Great men never change their minds and never admit mistakes

Dear Governor Huckabee:

In 1984, a young boy living in Indiana was diagnosed with AIDS. At the time, that boy, thirteen-year-old Ryan White, had no idea that his life would become a testament of courage and bravery responsible for opening the hearts and minds of millions of people throughout our country and around the world. Six years later, in 1990, Ryan’s life ended—a dear, precious life cut short.

But Ryan’s death wasn’t the only tragedy in this well-known story in our country’s history. Ryan and his family’s battle with HIV/AIDS was also a stark reminder of what happens in our country when fear and ignorance go unchecked. Governor Huckabee, the Ryan White family was ridiculed, shunned and ostracized by people who thought the answer was to “isolate” them far away from the rest of society. In 1984, this belief was purely based on ignorance. But these same beliefs, which you espoused in 1992 and have refused to recant today, as a candidate for President of the United States, are completely beyond comprehension.

When you answered the Associated Press questionnaire in 1992, we, in fact, knew a great deal about how HIV was transmitted. Four years earlier, in 1988, the Reagan Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services issued a brochure assuring the American public that “you won’t get the AIDS virus through every day contact with the people around you in school, in the workplace, at parties, child care centers, or stores.” To call for such an oppressive and severe policy like “isolation,” when the scientific community and federal government were certain about how HIV is transmitted was then, and remains today, irresponsible. Such statements should be completely repudiated, not simply dismissed as needing to be slightly reworded.

This was not and is not an issue of “political correctness,” as you state. Rather, this is an issue of valuing science-based evidence over unfounded fear or prejudice.

Have we not learned the difficult lesson of how devastating these statements based in ignorance and fear can be to American families? Has it been so long ago that we have forgotten how our neighbors had the backs of entire communities turned on them? Governor Huckabee, those dark moments in American history are the direct result of ignorant views that stifle discussion, hinder resources and delay action. We have a moral obligation as a nation to never allow ourselves to repeat the shameful mistakes of the past. And we cannot sit idly by when a candidate for President of the United States tries to lead us back down that path of ignorance and fear.

Governor Huckabee, if you need a reminder of how calls for “isolation” can shatter a Mother’s heart, you only need to turn to Jeanne White-Ginder. Today, we respectfully ask you to sit down with her and allow her to share with you Ryan’s story. Ms. White-Ginder continues to be active in AIDS advocacy as a member of the board of The AIDS Institute. We hope that, even in 2007, Ryan’s story can continue to open hearts and minds.

We would be happy to facilitate a meeting between Ms. White-Ginder and yourself, or a member of your staff. Please feel free to contact Brad Luna, Communications Director for the Human Rights Campaign, at (202) 216-1514 at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Joe Solmonese
President
Human Rights Campaign

A. Gene Copello
Executive Director
The AIDS Institute

Rep. Schiff on national security and impeachment

Thank you for contacting me regarding your support for introducing articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome your input.

I share your concern about the policies and actions of Vice President Cheney and I am deeply troubled by the potentially precedent-setting expansion of executive power at the cost of our system of coequal branches and the civil liberties guaranteed to all Americans. The Executive Branch is an extraordinarily powerful one; in order for the checks and balances to function properly, both Congress and the Courts must resist an excessive assertion of executive power that is at odds with the interests of the American people or violates the Constitution. Despite the challenges that our nation faces, we must not cast aside the values and ideals that our people have defended for centuries.

The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with the intention that no one branch of government should become too powerful. With the oppression of monarchical rule only recently behind them, they sought to prevent the rise of a too-powerful executive by crafting a calibrated system of checks and balances that allows for interplay between the three branches of government. Congress has an important legislative function, but it has an equally vital role in providing oversight and we must continue to aggressively exercise this prerogative.

One of the most important areas in which oversight has been lacking involves the terrible mistakes that have been made in the prosecution of the war and the reconstruction of Iraq . After more than 4 years of bloody combat; after our Nation has lost more than 3,700 of our military's finest; after thousands more of our brave men and women have been wounded; after we have spent almost $600 billion; and after finding no weapons of mass destruction, the very basis of that war, it is clear that no one in the Administration has been held accountable. This is beginning to change, and the new Democratic Congress has held an unprecedented number of oversight hearings since it took power. It is my hope that these oversight hearings will provide the basis for a dramatic change in direction in our Iraq policy.

