American Film Institute picks their top ten films for the year

The American Film Institute is out of the gate with their annual picks of the best films of the year. There are some easy picks, and some surprises, which for the AFI, is not so surprising at all, as they have their own considerations that is sometimes at variance with Hollywood studios and box office concerns. Popular acclaim doesn't always decide, either, which makes their perennial list more diverse.

The AFI Awards are voted on by two 13-member jury panels (one for film, one for TV), mixing scholars, critics and AFI trustees.
The org’s annual luncheon honoring the chosen titles will take place on Jan. 11 at the Four Seasons.
BEST OF 2007 FILM
"Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead" Director, Sidney Lumet, stars Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Morisa Tomei, Albert Finney.

Master filmmaker Sidney Lumet directs this absorbing suspense thriller about a family facing the worst enemy of all: itself. Oscar-winner Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Andy, an over-extended broker who lures his younger brother, Hank (Ethan Hawke), into a larcenous scheme: the pair will rob a suburban mom-and-pop jewelry store that appears to be the quintessential easy target. The problem is, the store owners are Andy and Hank's actual mom and pop and, when the seemingly perfect crime goes awry, the damage lands right at their doorstep. Oscar-winner Marisa Tomei plays Hoffman's trophy wife, who is having a clandestine affair with Hawke, and the stellar cast also includes Albert Finney as the family patriarch who pursues justice at all costs, completely unaware that the culprits he is hunting are his own two sons. A classy, classic heist-gone-wrong drama in the tradition of The Killing and Lumet's own The Anderson Tapes, the film is smart enough to know that we often have the most to fear from those who are near and dear.

"The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" - Director, Julian Schnabel. Winner, Best Director, Cannes Film Festival
Story of Jean-Dominique Bauby, former editor of French fashion magazine Elle, who, at the age of 43, was disabled by a massive stroke in his brain stem. Despite his disability, Bauby wrote his memoirs by blinking his left eye in an alphabet code.

"Into the Wild" - Director, Sean Penn, stars Emil Hirsch. Based on a true story of one young man's tragic 'return to nature'. After graduating from Emory University in 1992, top student and athlete Christopher McCandless abandoned his possessions, gave his entire $24,000 savings account to charity and hitchhiked to Alaska to live in the wilderness. Along the way, Christopher encounters a series of characters that shape his life.

"Juno" How is it that there could be TWO top ten films of the year - about unexpected pregnancies - and both comedies? Well, there is, which says something about the state of our expectations, cinemagtically, and even about what is considered humor in the current trouble global conditions. And the pregnant one isn't Jennifer Garner, at least in this pic. The troubled mommy-to-be Juno (Ellen Page) is a Mid-Western highschooler, who decides one day, out of boredom or curiosity, to have sex with her friend Bleeker (Michael Cera), a member of her school's track team. She likes him well enough, but isn't hung up on him. This one time encounter results in Juno's pregnancy. She and her best friend Leah (Olivia Thirlby) decide to take control of the situation by browsing for prospective adoptive parents in the local Pennysaver, and Juno settles on seemingly perfect, affluent couple Mark and Vanessa (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner.)

"Knocked Up" -Director Judd Apatow, stars Katherine Heigl, Seth Rogan. A mismatched couple hooks up for a one-night stand; the subsequent pregnancy, decision by mother to keep child and pledge by father to do what's right set up a very funny look at relationships. Apatow's follow up to "40 Year Old Virgin", with the grammy-winning Heigl (Grey's Anatomy) deliciously cast.

"Michael Clayton" - Director, Tony Gilroy; stars George Clooney, Tilda Swinton.
Michael Clayton (Clooney) is an in-house "fixer" at one of the largest corporate law firms in New York. At the behest of the firm's co-founder Marty Bach (Sydney Pollack), Clayton, a former prosecutor from a family of cops, takes care of Kenner, Bach & Ledeen's dirtiest work. Clayton cleans up clients' messes, handling anything from hit-and-runs and damaging stories in the press to shoplifting wives and crooked politicians. Though burned out and discontented in his job, Clayton is inextricably tied to the firm.
At the agrochemical company U/North, the career of in-house chief counsel Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton) rests on the settlement of the suit that Kenner, Bach & Ledeen is leading to a seemingly successful conclusion. When the firm's top litigator, the brilliant Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson), has an apparent breakdown and tries to sabotage the entire case, Marty Bach sends Michael Clayton to tackle this unprecedented disaster and, in doing so, Clayton comes face to face with the reality of who he has become.

"No Country for Old Men" Directors, Joel and Ethan Coen; stars Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin.
From the book by Cormac McCarthy. The thriller begins when Llewelyn Moss finds a pickup truck surrounded by a sentry of dead men. A load of heroin and two million dollars in cash are still in the back trunk. When Moss takes the money, he sets off a chain reaction of catastrophic violence that not even the law--namely aging, disillusioned Sheriff Bell--can contain. Moss tries to evade his pursuers, in particular a mysterious mastermind who flips coins for human lives, as the crime drama broadens.

"Ratatouille" - Wonderful animated film, and the only picture in history where rats are allowed in the kitchen, but not without a delicious twist. The Rat from Orlando isn't the only lovable rodent in cinema any longer, and the ones in this marvelously sketched story have greater depth and character.

"The Savages"
Director, Tamara Jenkins; stars Philip Seymour Hoffman, Laura Linney.
When an estranged and senile father starts failing, his son and daughter are suddenly burdened with the heavy chore of care-giving for a man who once neglected and abused them. However, in confronting the lingering trauma of their unhappy childhoods, brother and sister form a close new bond. Both leads give outstanding perfs and Hoffman's only competition for awards this season may be himself, in the Sidney Lumet film Before The Devil Knows You're Dead.

"There Will Be Blood" -
Director, Paul Thomas Anderson; stars Daniel-Day Lewis.
Set in the booming West coast oil fields at the turn of the 20th century, a tale that follows the rise of rugged prospector Daniel Plainview who becomes an independent oilman after hitting it rich with the strike of a lifetime. He realizes the American dream, and is destroyed by it. Boldly and magnificently strange, the film marks a significant departure in the work of Anderson. Heretofore fixated on his native Los Angeles and most celebrated for his contempo ensemblers, writer-helmer this time branches out with an intense, increasingly insidious character study of a turn-of-the-century central California oil man. Based on Upton Sinclair's 1927 novel "Oil", it is more concerned with the Day-Lewis character than with the muckraking Sinclair is known for.

