servants must be US citizens, screeners arrived on the job without this requirement; and the ATSA does not "grandfather" exemplary workers into the applicant pool for a federal screening position. "I am a legal immigrant. Now they are trying to make me a second-grade citizen," said Ashok Malakar, a San Francisco screener who is only a year from naturalization. "That is discrimination."
Medical treatment in women's prisons ranges from brutal to nonexistent.
Liberal groups are also concentrating on influencing the next generation of legal scholars.
I probably should listen to Rush Limbaugh, but I don't. The way I figure it, I did my time while researching my book Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot.
Roderick Johnson, a 33-year-old African-American Navy veteran from a small town in rural Texas, didn't ask for it. Prison did it to him, and his life will never be the same.
"My only regret with Osama bin Laden is that he did not manage to
kill every member of the Wall Street Journal editorial
"In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national
debate about [George W. Bush's stolen presidency].... Otherwise there
would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate."
"We need to execute people like Ann Coulter in order to physically
intimidate conservatives, by making them realize that they can be killed
too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors."
First things first: Mr. Ashcroft, if you're there, I do not mean any of
the statements above to be taken literally. I do not mean them at all.
None of them. OK? What I do mean is to point out the incredible
hypocrisy of those on the right, the center and the "liberal media" who
defend the lunatic ravings of Ann Coulter, whether because she is
"kidding" or because "the left does the same thing." (For those who have
been lucky enough to have missed the Coultergeist of the past few
months, the author of the summer's number-one bestselling nonfiction
book in America has--in language identical to that above--expressed her
regret that Timothy McVeigh did not blow up the New York Times building,
mused aloud whether Bill Clinton should have been impeached or murdered,
and called for the execution of John Walker Lindh in order to intimidate
It's degrading to have to write about Coulter again. As a pundit, she is
about on a par with Charles Manson, better suited to a lifelong stay in
the Connecticut Home for the Criminally Insane than for the host's seat
on Crossfire. Her books are filled with lies, slander and phony
footnotes that are themselves lies and slanders. Her very existence as a
public figure is an insult to our collective intelligence. I should
really be writing about the campaign by neocon chickenhawks to
intimidate Howell Raines and the New York Times on Iraq. But
fortunately, John Judis and Nick Confessore have taken responsibility
for that, leaving me to the less ominous but more baffling phenomenon of
the bestselling Barbie-doll terrorist-apologist, who continues to be
celebrated by the very media she terms "retarded" and guilty of "mass
murder" while calling for their mass extinction by the likes of her
ideological comrade Timothy McVeigh.
Make no mistake. Coulter may routinely call for the murder of liberals,
of Arabs, of journalists, of the President, among many others. She may
compare adorable Katie Couric to Eva Braun and Joseph Goebbels and joke
about blowing up the Times building. But instead of ignoring, laughing
at or, perhaps most usefully, sedating her, we find Coulter's blond
locks and bony ass celebrated by talk-show bookers and gossip
columnists--even a genuine book reviewer--from coast to proverbial
Do I exaggerate? While promoting her hysterical screed against
"liberals"--a category so large she occasionally includes, I kid you
not, Andrew Sullivan--this malevolent Twiggy with Tourette's was booked
on Today, Crossfire (as guest and guest host),
Hardball, The Big Story With John Gibson and countless
other cable and radio programs. She was lovingly profiled in
Newsday, the New York Observer and the New York
Times Sunday Style section. She was the Boston Globe's
honored guest at the White House correspondents dinner. Her incitements
to murder and terrorism have been cheered and defended in the Wall
Street Journal and National Review Online. (The latter did
so, moreover, despite her having termed its editors "girly boys" and
behaving, in the words of the website's editor, Jonah Goldberg, "with a
total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty.") And her
publisher, Crown, says it has no plans to correct her lies in future
editions. Why should they care? Is anyone holding them accountable?
The slanderous nonsense she puts between hard covers, moreover, is
selling not only to the caveman crowd, it's also receiving praise in
such respectable outlets as the liberal LA Times Book Review and
being quoted as constitutional gospel by alleged intellectual George
Will on ABC's This Week. This despite the fact that Coulter's
accusations have been as effectively discredited as Hitler's diaries.
(The last time I checked, the folks at Tapped, the American
Prospect's weblog, had compiled so many of these falsities it took
them nearly 3,000 words to enumerate them. Coulter has also been ripped
to shreds by dailyhowler.com, spinsanity.com, mediawhoresonline.com,
Scoobie Davis Online and by Joe Conason in Salon. The most
comprehensive compilation can supposedly be found at
slannder.homestead.com. I cannot bring myself to actually wade into it.)
So what's the deal? Is looking like an anorexic Farrah Fawcett and
wearing skirts so short they lack the dignity and reserve of Monica
Lewinsky's thong enough to insure the embrace of the national
entertainment state no matter what you say, just so long as your
murderous bile is directed at "liberals"? Would it have worked for
Saddam if he wore a size 6? I really don't know. Naïve optimist
that I am, when I first picked up Coulter's book in galleys in the late
spring, I felt pretty certain we were done with her. I mean, how even to
engage someone who terms Christie Todd Whitman a "birdbrain" (page 51)
and a "dimwit" (page 53); Jim Jeffords a "half-wit" (page 50); and
Gloria Steinem a "deeply ridiculous figure" (page 37) who "had to sleep"
with a rich liberal to fund Ms. magazine (page 38)--all of which
makes her "a termagant" (page 39)? Coulter's done far worse since, of
course, and yet, like one of those Mothralike creatures that feed on
bullets and squashed Japanese villagers, the monster continues to grow,
debasing everyone and everything in its wake. Coulter jokes about
McVeigh blowing up the Times, and the Wall Street
Journal--which was blown up by terrorists on September
11--rushes to her defense. Their man, Daniel Pearl, was murdered by
terrorists in Pakistan. Have they no shame? At long last, have they no
sense of decency left?