Another area which cries out for strong Congressional oversight and action involves the revelation that the executive secretly authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on Americans on American soil. On May 11, 2007, the House of Representatives responded to the President's assertion of inherent authority to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant or any judicial review. By a vote of 245-178, the House adopted an amendment that I offered with my colleague Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to reiterate that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) provides the exclusive authority to engage in domestic electronic surveillance for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information. T he President and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) recently returned to Congress with a legislative proposal ( S . 1927) that would make it easier for the NSA to collect intelligence on Americans and groups abroad. I strongly opposed this bill, which nonetheless passed the Congress and was signed into law on August 5, 2007. This measure is set to expire in six months, and I will be working hard to reinstate the type of court supervision that is essential to protect our privacy.

I continue to believe that we must be aggressive in combating terrorism and offer terrorists no quarter. However, the suggestion of the Administration that we can only do so by subverting the law and giving up our constitutional rights is seriously misguided. Instead, I support a different approach. We will use every tool to go after those who wish to harm us. But Americans who are law-abiding citizens of this country should have the confidence of knowing that a court is overseeing what the government does when it comes to our privacy rights.

On the specific remedy of impeachment, the Founding Fathers established a high standard requiring the determination of high crimes and misdemeanors. After witnessing the misguided, destructive and polarizing impeachment of President Clinton, I can well understand why they raised the bar so high. There is no question that the Vice President has done a great disservice to the country in many ways, and I am deeply troubled by his views of executive authority and performance in office. We must continue to do vigorous oversight and let the evidence lead us where it may; at the same time, we must not be deterred from the highest imperative of changing our Iraq policy, reversing the Administration's intrusive surveillance policy, meeting the challenge of global climate change, and other critical priorities.

Please be assured that I will do my part to ensure that Congress provides such a check and ensure that the Administration is held accountable for its actions.

Sincerely,

Adam B. Schiff
Member of Congress

The Matthew Shepherd Act lands in Purgatory

Regarding the Matthew Shepard Act (S 1105) which is included in the conference report of the Department of Defense Authorization Act (HR 1585) to be sent to the President's desk for signature:

I'm mystified that legislation like this has to be fought for and strategically maneuvered to keep it from dying. Bizarre. Like hate crimes are okay as long as they're confined to certain federally approved minorities? And verbal or physical abuse of those minorities is a form of free speech and must be protected? I wish I understood the complex logic behind the resistance to hate-crimes legislation. I wish I understood why the absence of such legislation is essential for the safety and well-being of the nation. But I don't.

DiFi, D'ohFi

Versen (of Hugo Zoom):

You are the Bad News Bear.

Why...oh why didn't I read the blue article? (A reference to that darn movie again.) First I read the Greenwald article you pointed me to, and then (can you believe this?) I clicked on "getting richer" and read the CNSNews.com article. Now there's this very stern email/blog post percolating in my head calling for DiFi to switch parties and offering whatever assistance I can to the investigation into her conflicts of interest so that she will end up resigning from the Senate in disgrace. How long has this been going on? She's been in California politics forever, since before Harvey Milk was assassinated. If I were a political junkie I'd research her entire political history to see how long she's been a Republican in Democrats' clothing (dark-blue Chanel suits, as opposed to Nancy's blood-red Chanel suits). But I have other things to work on, like getting my second CD of Xmas music into the online retail channels preferably before Xmas. I probably won't even write the stern email/blog post expressing the hope that they run DiFi and all of her cases of L'Oreal Dark Ash Brown dye out of town.

"Bring me somethin' I can use, but don't nevah, nevah bring me...no bad news!" (From The Wiz)

Madam Speaker, listen up!

I'm appalled to learn that Cheney is still pushing for an invasion of Iran. Why is he persisting in this? Do people occasionally hear him say things like "What's the frequency, Kenneth?"

Impeachment hearings would bring to light for the entire country what laws were broken in the time leading up to the invasion of Iraq, by whom they were broken, when and how. Do you remember how much TV airtime was given to Ken Starr over Whitewater? Impeachment hearings now, in contrast, would be good for the nation because we would learn specifics about how government operates and about the ways a government can be derailed. An impeachment doesn't have to succeed. The impeachment hearings would provide a classroom in which the nation could be re-educated in the subject of ethics. It would also be a demonstration to other nations that the U.S. is able to admit its mistakes and take steps to correct them. As it is now, we are about as morally credible as the Pharisees in the time of Christ.