The Perfect Storm is Coming for Campaign 2008

Will the presidential election of 2008 mark a turning point in American political history? Will it terminate with extreme prejudice the conservative ascendancy that has dominated the country for the last generation? No matter the haplessness of the Democratic opposition, the answer is yes.
With Richard Nixon's victory in the 1968 presidential election, a new political order first triumphed over New Deal liberalism. It was an historic victory that one-time Republican strategist and now political critic Kevin Phillips memorably anointed the "emerging Republican majority." Now, that Republican "majority" finds itself in a systemic crisis from which there is no escape.
Only at moments of profound shock to the old order of things -- the Great Depression of the 1930s or the coming together of imperial war, racial confrontation, and de-industrialization in the late 1960s and 1970s -- does this kind of upheaval become possible in a political universe renowned for its stability, banality, and extraordinary capacity to duck things that matter. The trauma must be real and it must be perceived by people as traumatic. Both conditions now apply.
War, economic collapse, and the political implosion of the Republican Party will make 2008 a year to remember.
The Politics of Fear in Reverse
Iraq is an albatross that, all by itself, could sink the ship of state. At this point, there's no need to rehearse the polling numbers that register the no-looking-back abandonment of this colossal misadventure by most Americans. No cosmetic fix, like the "surge," can, in the end, make a difference -- because large majorities decided long ago that the invasion was a fiasco, and because the geopolitical and geo-economic objectives of the Bush administration leave no room for a genuine Iraqi nationalism which would be the only way out of this mess.
The fatal impact of the President's adventure in Iraq, however, runs far deeper than that. It has undermined the politics of fear which, above all else, had sustained the Bush administration. According to the latest polls, the Democrats who rate national security a key concern has shrunk to a percentage bordering on the statistically irrelevant. Independents display a similar "been there, done that" attitude. Republicans do express significantly greater levels of alarm, but far lower than a year or two ago.
In fact, the politics of fear may now be operating in reverse. The chronic belligerence of the Bush administration, especially in the last year with respect to Iran, and the cartoonish saber-rattling of Republican presidential candidates (whether genuine or because they believe themselves captives of the Bush legacy) is scary. Its only promise seems to be endless war for purposes few understand or are ready to salute. To paraphrase Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for many people now, the only thing to fear is the politics of fear itself.
And then there is the war on the Constitution. Randolph Bourne, a public intellectual writing around the time of World War I, is remembered today for one trenchant observation: that war is the health of the state. Mobilizing for war invites the cancerous growth of the bureaucratic state apparatus and its power over everyday life. Like some over-ripe fruit this kind of war-borne "healthiness" is today visibly morphing into its opposite -- what we might call the "sickness of the state."
The constitutional transgressions of the executive branch and its abrogation of the powers reserved to the other two branches of government are, by now, reasonably well known. Most of this aggressive over-reaching has been encouraged by the imperial hubris exemplified by the invasion of Iraq. It would be short-sighted to think that this only disturbs the equanimity of a small circle of civil libertarians. There is a long-lived and robust tradition in American political life always resentful of this kind of statism. In part, this helps account for wholesale defections from the Republican Party by those who believe it has been kidnapped by political elites masquerading as down-home, "live free or die" conservatives.
Now, add potential economic collapse to this witches brew. Even the soberest economy watchers, pundits with PhDs -- whose dismal record in predicting anything tempts me not to mention this -- are prophesying dark times ahead. Depression -- or a slump so deep it's not worth quibbling about the difference -- is evidently on the way; indeed is already underway. The economics of militarism have been a mainstay of business stability for more than half century; but now, as in the Vietnam era, deficits incurred to finance invasion only exacerbate a much more embracing dilemma.
Start with the confidence game being run out of Wall Street; after all, the subprime mortgage debacle now occupies newspaper front pages day after outrageous day. Certainly, these tales of greed and financial malfeasance are numbingly familiar. Yet, precisely that sense of déjà vu all over again, of Enron revisited, of an endless cascade of scandalous, irrational behavior affecting the central financial institutions of our world suggests just how dire things have become.
Enronization as Normal Life
Once upon a time, all through the nineteenth century, financial panics -- often precipitating more widespread economic slumps -- were a commonly accepted, if dreaded, part of "normal" economic life. Then the Crash of 1929, followed by the New Deal Keynesian regulatory state called into being to prevent its recurrence, made these cyclical extremes rare.
Beginning with the stock market crash of 1987, however, they have become ever more common again, most notoriously -- until now, that is -- with the dot.com implosion of 2000 and the Enronization that followed. Enron seems like only yesterday because, in fact, it was only yesterday, which strongly suggests that the financial sector is now increasingly out of control. At least three factors lurk behind this new reality.
Thanks to the Reagan counterrevolution, there is precious little left of the regulatory state -- and what remains is effectively run by those who most need to be regulated. (Despite bitter complaints in the business community, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, passed after the dot.com bubble burst, has proven weak tea indeed when it comes to preventing financial high jinks, as the current financial meltdown indicates.)
More significantly, for at least the last quarter-century, the whole U.S. economic system has lived off the speculations generated by the financial sector -- sometimes given the acronym FIRE for finance, insurance, and real estate). It has grown exponentially while, in the country's industrial heartland in particular, much of the rest of the economy has withered away. FIRE carries enormous weight and the capacity to do great harm. Its growth, moreover, has fed a proliferation of financial activities and assets so complex and arcane that even their designers don't fully understand how they operate.
One might call this the sorcerer's apprentice effect. In such an environment, the likelihood and frequency of financial panics grows, so much so that they become "normal accidents" -- an oxymoron first applied to highly sophisticated technological systems like nuclear power plants by the sociologist Charles Perrow. Such systems are inherently subject to breakdowns for reasons those operating them can't fully anticipate, or correctly respond to, once they're underway. This is so precisely because they never fully understood the labyrinthine intricacies and ramifying effects of the way they worked in the first place.
Likening the current subprime implosion to such a "normal accident" is more than metaphorical. Today's Wall Street fabricators of avant-garde financial instruments are actually called "financial engineers." They got their training in "labs," much like Dr. Frankenstein's, located at Wharton, Princeton, Harvard, and Berkeley. Each time one of their confections goes south, they scratch their heads in bewilderment -- always making sure, of course, that they have financial life-rafts handy, while investors, employees, suppliers, and whole communities go down with the ship.
What makes Wall Street's latest "normal accident" so portentous, however, is the way it is interacting with, and infecting, healthier parts of the economy. When the dot.com bubble burst many innocents were hurt, not just denizens of the Street. Still, its impact turned out to be limited. Now, via the subprime mortgage meltdown, Main Street is under the gun.
It is not only a matter of mass foreclosures. It is not merely a question of collapsing home prices. It is not simply the shutting down of large portions of the construction industry (inspiring some of those doom-and-gloom prognostications). It is not just the born-again skittishness of financial institutions which have, all of sudden, gotten religion, rediscovered the word "prudence," and won't lend to anybody. It is all of this, taken together, which points ominously to a general collapse of the credit structure that has shored up consumer capitalism for decades.
Campaigning Through a Perfect Storm of Economic Disaster
The equity built up during the long housing boom has been the main resource for ordinary people financing their big-ticket-item expenses -- from college educations to consumer durables, from trading-up on the housing market to vacationing abroad. Much of that equity, that consumer wherewithal, has suddenly vanished, and more of it soon will. So, too, the life-lines of credit that allow all sorts of small and medium-sized businesses to function and hire people are drying up fast. Whole communities, industries, and regional economies are in jeopardy.
All of that might be considered enough, but there's more. Oil, of course. Here, the connection to Iraq is clear; but, arguably, the wild escalation of petroleum prices might have happened anyway. Certainly, the energy price explosion exacerbates the general economic crisis, in part by raising the costs of production all across the economy, and so abetting the forces of economic contraction. In the same way, each increase in the price of oil further contributes to what most now agree is a nearly insupportable level in the U.S. balance of payments deficit. That, in turn, is contributing to the steady withering away of the value of the dollar, a devaluation which then further ratchets up the price of oil (partially to compensate holders of those petrodollars who find themselves in possession of an increasingly worthless currency). As strategic countries in the Middle East and Asia grow increasingly more comfortable converting their holdings into euros or other more reliable -- which is to say, more profitable -- currencies, a speculative run on the dollar becomes a real, if scary, possibility for everyone.
Finally, it is vital to recall that this tsunami of bad business is about to wash over an already very sick economy. While the old regime, the Reagan-Bush counterrevolution, has lived off the heady vapors of the FIRE sector, it has left in its wake a de-industrialized nation, full of super-exploited immigrants and millions of families whose earnings have suffered steady erosion. Two wage-earners, working longer hours, are now needed to (barely) sustain a standard of living once earned by one. And that doesn't count the melting away of health insurance, pensions, and other forms of protection against the vicissitudes of the free market or natural calamities. This, too, is the enduring hallmark of a political economy about to go belly-up.
This perfect storm will be upon us just as the election season heats up. It will inevitably hasten the already well-advanced implosion of the Republican Party, which is the definitive reason 2008 will indeed qualify as a turning-point election. Reports of defections from the conservative ascendancy have been emerging from all points on the political compass. The Congressional elections of 2006 registered the first seismic shock of this change. Since then, independents and moderate Republicans continue to indicate, in growing numbers in the polls, that they are leaving the Grand Old Party. The Wall Street Journal reports on a growing loss of faith among important circles of business and finance. Hard core religious right-wingers are airing their doubts in public. Libertarians delight in the apostate candidacy of Ron Paul. Conservative populist resentment of immigration runs head on into corporate elite determination to enlarge a sizeable pool of cheap labor, while Hispanics head back to the Democratic Party in droves. Even the Republican Party's own elected officials are engaged in a mass movement to retire.
All signs are ominous. The credibility and legitimacy of the old order operate now at a steep discount. Most telling and fatal perhaps is the paralysis spreading into the inner councils at the top. Faced with dire predicaments both at home and abroad, they essentially do nothing except rattle those sabers, captives of their own now-bankrupt ideology. Anything, many will decide, is better than this.
Or will they? What if the opposition is vacillating, incoherent, and weak-willed -- labels critics have reasonably pinned on the Democrats? Bad as that undoubtedly is, I don't think it will matter, not in the short run at least.
Take the presidential campaign of 1932 as an instructive example. The crisis of the Great Depression was systemic, but the response of the Democratic Party and its candidate Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- though few remember this now -- was hardly daring. In many ways, it was not very different from that of Republican President Herbert Hoover; nor was there a great deal of militant opposition in the streets, not in 1932 anyway, hardly more than the woeful degree of organized mass resistance we see today despite all the Bush administration's provocations.
Yet the New Deal followed. And not only the New Deal, but an era of social protest, including labor, racial, and farmer insurgencies, without which there would have been no New Deal or Great Society. May something analogous happen in the years ahead? No one can know. But a door is about to open