Bush's counterterrorism efforts neglect women.
Amid the elegies for the dead and the ceremonies of remembrance,
seditious questions intrude: Is there really a war on terror; and if one
is indeed being waged, what are its objectives?
The Taliban are out of power. Poppies bloom once more in Afghan
pastures. The military budget is up. The bluster war on Iraq blares from
every headline. On the home front the war on the Bill of Rights is set
at full throttle, though getting less popular with each day, as judges
thunder their indignation at the unconstitutional diktats of Attorney
General John Ashcroft, a man low in public esteem.
On this latter point we can turn to Merle Haggard, the bard of
blue-collar America, the man who saluted the American flag more than a
generation ago in such songs as "The Fightin' Side of Me" and "Okie From
Muskogee." Haggard addressed a concert crowd in Kansas City a few days
ago in the following terms: "I think we should give John Ashcroft a big
hand...[pause]...right in the mouth!" Haggard went on to say, "The way things are going I'll probably be thrown in jail tomorrow for saying that, so I hope
ya'll will bail me out."
It will take generations to roll back the constitutional damage done in
the wake of the attacks. Emergency laws lie around for decades like
rattlesnakes in summer grass. As Joanne Mariner of Human Rights Watch
points out to me, one of the main legal precedents that the government
is using to justify detaining "enemy combatants" without trial or access
to a lawyer is an old strikebreaking decision. The government's August
27 legal brief in the Padilla "enemy combatant" case relies heavily on
Moyer v. Peabody, a Supreme Court decision that dates back to
The case involved Charles Moyer, president of the Western Federation of
Miners, a feisty Colorado trade union that fought for such radical
reforms as safe working conditions, an end to child labor and payment in
money rather than in company scrip. As part of a concerted effort to
crush the union, the governor of Colorado declared a state of
insurrection, called out the state militia and detained Moyer for two
and a half months without probable cause or due process of law.
In an opinion that deferred obsequiously to executive power (using the
"captain of the ship" metaphor), the Supreme Court upheld Moyer's
detention. It reasoned that since the militia could even have fired upon
the strikers (or, in the Court's words, the "mob in insurrection"), how
could Moyer complain about a mere detention? The government now cites
the case in its Padilla brief to argue that whatever a state governor
can do, the President can do better.
Right under our eyes a whole new covert-ops arm of government is being
coaxed into being by the appalling Rumsfeld, who has supplanted Powell
as Secretary of State, issuing public statements contradicting offical
US policy on Israel's occupation of and settlements in the West Bank and
Gaza. Rumsfeld has asked Congress to authorize a new under secretary of
defense overseeing all defense intelligence matters, also requesting
that the department be given greater latitude to carry out covert ops.
Wrap that in with erosion or outright dumping of the Posse Comitatus Act
(1878), which forbids any US military role in domestic law enforcement,
and the silhouette of military government shows up ever more clearly in
the crystal ball.
The terrorists in those planes a year ago nourished specific grievances,
all available for study in the speeches and messages of Osama bin Laden.
They wanted US troops out of Saudi Arabia. They saw the United States as
Israel's prime backer and financier in the oppression of Palestinians.
They railed against the sanctions grinding down upon the civilian
population of Iraq.
A year later the troops are still in Saudi Arabia, US backing for Sharon
is more ecstatic than ever and scenarios for a blitzkrieg against Saddam
Hussein mostly start with a saturation bombing campaign that will plunge
civilians in Iraq back into the worst miseries of the early 1990s.
Terror against states springs from the mulch of political frustration.
We live in a world where about half the population of the planet, 2.8
billion people, live on less than $2 a day. The richest 25 million
people in the United States receive more income than the 2 billion
poorest people on the planet. Across the past year world economic
conditions have mostly got worse, nowhere with more explosive potential
than in Latin America, where Peru, Argentina and Venezuela all heave in
Can anything stop the war cries against Iraq from being self-fulfilling?
Another real slump on Wall Street would certainly postpone it, just as a
hike in energy prices here if war does commence will give the economy a
kidney blow when it least needs it.
How could an attack on Iraq be construed as a blow against terror? The
Administration abandoned early on, probably to its subsequent regret,
the claim that Iraq was complicit in the attacks of September 11. Aside
from the Taliban's Afghanistan, the prime nation that could be blamed
was Saudi Arabia, point of origin for so many of the Al Qaeda terrorists
on the planes.
Would an attack on Iraq be a reprisal? If it degraded Saudi Arabia's
role as prime swing producer of oil, if it indicated utter contempt for
Arab opinion, then yes. But no one should doubt that if the Bush
Administration does indeed topple Saddam Hussein and occupy Baghdad,
this will truly be a plunge into the unknown, one that would fan the
embers of Islamic radicalism, which actually peaked at the end of the
1980s, and amid whose decline the attacks of September 11 were far more
a coda than an overture.
Would Iran sit quiet while US troops roosted in Baghdad? And would not
the overthrow of Saddam be prelude to the downfall of the monarchy in
Jordan, with collapse of the House of Saud following thereafter?
Islamic fanatics flew those planes a year ago, and here we are with a
terrifying alliance of Judeo-Christian fanatics, conjoined in their
dream of the recovery of the Holy Land. War on Terror? It's back to the
thirteenth century, picking up where Prince Edward left off with the
Roseanne Over Jennings
Rights lost by some will one day be lost by all.