The Year's Top 10 Rights & Liberties Stories

In certain ways, the Rights & Liberties Top 10 list is the most depressing of the year. Nevertheless it demonstrates why consistent and critical media coverage is crucial for beating back the erosion of our basic freedoms. And it should give us hope for the new year, for as many problems the conservative stranglehold has created in our present, we have the power, and the knowledge, to shape the future.
10. Disappeared: Five Years in Guantanamo by Lou Dubose, The Washington Spectator
In 2001, 19-year-old Murat Kurnaz was an innocent man caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Accused of being a terrorist, he spent five years in Guantanamo before being released -- now he's telling his story.
9. America Gone Wrong: A Slashed Safety Net Turns Libraries into Homeless Shelters by Chip Ward, Tomdispatch.com.
A dirty little secret about America is that public libraries have become de facto daytime shelters for the nation's street people while librarians are increasingly our unofficial social workers for the homeless and mentally disturbed.
8. Life in Solitary Confinement: 12,775 Days Alone by Brooke Shelby Biggs, AlterNet.
Americans shamefully imagine that spending a life sentence in solitary confinement could only happen in faraway countries. But two men in Louisiana's Angola prison know otherwise.
7. The War on Drugs Is Really a War on Minorities by Arianna Huffington, Los Angeles Times. Democratic presidential candidates crave the Latino and black vote, but ignore the Drug War's unfair toll on people of color.
6. In Violation of Federal Law, Ohio's 2004 Presidential Election Records Are Destroyed or Missing by Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet.
In 56 of Ohio's 88 counties, ballots and election records from 2004 have been "accidentally" destroyed, despite a federal order to preserve them -- it was crucial evidence which would have revealed whether the election was stolen.
5. The 'Silent' Ninth Amendment Gives Americans Rights They Don't Know They Have by Daniel A. Farber, Basic Books.
The First Amendment right of free speech and the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination are well-known, but the Ninth Amendment is ignored. Pity, because it bears directly on abortion, the right to die and gay rights.
4. Is a Presidential Coup Under Way? by Jim Hightower, Hightower Lowdown.
The Constitution is being trampled and nothing less than American democracy itself is endangered -- a presidential coup is taking place. Where is Congress?
3. Don't We Have a Constitution, Not a King? by Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet.
Bush has issued a directive that would place all governmental powers in his hands in the case of a catastrophic emergency. If a terrorist attack happens before the 2008 election, could Bush and Cheney use this to avoid relinquishing power to a successor administration?
2. The End of America? Naomi Wolf Thinks It Could Happen by Don Hazen, AlterNet. An interview with author Naomi Wolf, whose new book, "The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot," may confirm your worries about democracy in America.
1. The Rise of Christian Fascism and Its Threat to American Democracy by Chris Hedges, Truthdig.
We must attend to growing social and economic inequities in order to stop the most dangerous mass movement in American history -- or face a future of fascism under the guise of Christian values.

Golden Globes Nominations announced

'Atonement' leads the pack
"Tis the season" is a familiar refrain, and not only applies to the consumerist shopping frenzy known collectively as the "Holidays", but also the industry-led frenzy of the Awards Season. The on-going writers' strike may impact the frivolity as well as the delivery of the giddy Golden Globes, but announced today are the Film and Television nominations. Below are the cinema noms, with "Atonement" leading the list. What are YOUR early picks for best film/director/actor/actress/screenplay? I will put up a survey and the winning picks will receive a special prize from the Java Studios...stay tuned....and, the Oscar noms will be announced in a few weeks, too! - MS

By BRIAN LOWRY, VARIETY
With seven nominations, "Atonement" leads an overflowing field of drama contenders in Golden Globe bids announced Thursday."American Gangster," "Eastern Promises," "The Great Debaters," "Michael Clayton," "No Country For Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood" fill out the drama field.
Three musicals -- "Across the Universe," "Hairspray" and "Sweeney Todd" -- join "Charlie Wilson's War" (the recipient of five noms) and "Juno" in the comedy-musical category."No Country," "Clayton" and "Sweeney" garnered four apiece.
Three hits will compete for best animated movie: "Bee Movie," "The Simpsons Movie" and "Ratatouille."Clint Eastwood also turned up in a new milieu, with best score and song noms for "Grace is Gone."In TV, British projects made an unusually strong showing, including three made-for-TV movie or miniseries nominees: HBO's "Five Days" and "Longford" and BBC America's "The State Within."
Presented by the 80-some-odd members of the Hollywood Foreign Press. Assn., the Globes’ significance has stemmed in part from its perceived reliability as a predictor for the Academy Awards, with the eventual best picture winner having also been feted at the Globes all but once from 1993 to 2004.That correlation, however, hasn’t held up as well over the last three years -- including 2007, when "The Departed" won the Oscar, after "Babel" and "Dreamgirls" (which failed even to secure a best-picture nomination) were honored in the drama and musical-comedy categories, respectively.
Even so, with various critics groups spreading their top kudos among a number of films and the sense that several Oscar slots are up for grabs, the Globes will doubtless be viewed as a bellwether that could help thin a crowded field of potential contenders.The 65th annual awards will be presented Jan. 13 and again televised on NBC. A potential complication to the telecast is the ongoing strike by the Writers Guild, which could not only impact the production itself but also dampen the tone of the traditionally celebratory awards season.Steven Spielberg has been chosen to receive the Cecil B. DeMille Award.

MOTION PICTURE - DRAMA
"American Gangster" - Imagine Entertainment/Scott Free Productions; Universal Pictures
"Atonement" - Working Title Productions; Focus Features
"Eastern Promises" - Kudos Pictures - Uk Serendipity Point Films - Canada A Uk/Canada Co-Production; Focus Features
"The Great Debaters" - Harpo Films; The Weinstein Company/MGM
"Michael Clayton" - Clayton Productions Llc; Warner Bros. Pictures
"No Country For Old Men" - A Scott Rudin/Mike Zoss Production; Miramax/Paramount Vantage
"There Will Be Blood" - A Joanne Sellar/Ghoulardi Film Company Production; Paramount Vantage and Miramax Films
PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A MOTION PICTURE - DRAMA
Cate Blanchett - "Elizabeth: The Golden Age
"Julie Christie - "Away From Her"
Jodie Foster - "The Brave One"
Angelina Jolie - "A Mighty Heart"
Keira Knightley - "Atonement"

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A MOTION PICTURE - DRAMA

George Clooney - "Michael Clayton"

Daniel DayLewis "There Will Be Blood"

James Mcavoy - "Atonement"

Viggo Mortensen - "Eastern Promises"
Denzel Washington - "American Gangster"

MOTION PICTURE - COMEDY OR MUSICAL
"Across The Universe" - Revolution Studios International; Sony Pictures Releasing
"Charlie Wilson’s War" - Universal Pictures/Relativity Media/Participant Productions/Playtone; Universal Pictures
"Hairspray" - New Line Cinema in association with Ingenious Film Partners; New Line Cinema
"Juno" - Mandate Pictures/Mr. Mudd Production; Fox Searchlight Pictures
"Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street" - Parkes/Mac Donald and Zanuck Company; Warner Bros. Pictures

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A MOTION PICTURE - COMEDY OR MUSICAL
Amy Adams - "Enchanted"
Nikki Blonsky - "Hairspray"
Helena Bonham Carter - "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street"
Marion Cotillard - "La Vie en rose"
Ellen Page - "Juno"

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A MOTION PICTURE - COMEDY OR MUSICAL
Johnny Depp - "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street"
Ryan Gosling - "Lars And The Real Girl"
Tom Hanks - "Charlie Wilson’s War"
Philip Seymour Hoffman - "The Savages"
John C. Reilly - Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
"Bee Movie" - DreamWorks Animation; DreamWorks Animation
"Ratatouille" - Pixar; Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Distribution
"The Simpsons Movie" - Gracie Films; Twentieth Century Fox

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
"4 Months, 3 Weeks And 2 Days" (Romania) - Mobra Films; Ifc First Take
"The Diving Bell And The Butterfly" (France And Usa) - A Kennedy/Marshall Company And Jon Kilik Production; Miramax/Paramount Vantage
"The Kite Runner" (Usa) - Dreamworks Pictures Sidney Kimmel Entertainment And Paramount Classics Participant Productions Present A Sidney Kimmel Entertainment And Parkes/Macdonald Production Distributed By Paramount Classics
"Lust, Caution" (Taiwan) - Haishang Films; Focus Features "Persepolis" (France) - 247 Films; Sony Pictures Classics

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE IN A MOTION PICTURE
Cate Blanchett - "I’m Not There"
Julia Roberts - "Charlie Wilson’S War"
Saoirse Ronan - "Atonement"
Amy Ryan - "Gone Baby Gone"
Tilda Swinton - "Michael Clayton"

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE IN A MOTION PICTURE
Casey Affleck - "The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford"
Javier Bardem - "No Country For Old Men"
Philip Seymour Hoffman - "Charlie Wilson’s War"
John Travolta - "Hairspray"
Tom Wilkinson - "Michael Clayton"

DIRECTOR - MOTION PICTURE
Tim Burton - "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street"
Ethan Coen & Joel Coen - "No Country For Old Men"
Julian Schnabel - "The Diving Bell And The Butterfly"
Ridley Scott - "American Gangster"
Joe Wright - "Atonement"

SCREENPLAY - MOTION PICTURE
Diablo Cody - "Juno"
Ethan Coen & Joel Coen - "No Country For Old Men"
Christopher Hampton - "Atonement"
Ronald Harwood - "The Diving Bell And The Butterfly"
Aaron Sorkin - "Charlie Wilson’s War"

ORIGINAL SCORE - MOTION PICTURE
Michael Brook, Kaki King, Eddie Vedder - "Into The Wild"
Clint Eastwood - "Grace Is Gone"
Alberto Iglesias - "The Kite Runner"
Dario Marianelli - "Atonement"
Howard Shore - "Eastern Promises"

ORIGINAL SONG - MOTION PICTURE
"Despedida" from "Love In The Time Of Cholera" - Music By: Shakira, Antonio Pinto, Lyrics By: Shakira
"Grace Is Gone" from "Grace Is Gone" - Music By: Clint Eastwood, Lyrics By: Carole Bayer Sager
"Guaranteed" from "Into The Wild" - Music & Lyrics By: Eddie Vedder
"That’s How You Know" from "Enchanted"- Music & Lyrics By: Alan Menken
"Walk Hard" from "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story" - Music & Lyrics by: Marshall Crenshaw, John C. Reilly, Judd Apatow, Kasdan Sexy Money"

The Very Green philosophy of Dennis Kucinich

The Democratic candidate calls for a new energy paradigm. But are Americans ready to be "in harmony with nature"?

Dennis Kucinich, the little guy in the Democratic pack of presidential candidates, stands tallest and strongest with Green issues. It's not just a convenient stance or opinion of his, either. He really has the most progressive in-depth analysis and policy positions of any of the candidates. He is fearless on his advocacy of not just green issues, either, as he has also submitted legislation for the impeachment of Vice-Prez Dick Cheney. I met him at the Florida Democratic Convention in 2003, spoke with him for about a half-hour at a caucus gathering and was struck at how self-effacing he was as he presented himself and his ideas. A dark-horse candidate, to be sure, but a very bright - and deep green - candidate. His election will indeed change the very face and future of this nation, and even the world, possibly to the extent FDR had done n 1932, seventy five years ago. Are the conditions ripe for his serious consideration by the primary states? Current street wisdom says no, yet he may well be a futurist and only later recognized as the prophet, before his time. - Here's an interview that reveals where he stands and what he plans to do as a Green President. - MS
By Amanda Griscom Little

Dec. 11, 2007 He may be eating the front-runners' dust in the polls, but among deep green voters, Dennis Kucinich is considered a trailblazer. A Democratic U.S. representative from Cleveland, Kucinich is calling for a radical overhaul of the U.S. government and economy -- one that would infuse every agency in the executive branch with a sustainability agenda, phase out coal and nuclear power entirely, and call on every American to ratchet down their resource consumption and participate in a national conservation program.
A vegan who counts Ralph Nader among his heroes, Kucinich doesn't exactly embody the sensibility of the average American. He says his commitment to sustainability "extends to everything I am and do" -- from the food he eats and clothes he wears to the policies he espouses. It's the same progressive platform that made him a darling of the far left when he ran for president in 2004. Will it take him any farther this time around?
I reached Kucinich by phone at his home in Ohio.
For more information on his platform and record, check out Grist's Kucinich fact sheet.

Why should voters consider you the strongest green candidate?
Because mostly our candidates aren't going to be able to do anything about the underlying issues that threaten our environment. Many of the candidates -- [John] Edwards, [Barack] Obama and [Hillary] Clinton -- are heavily funded by hedge funds on Wall Street, which are driven by a psychology of short-term profits and investments. And with candidates taking that kind of money from those interests, it defies belief that they're going to be in a position to take this country in the direction it needs to be taken.
What sets your green platform apart from the rest?
As president of the United States, I'm going to shift the entire direction of America. We need to see the connection between global warring and global warming, and it's oil. Sustainability is the path to peace. And I'm the only true peace candidate in this election. So peace means being in harmony with nature. If you're in harmony with nature, you don't exploit nature. You don't ruin the land, you don't extract the oil, you don't take the coal out of the earth.
My underlying philosophy is a green philosophy. It means that I'm looking at a total reorganization of the federal government to create a cooperative and synergistic relationship between all departments and administrations for the purpose of greening America.
You propose, for instance, the Works Green Administration.
The Works Green Administration harks back to the days of Franklin Roosevelt and the Works Progress Administration, where he put millions of people back to work rebuilding America's infrastructure. I too have an infrastructure-rebuilding program which will put millions of people back to work. Picture this: You take every area of involvement in the federal government -- whether it's the Small Business Administration, or the Housing and Urban Development Department, or the Department of Agriculture, or the Department of Labor. Each would incorporate green goals. We'd have billions of dollars loaned to the states at zero interest for green development programs; we'd have programs furthering green housing; agricultural policies would relate to green.
Do you think Americans are ready to answer the call to conserve?
Of course they are. They're just waiting for leadership, and it has to come from somebody who's not tied to any of these interest groups, or is worried about whether he's going to offend a contributor. And so, yes, I think people know that their future's at stake.
What I intend to do as president is to call forth that instinct which is within every person for not just survival but to be able to thrive. We need to make the connection between prosperity and sustainability. It also means we have to turn toward peace, we have to stop warring, because war is ecocide, war destroys the environment. And so I'm going to call forth the people of this country for a whole new direction. I think America's not just ready for it, it's overdue and people know that.
I will also ask the American people to participate in a grand and great conservation effort. Imagine if tens of millions of homes suddenly had an awareness that when you don't need the electricity, don't flip the switch. That you use only the water that you need and you don't use any more -- you don't let the faucet run.
Do you believe that we need a carbon tax in addition to a cap-and-trade program, or neither, or both?
We need to do whatever we can do to create disincentives for the use of carbon-based energy. But that's not enough. Carbon-based taxes alone won't cut it because some people may be willing to pay an extra tax to use something that's bad for the environment. Inevitably we need a requirement to move away from all carbon-based technologies and to fund fully all alternative-energy research that is in harmony with the environment.
So you would propose a strict cap on carbon emissions, a carbon tax and a massive government-supported plan to promote renewable technologies?
Yes, but I'd want to put the emphasis first on the government supporting renewable technologies. A tax could reflect the full cost to society of certain types of energy. But the answer is not simply punishing those people who are using carbons. You have to do everything you can to move people toward renewable energy.
You've been calling for years for a renewable portfolio standard that would have the U.S. get 20 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2010. Now that 2010 is around the corner, what sort of RPS plan would you implement as president?
Well, obviously we've lost the advantage of that particular time frame. For the next time frame, I think we could set something by 2020 and look to 30 or 40 percent. But that means we're talking about a very sharp turnaround here.
How would you shift the utility industry toward renewables, toward this whole new paradigm?
One of my proposals is to have millions of homes with wind and solar technologies, and people can sell energy back to the grid. The role of utilities will change dramatically because it's not going to be a centralized approach toward energy production. They'll have to figure out different ways that they might be able to provide support for green alternatives. I want to see, eventually, all the homes in this country have the option of that technology. In turn, you can create millions of jobs building alternative technologies.
Would nuclear power play any role in your energy policy as president?
Nuclear has to be phased out. The hidden costs of nuclear are enormous -- of building these plants and storing the waste forever. It's not financially or environmentally sustainable.
Nuclear makes up 20 percent of America's electricity supply. What would you replace this with? You don't want to leave a gap in our energy needs, but at the same time, with a program of conservation and movement toward alternative energy, we can begin phasing out nuclear.

What about coal, the source of more than half of our electricity supply? Would you phase that out, or do you believe in the promise of advanced coal technologies?
No, coal has to be phased out. In the same way that the Department of Agriculture for years was paying some farmers not to grow, I think we can get to the point of paying coal miners not to mine. Why should the miners have to suffer from the lack of foresight of our energy policies? That's something that I intend to address in my Works Green Administration.
The electric utility industry would argue that such a massive shift would pass along huge rate hikes to consumers. How would you protect Americans from these expenses?
We do not need to be held hostage by the utility industry. I'm not someone who's going to roll over when these utility industries issue their threats. We're going to break up the monopolies in utilities; that's No. 1. No. 2, these utilities are going to be closely regulated for their activities. No. 3, they're going to be required to go green as license conditions. No. 4, they're going to be closely monitored and shut down if they violate the Clean Air Act. We're going to have a very aggressive Environmental Protection Agency, and utilities are not going to be dictating energy costs. I don't mind working with them, I don't mind moving toward areas where they can be cooperative in protecting the environment, but they're not going to run energy policy.

But such a transition would create huge costs. How would you pay for them?
It pays for itself. See, the whole idea about sustainability is that you conserve, you save and then you use the savings for other things. However, where we need financial incentives, this is where the government can play a major role in putting money into circulation for the production of these [green] products, and in putting people to work. Roosevelt understood in the '30s that there were things he had to do to move the economy. And I understand what we need to do to move the economy in a green direction.
Do you support subsidies for ethanol or other gasoline alternatives, like biodiesel?
I don't know about subsidies. I think those technologies are transitional to fuel-cell technology. I wouldn't want to create incentives to lock us into usages that are not where we ultimately want to go. And there is a serious issue with ethanol and its impact on food supplies.

Many argue that the U.S. shouldn't commit to a global greenhouse-gas reduction target that doesn't involve China and India. Do you agree, and how would you bring them to the table?
First of all, as president, I'm going to let the rest of the world know that the days of America trying to be a nation above nations is over. We have to quit trying to dominate other countries, and we have to step out of our isolation and into the brotherhood and sisterhood of all people. I think the world is ready for an American president who puts the sword down, so that nations won't have to spend a tremendous amount of their resources trying to prepare for war.
We have to be ready to take the lead, but we need to have harmony with other nations. As president, I intend to work with the leaders of China and India and other nations to promote an environmental consciousness and sustainable economies. I will use trade as a vehicle to try to raise the level of living for all people, and environmental sustainability must be the watchword. All of our trade agreements must have within them requirements for protecting the air and the water and the land of all the countries we do business with.

After climate and energy, what do you think is the most important environmental issue facing the nation?
Agriculture -- the way we grow our food -- and we really need to make sure that we protect our water supply. These issues are closely tied to each other.

Who is your environmental hero?
Oh, I have many. Thomas Berry, whose book "The Great Work" talked about how our great work in life is to achieve a real harmony with the environment. I think Lester Brown has done some incredible work on raising the consciousness of people. Amory Lovins has done some excellent work, and I think Ralph Nader has pointed to a lot of the environmental implications of corporate conduct and trade laws. And John Robbins has been so incredible in his awareness of the impact of the food we eat on our environment.

What was your most memorable wilderness or outdoor adventure?
As a child, we lived in the city, we moved around a lot. But there was one place we lived, above railroad tracks, and on the other side of the tracks was this vast acreage called "the gulley" that was created with the blasting of the railroad. It had these huge rock piles and vegetation everywhere and it almost looked prehistoric. It was a place that I would go to often and find solitude and be able to just think. So much of my own life has been connected with a desire to be close to nature, to be close to the water, to be close to green.

If you could spend a week in one natural area of the U.S., where would it be?
I would say somewhere in northern Maine. The whole state is beautiful, but northern Maine is just extraordinary, and I've seen all 50 states. I also love Maui.

What do you do to lighten your environmental footprint?
My philosophy of life extends to everything I am and do. If I say I'm for peace, I'm for peace in the kind of products that I use, in the kind of shoes that I wear, and in terms of the clothes that I wear, in terms of my eating habits. I'm always thinking in terms of sustainability. That's the way I live. I live in a small house and we're very conscious of our energy usage. I drive an American car, a Ford Focus, but it's one of the highest fuel-economy cars.
I've been living an essentially vegan lifestyle since 1995, and that has led me to a condition of extraordinary health and clarity. Now, I'm not, as president, going to tell everyone what they have to eat, but I will share my own story about how the choices that I've made have meant, for myself, a better life, and a happier life. I'm 60 years old, but I'll bet that I'm in better physical shape than a lot of people a lot younger.

If George Bush were a plant or an animal, what kind of plant or an animal would he be?
I don't want to go there.

Fair enough. Would you spin it around on yourself? If you were a plant or animal, what kind would you be?
An eagle.
How so? Truly American?
No. Keenness of vision.

Human Rights Crusader Michael Ratner: We'll Keep Going After Bush and Cheney When They Leave Office

This week, the next round in the Bush administration's epic struggle against 800 years of Anglo-American legal tradition will unfold as the Supreme Court hears the latest in the "Guantanamo cases." By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
The case will hinge on the question of whether detainees being held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base have the right to a day in court to challenge the circumstances of their imprisonment. At issue is the more fundamental matter of whether the president of the United States has the power to detain people indefinitely and without due process under the rubric of a nebulous "war on terror."
Since the attacks of 9/11, the Center for Constitutional Rights and its president, Michael Ratner, have been at the center of the battle; CCR's played David to Bush's Goliath from the very beginning.
Ratner and his colleagues are not new to using the legal system to keep the government in check, nor are they unfamiliar with the controversy that inevitably surrounds that process. The Center, born of the civil rights movements of the 1960s, has been at the forefront of human rights litigation ever since. CCR pursued the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in courts around the world and sued both the first Bush administration in an attempt to stop the Gulf War and the Clinton administration for bombing Kosovo. Ratner served as a special adviser to Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the former president of Haiti who was deposed in a U.S.-supported coup, and won a key war crimes case against former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic.
But it's been the excesses of the Bush administration, especially at "Gitmo," that have thrust Ratner and what was once a radical legal shop into the international spotlight. "Here's Michael Ratner and CCR," Ratner said, "who were once considered to be firmly on the left but are now defending bread-and-butter constitutional issues that we never really thought would be in jeopardy, like habeas corpus." His involvement in what would become such a "mainstream" legal fight was "a transition for me personally as well as for the center politically," he added.
Ratner will be named the seventh winner of the Nation Institute/ Puffin Foundation award for "creative citizenship" this week. "I like the description," he said. "It's for taking on the status quo in a socially responsible way and in a way that required taking a risk. For me it's not the personal aspect, it's the acknowledgment that you have to take risks in this very difficult country if you want to make any real progress."

AlterNet interviewed Ratner at his New York home to discuss the case, Guantanamo and the ramifications of the so-called "war on terror."

Joshua Holland: Let's start with a little background on the case.
Michael Ratner: This all started shortly after the attacks of 9/11, in fact on Nov. 14, 2001, when the president issued what he called Military Order No. 1. Military Order No. 1 was what I call the "coup d'etat order," because it basically said the president could pick up any noncitizen -- at that point; it's now been extended to citizens -- anywhere in the world and hold them forever, and not allow them to go into a court to get what we call a writ of habeas corpus. That's the right to go to court and challenge your detention. So they could simply be held forever if they were a noncitizen and alleged terrorist -- not just Al Qaeda, but all "alleged terrorists." And the other part of the order said that if they were tried, they were to be tried by special military commissions.
So that's six weeks after 9/11, and we have what I called at the time the underpinnings of a police state. By that time, you already had the PATRIOT Act -- by Nov. 13 -- you had the roundups in New York City and around the country of noncitizen Muslims, with 5,000 of them taken to various jails, so you had a lot of bad stuff going on already. But that order of Nov. 13 was a power grab by the executive that I was just astounded by.
But, of course, that's not even close to what we have today. I mean when I look back at that time, what I thought was going on then was bad, but it's Mickey Mouse compared to what's happened since.
At the same time, you have to understand that people were still very nervous, the city was still mourning and it was a situation in which we were all still very frightened. There was that anthrax stuff and a lot of talk of sleeper cells everywhere. But when I read that order of Nov. 13, I said to myself: "We have to do something about this. We're going to represent the first people taken under this order." And even though there was talk at that time about how those being picked up were "the worst of the worst," I thought that this right, the right of habeas corpus, is so fundamental that it has to be defended. The difference between a police state and a nonpolice state is, fundamentally, whether the executive can pick you up and disappear you or whether you can go to a court and challenge the executive, whether you can say: "What's the legal reason you're holding me?"
Holland: That said, the Washington Post reported that you had misgivings at first about defending criminal cases -- that you were a New Yorker, you were here on 9/11, and that you at first wanted to defend the legal principle without defending anyone actually accused of being involved in the attacks. Tell me about that -- what changed?
Ratner: There were two issues that came up in terms of representing people. First, there was an institutional issue for the Center, and that was that we would be going in to defend those Rumsfeld had described as the "worst of the worst," and for all we knew we could be representing people who had actually been involved in the conspiracy to blow up the World Trade Center.
And at the first moment when I decided to take these cases, I said, "Look, what I'm fighting for is the writ of habeas corpus and the right to go to court." I wasn't saying that I would personally be able to defend someone involved in flying planes into the World Trade Center. I mean, I went into the law to represent people with whom I'm in general political agreement -- I looked at the law as a tool of social change.
So I had those doubts at first, but I've shifted because of what we've seen since then. First of all because of who's at Guantanamo. They're certainly not the worst of the worst; half of them have already been freed, and the people there are mostly the wrong people.
But we are representing a couple of people who the government claims are somehow involved with Al Qaeda -- Majid Khan is one. And, you know, he was tortured -- at least we think he was tortured -- he was taken to secret sites, and the idea that the government can do that is so ... medieval in my mind, that whatever Majid Khan is -- and I don't believe he was actually involved -- you have to offer people who the government claims were involved a real defense.
There were risks to the Center for taking those cases, and at the time we were the only human rights firm that was willing to move forward on them. Back then, the only lawyers who were willing to work on them were death penalty lawyers who are used to going into cases that are very unpopular.
So that's the background. And the first thing we filed was a writ of habeas corpus for David Hicks, who was an Australian taken on Jan. 11, 2002, to Guantanamo, a couple of English guys and some Kuwaitis. And in our first victory, the court said that the anathema with which executive detention is held exists because it undermines every other right you have -- if the executive can just put you in a cell and lose the key and disappear you without releasing your name ...
Holland: Let me just interrupt for a second here ... there's a clause in the Constitution that gives specific circumstances for the suspension of habeas corpus, right?
Ratner: It's called the Suspension Clause, and it says that the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended only in the case of invasion or rebellion.
Holland: OK.
Ratner: It's very narrow, and it's Congress that needs to suspend it. And, I mean, it's completely fundamental to liberty -- the actual habeas statute goes back to 1689 in England, but the concept goes back to the Magna Carta in 1215.
So we filed those writs, in February of 2002, for clients in Guantanamo who we couldn't speak with, who were being held incommunicado, who didn't even know we were working on their behalf. And the fact is that the choice of Guantanamo was obviously an intentional one because the Bush administration thought there would be no legal rights there. There's an early memo from Alberto Gonzales actually talking about how the government would have a good chance of maintaining its position that there were no rights at Guantanamo -- that it was essentially a law-free zone.
But we lost very quickly -- we lost in the district court and then in the circuit court.
Holland: OK, so just to clarify: The government's main contention in the case Rasul v. Bush was that Guantanamo Bay -- the American base -- wasn't sovereign U.S. territory, it was basically Cuban territory. Is that right?
Ratner: The administration maintained that they didn't have sovereignty over that territory; Cuba had ultimate sovereignty. And the word "sovereignty" was their sort of talisman, their way of saying: "This is Cuban.' And we're arguing: "No, the U.S. has complete 'jurisdiction and control' over the base."
Holland: So in 2004, you basically win on this question.
Ratner: In June 2004, we win. But here it gets a bit tricky. There are two parts of habeas: There's the constitutional right, and then there's the statute that implements the constitutional clause. The court's ruling went on the statute.
It's a critical victory -- the New York Times called it the most important civil rights victory in 50 years. It vindicates the decision of the Center for Constitutional Rights in taking on these cases and demonstrated that the risks we took were necessary for any lawyer who's serious about human rights.
And after that victory we got a lot of support -- from big-firm attorneys and small-firm attorneys and Republicans and Democrats -- people who just thought the idea of executive detention was just complete anathema to the Constitution and everything they stood for. The people who got this issue more than the American public were the attorneys, who were trained in these matters.
Holland: So you're getting more support from other lawyers, the detainees at Guantanamo are able to communicate with counsel, and that brings us to 2005.
Ratner: Right. By 2005, the government is going on the offensive, and they're setting up an alternate system instead of going to federal court -- a military tribunal system -- but they're mainly going to the Republican-controlled Congress, and they get passed what's called the Detainee Treatment Act, which strips habeas corpus from everybody at Guantanamo. And it did so by repealing the statute. So we get back in court again -- by "we" I mean the attorney in another related case -- and the Supreme Court says Congress didn't do it right. So in June of 2006, the court restores the right of habeas again.
We still at this point haven't had one factual hearing in a federal court. So we try to get a factual hearing for these Guantanamo detainees. But Congress wasn't done -- they were at it again, and they pass what's called the Military Commissions Act, and this time they learned from the Supreme Court's original ruling, and they stripped habeas completely, in every which way you can. Sadly, a lot of Democrats went along with that bill. It does other things that are terrible, like amnestying [intelligence officials accused of violating U.S. laws against torture], allowing evidence that came out of torture, all kinds of stuff.
At that point we went back into court and are now, on Dec. 5, going to the Supreme Court with 37 clients -- it'll be argued by Seth Waxman, who's not with the Center, on behalf of all the clients -- and the Dec. 5 case is the case that will, conceivably, determine whether the Constitution's suspension of the habeas clause protects people at Guantanamo, which, according to the government's view, is ostensibly outside the United States.
Holland: A direct challenge to the Military Commissions Act passed in October of 2006.
Ratner: Right. It's huge. Now, it's still going to mean more delay -- let's say we win, we'll still have a lot of work getting each person out. But I think that every single time the government has been faced with a real hearing, where they have to come up with evidence, the person has been released or sent home. So I'm confident that a large majority of people at Guantanamo will not be there in a year from now if we get them even a semblance of legal rights.
Holland: I want to move from the domestic law -- from that approach -- and touch on some issues of international law as well. We've seen Rumsfeld skipping a key NATO conference in Germany, and more recently he had to flee Paris to avoid -- depending on who you ask -- to avoid being entangled in legal problems resulting from U.S. torture policies. All of that gets to the concept of universal jurisdiction, which comes into force when a country is unwilling or unable to prosecute certain crimes in its own domestic courts.
First, have we reached that point? Are we living in a country where there's a culture of impunity? Are international remedies the only avenues for accountability, or is this case really going to determine that?
Ratner: That issue is somewhat different from the Guantanamo issue. Only the Supreme Court can determine whether the Guantanamo detainees get habeas corpus rights, because they're in U.S. custody. But Guantanamo isn't just about detention -- there's torture involved. And other courts can determine the issue of accountability. So we're trying to get rights for the detainees to test their detentions, but at the same time, torture, and other related activities, is also a violation of the law.
So the second question is how do you get accountability for U.S. officials who have violated that law? And in that sense, we're living in a closed system in the United States. There is absolutely nothing on the horizon indicating that accountability is going to be there for what Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney have done. We're talking about torture, the illegal war in Iraq, for what's called "extraordinary rendition" -- sending people to be tortured -- for the disappearances, for holding special military trials. These are a series of fundamental human rights violations that we at the Center have in the past sued other dictators for when they entered the United States.
So if I -- or the Center -- want to get accountability for Rumsfeld's torture techniques, which are open and acknowledged, or waterboarding, which is open and acknowledged -- these are clear violations of the universal right to be free of torture, and of our own convention against torture, passed by the United States -- we could not do that in the United States.
Look at the avenues. Congress has been milquetoast, even under the Democrats. There's not been one serious hearing on the origins of the torture program, not one serious hearing on waterboarding in which they've brought people to task. So Congress, sad to say, is dead in the water in terms of accountability. Certainly nobody at the Justice Department is going to do anything about it.
In the courts, there have been a series of cases filed directly against Rumsfeld and others for torture and on all of them so far, the courts have found that those people are either immune from suit or the cases would expose "state secrets" and you can't litigate them.
Lastly, the population is very quiescent on these issues, although there are strong grassroots groups working against torture. So the country is basically a hermetic system -- there's nothing we can do in the short term, and maybe not in the long term, to get accountability here, so what we've had to do is go abroad.
There are now two kinds of cases going on in Europe. The cases against Rumsfeld are universal jurisdiction cases, where torture can be prosecuted anywhere in the world. And I'm feeling pretty good about the Rumsfeld cases, because they're getting notoriety and people are understanding what's going on. We're making the world smaller for Rumsfeld -- he's not going to go back to France or Germany -- and in January or February we're looking to file in Spain, and in Spain you have Guantanamo detainees who were tortured under Rumsfeld's program and that gives the Spanish an extra incentive -- they can't just bury the case because there were Spanish citizens involved.
Holland: And you've said that you will continue to go after these officials for torture, even after they're out of office.
Ratner: Oh, yes. In fact, the case in Spain is already far along -- I've been spending more time in Europe than I ever did to get these cases going.
Holland: Might this go as high as George W. Bush himself?
Ratner: Well, we didn't name Bush or Cheney in any of these cases because they, as current office holders -- as essentially heads of state -- have immunity from national courts. They wouldn't be immune from a U.N. court, if there were ever a kind of Nuremberg Tribunal -- but they are from national courts. So while we have them named as unindicted co-conspirators, we don't list them as actual defendants. But we certainly will, afterwards, and ...
Holland: Wait, let me make sure I got that. You're saying that after 2009 -- January of 2009 -- you will be adding them to the complaints?
Ratner: Oh, absolutely. They're on the hook then. And it's going to be a hot world for them, because the world knows this -- this is an emperor's new clothes situation, because everyone in the world knows that the U.S. is running a torture program. You have to remember, this wasn't kept secret. And in my view, it was purposely exposed either because there was a desire to get vengeance, or because of machismo, or just to say to the Muslim world: "If you fall into our hands, we're going to take you to Guantanamo and we're going to torture you" as a way of controlling that population. It's been done intentionally and openly, and they've gotten the American public, somehow, to go along with it. They've convinced many people that they're safer, or that these are just a bunch of Muslims, and we don't give a damn what happens to them.
Holland: Let me take a step back from these cases for a second and ask about the larger picture. All of this comes in the context of a post-9/11 world, and we've spoken about how the Democrats have been involved not only in authorizing the war on Iraq, but at every stage there has been at least a group of Democrats who have gone along with the administration. So I want to get into the question of framing the issue of terrorism as a "war" in the first place.
After 9/11 there was almost a consensus that we would go to war against Al Qaeda rather than approaching it as a law enforcement issue -- the same way that organized crime gangs, for example, are dealt with. But throughout our history, the civil liberties standards have always been lowered during wartime. So what was the consequence, in your view, of not pushing back, early on, against the narrative that we needed to wage a "war" on terror?
Ratner: I think this is the most crucial issue ... this is not just in the past, it's also in the future -- this is the crucial issue in all of these debates.
The narrative that happened after 9/11 is a narrative that I didn't accept. I wrote at the time that it absolutely had to be treated as a criminal act. You cannot take a terrorist gang, a mafia gang or any other group and say that it's a war against that gang, because what happens is that you take what are the loosest set of rules we have for dealing with human beings, which are the rules of warfare -- and you apply them where they don't apply.
And then you need to apply them selectively, because they don't really fit. So you can say on the one hand that the law of war allows us to hold people until the end of a conflict, but that means until the end of a particular conflict that's going to last some number of years. The assumption is that there's another country on the other side, that you'll negotiate issues like prisoner of war exchanges. But when you use that for a terrorist band, and you say the laws of war apply, well the war against "terror" never ends, so you're claiming the right to hold those people forever.
So by using that analogy, what we've actually set up is a massive preventive detention scheme that has nothing to do with real war, but has to do with criminality. The president can say: "The world is my battlefield, even the United States, and I can pick up Michael Ratner or Joshua Holland tomorrow, and I can hold them as enemy combatants forever, with minimal process, even though they're U.S. citizens, and never even charge them with a crime."
And the idea that that wasn't challenged early on -- and I agree that progressives didn't even take it on -- is incredible.
Now, let's be clear: You can use force against terrorist bands, and Congress authorized that. But does that use of force mean that, after you capture somebody, you can detain them forever? It doesn't follow -- just because you can use force against some group doesn't mean you can hold people indefinitely. But people just don't get it. I don't know if it's falling on deaf ears, but I think we've lost the debate in the United States and I think we've lost it even among some progressives, and that's all related to the so-called "war."
What we've done here is made this into a global conflagration in which you're treating alleged terrorists as warriors, as if it's the U.S. against another huge force, and what that allows you to do, of course, is to completely eliminate and destroy civil liberties at home and abroad. All that when we may have been initially facing a band of only a couple of hundred people.
And of course you have the next stage, which is Iraq, and although there were a lot of lies told about Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda and all that, it was the war paradigm that allowed them to tell those lies in the first place.

Bush continues to slide down a tube of greasy lies. Ken Starr's standards, it's an impeachable offense. Now, would someone PLEASE give Bush a blowjob, and preferably, someone gay, in a bathroom? -MS

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

The problem with Bush's fairly transparent lies about the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran isn't just that they're obvious; it's that they're clumsy.
Asked when he learned about Iran's halted nuclear-weapons program, the president said it was "last week." White House officials then conceded it was actually in August.
Asked about the August briefing, the president said the Director of National Intelligence told him there was "new information," but "didn't tell" him what it was. White House officials then conceded Bush was told that the August briefing included a discussion about Iran possibly having suspended its nuclear program four years ago.
Asked about any warnings he may have received in August about toning down his rhetoric on Iran, the president said, "[N]obody ever told me that." White House officials then conceded Bush was told to "stand down" when it came to Iran, advice the president chose to ignore.
This isn't complicated. When Bush says one thing, and then White House officials tell us that reality is something different, then necessarily what the president told us wasn't true. Now, this could qualify as a lie (if he knew the truth at the time), or it could qualify as incompetence (if he just doesn't know what he's talking about), but it really has to be one or the other.
Unless, of course, you're the White House press secretary, Dana Perino.
"OK, look. I can see where you could see that the president could have been more precise in that language. But the president was being truthful."
I can enjoy rhetorical parsing as much as the next guy, but in no way is it possible to characterize obviously-false remarks as "truthful," unless the Dana Perino changed the meaning of the word when no one was looking.
It's gracious of Perino to concede that Bush could have been "more precise," but precision isn't really the problem here. When "last week" is "last August," Bush is being more than just imprecise. When not being aware of new information becomes being aware of new information, those are opposites, not shades or degrees.

Also from the briefing, CNN's Ed Henry, building off a report from the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, brought a new angle to all of this.
Q: Can you just clarify one more thing? What day was the president actually briefed on the NIE?
PERINO: I don't know. I don't know.
Q: Well, because Mr. Hadley left the impression that it was last Wednesday.
PERINO: Oh, on the NIE, specifically?
Q: On the NIE.
PERINO: Yes, last Wednesday.
Q: Last Wednesday? OK. But there have been reports that the president briefed Prime Minister Olmert last week, maybe on Monday.
PERINO: I don't know.
Q: Did he brief Prime Minister Olmert? And how could he brief Olmert on Monday about a report that he found out about on Wednesday? Can you...
PERINO: I don't -- I will check.
And just for the fun of it, I thought I'd mention that according to the standards Ken Starr established in 1998, if a president is caught lying -- even in response to a reporter's question, whether he's under oath or not -- it's an impeachable offense. That's not my standard; it's Ken Starr's.
Just sayin'.

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.

Bush continues to rack up more evidence of his own war crimes...or he is just plain lying. Either way, he's a criminal.

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Iran NIE: "Bush, Pathological Liar or Idiot-in-Chief?"

He continues to be a clarion call for accountability - which is totally lacking in the current White House. He continues to rachet up the clarity that Bush and Cheney are not just misguided or with flawed policies, expected criticisms by partisans of the opposing pursuasion, but is pulling back the curtain on the chalatan and criminal actions of the cabal that has corrupted the government. He is my nominee for a Pultizer Prize, at the very least. -MS

This transcript comes from MSNBC
There are few choices more terrifying than the one Mr. Bush has left us with tonight.
We have either a president who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War III about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole, or we have a president too transcendently stupid not to have asked, at what now appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so, whether the fairy tales he either created or was fed were still even remotely plausible.
A pathological presidential liar, or an idiot-in-chief. It is the nightmare scenario of political science fiction: A critical juncture in our history and, contained in either answer, a president manifestly unfit to serve, and behind him in the vice presidency an unapologetic warmonger who has long been seeing a world visible only to himself.
After spokeswoman Dana Perino’s announcement from the White House late last night, the timeline is inescapable and clear.
In August the president was told by his hand-picked major-domo of intelligence, Mike McConnell, a flinty, high-strung-looking, worrying-warrior who will always see more clouds than silver linings, that what “everybody thought” about Iran might be, in essence, crap.
Yet on Oct. 17, the president said of Iran and its President Ahmadinejad:
“I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon.”
And as he said that, Mr. Bush knew that at bare minimum there was a strong chance that his rhetoric was nothing more than words with which to scare the Iranians.
Or was it, Sir, to scare the Americans?
Does Iran not really fit into the equation here? Have you just scribbled it into the fill-in-the-blank on the same template you used to scare us about Iraq?
In August, any commander-in-chief still able-minded or uncorrupted or both, Sir, would have invoked the quality the job most requires: mental flexibility.
A bright man, or an honest man, would have realized no later than the McConnell briefing that the only true danger about Iran was the damage that could be done by an unhinged, irrational Chicken Little of a president shooting his mouth off, backed up by only his own hysteria and his own delusions of omniscience.
Not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr. Bush.
The Chicken Little of presidents is the one, Sir, that you see in the mirror.
And the mind reels at the thought of a vice president fully briefed on the revised intel as long as two weeks ago, briefed on the fact that Iran abandoned its pursuit of this imminent threat four years ago, who never bothered to mention it to his boss.
It is nearly forgotten today, but throughout much of Ronald Reagan’s presidency it was widely believed that he was little more than a front man for some never-viewed, behind-the-scenes string-puller.
Today, as evidenced by this latest remarkable, historic malfeasance, it is inescapable that Dick Cheney is either this president’s evil ventriloquist or he thinks he is.
What servant of any of the 42 previous presidents could possibly withhold information of this urgency and gravity and wind up back at his desk the next morning, instead of winding up before a congressional investigation or a criminal one?
Mr. Bush, if you can still hear us, if you did not previously agree to this scenario in which Dick Cheney is the actual detective and you’re Remington Steele, you must disenthrall yourself: Mr. Cheney has usurped your constitutional powers, cut you out of the information loop and led you down the path to an unprecedented presidency in which the facts are optional, the intel is valued less than the hunch and the assistant runs the store.

The problem is, Sir, your assistant is robbing you and your country blind.
Not merely in monetary terms, Mr. Bush, but, more important, of the traditions and righteousness for which we have stood, at great risk, for centuries: honesty, law, moral force.
Mr. Cheney has helped, Sir, to make your administration into the kind our ancestors saw in the 1860s and 1870s and 1880s, the ones that abandoned Reconstruction and sent this country marching backward into the pit of American apartheid.
Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland — presidents who will be remembered only in a blur of failure, Mr. Bush.
Presidents who will be remembered only as functions of those who opposed them, the opponents whom history proved right.
Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland ... Bush.
Would that we could let this president off the hook by seeing him only as marionette or moron.
But a study of the mutation of his language about Iran proves that though he may not be very good at it, he is, himself, still a manipulative, Machiavellian snake-oil salesman.
The Bushian etymology was tracked by Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post’s Web site.
It is staggering.
* March 31: “Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon...”
* June 5: Iran’s “pursuit of nuclear weapons...”
* June 19: “consequences to the Iranian government if they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon...”
* July 12: “the same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons...”
* Aug. 6: “this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon...”
Notice a pattern?
Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon.
Then, sometime between Aug. 6 and Aug. 9, those terms are suddenly swapped out, so subtly that only in retrospect can we see that somebody has warned the president, not only that he has gone out too far on the limb of terror but there may not even be a tree there....
McConnell, or someone, must have briefed him then.
* Aug. 9: “They have expressed their desire to be able to enrich uranium, which we believe is a step toward having a nuclear weapons program...”
* Aug. 28: “Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons...”
*Oct. 4: “you should not have the know-how on how to make a (nuclear) weapon...”
*Oct. 17: “until they suspend and/or make it clear that they, that their statements aren’t real, yeah, I believe they want to have the **capacity**, the **knowledge**, in order to make a nuclear weapon.”
Before Aug. 9, it’s: Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon.
After Aug. 9, it’s: Desire, pursuit, want ... knowledge technology know-how to enrich uranium.
And we are to believe, Mr.. Bush, that the National Intelligence Estimate this week talks of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program in 2003....
And you talked of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program on Oct. 17.
And that’s just a coincidence?
And we are to believe, Mr. Bush, that nobody told you any of this until last week?
Your insistence that you were not briefed on the NIE until last week might be legally true, something like “what the definition of ‘is’ is,” but with the subject matter being not interns but the threat of nuclear war.
Legally, it might save you from some war crimes trial, but ethically it is a lie.
It is indefensible.
You have been yelling threats into a phone for nearly four months, after the guy on the other end had already hung up.
You, Mr. Bush, are a bald-faced liar.
And moreover, you have just revealed that John Bolton and Norman Podhoretz and the Wall Street Journal editorial board are also bald-faced liars.
We are to believe that the intel community, or maybe the State Department, cooked the raw intelligence about Iran, falsely diminished the Iranian nuclear threat, to make you look bad?
And you proceeded to let them make you look bad?
You not only knew all of this about Iran in early August, but you also knew it was accurate.
And instead of sharing this good news with the people you have obviously forgotten you represent, you merely fine-tuned your terrorizing of those people, to legally cover your own backside.
While you filled the factual gap with sadistic visions of, as you phrased it Aug. 28, “nuclear holocaust,” and, as you phrased it Oct. 17, “World War III.”
My comments, Mr. Bush, are often dismissed as simple repetitions of the phrase “George Bush has no business being president.”
Well, guess what?
Tonight: hanged by your own words, convicted by your own deliberate lies....
You, sir, have no business being president

Wide Stance is easily the best laugh-inducing punch line of the political season

At a tribute to Julia Roberts, the Academy Award winner had his own close encounter with a Wide Stance. The video is hilarious, and satirically reveals the hypocrites on the wierd-right continue to expose themselves as the morons they are and may even, unintentionally, help to end their dominance in the legislative ranks. Although, that may be a wide-stretch to actually see happen!

read more | digg story