It is alleged that Cheney committed serious crimes regarding the justification for war, and it appears that there is some significant proof that crimes were committed. (I could point you to websites for the proof, but you yourself know of far more sources of credible proof than I do.) In a situation like this outside of government, of course there would be legal proceedings to determine guilt or innocence. A trial isn't avoided because prosecution doesn't think they can win. A trial is held, regardless of potential outcome, to determine if crimes were committed. A federal official should be held to at least the same degree of scrutiny, if not more.

If you are reluctant to push for impeachment hearings because it would deeply divide the nation, you need to rethink that. The nation is already fatally divided. Impeachment hearings would provide catharsis and healing.

H.Res. 333

Congressman Schiff:

Please support Kucinich's resolution to impeach Dick Cheney, H.Res. 333.

I don't understand the reasoning behind not going forward with impeachment proceedings because there aren't enough votes for it to succeed. You yourself know how important it is to be seen as taking a stand on an important issue. Not going forward with impeachment proceedings, regardless of the reason, communicates to the rest of the world that we as a country condone Cheney's criminal actions. It is the attempt itself to bring the lawbreaker to justice that is important. Impeachment must be attempted. If it doesn't succeed, at least the attempt to bring justice will have been made.

When Speaker Pelosi said that if anyone can show her that any crimes were committed by the Vice President she would consider the evidence seriously, I imagine her email inbox was flooded with long, exhaustive emails explaining in exacting detail what laws were broken, by whom, how, and when. It's incredible that she would say, much less believe, something like that. The message Congress is now communicating to the world is that impeachment proceedings will not be undertaken because the Vice President did nothing wrong.

Please support H.Res. 333. The effort itself is extremely important. Making no effort at all looks like collusion.

DiFi, listen up!

Senator Feinstein:

Regarding Judge Mukasey, is it your age? Is it your ethnicity? I honestly don't know what you're thinking. It may actually be that you have been working too long past the traditional age of retirement. Born in 1933, you are currently 74? It may be that your impressive cognitive abilities actually have begun to slow down in the normal aging process. Nothing to be ashamed of, but something to be considered in an office as important as yours.

Is it your ethnicity? You believe that torture is wrong, unless it's Muslims who are being tortured?

Regarding waterboarding as torture, you yourself know that it has been prosecuted as torture in military courts in the U.S. since the Spanish-American War in 1898. What's to be unsure about?

I see from a quick glance at Wikipedia's profile of you that there has been some concern over an alleged conflict of interest regarding your voting billions of dollars in appropriations to your husband's firms. You know from observing the Bush Administration that denying any ethical conflict is not the same as there being no ethical conflict.

Not long ago I learned from one of the political commentators on CNN that, because you will be 80 in 2012, you will not be seeking reelection. Does that mean you will be spending the next five years being unrepresentative of the people you represent? I do believe that the possibility exists, since you now truly have no real need to be concerned about voter approval. Your voting with the Republicans in August to modify FISA to allow bypassing the special intelligence court established by FISA may be an indication of that. Your voting for Mukasey as Attorney General will also be an indication of that. As the New York Times put it, "He believes the President has the power to negate laws" and he hasn't committed himself "to enforcing Congressional subpoenas." Why would you even consider voting for him as Attorney General?

I feel betrayed by you in what I perceive as your migration to the right. I feel betrayed by you in what I perceive as your declining interest in voter approval. Along with all the other Californians who elected you, I request that you listen to us and vote No on Mukasey's nomination, and continue listening to us for the remaining years of your term. We. Hired. You. Get it?

$2 trillion??

America's Favorite GameshowWORLDWIDE PREEMPTIVE WAR

From PeaceTeam.net:

Announcer: [cue peppy marching music] Here it is, the exciting TV game all America is playing . . . whether they like it or not . . . Worldwide Preemptive War, where members of our studio audience compete for fantastic prizes, like getting out of here alive without a serious injury. Our first contestant is Joe Grunt, from the Topeka, Kansas National Guard . . . COME ON DOWN!

Contestant 1: Hey, wait a minute, I just signed up for a weekend a month.

Announcer: [laughing] Read your contract, son, including the part about stop loss extensions. And our second contestant is George W. Bush from the Texas Air National Guard . . . COME ON DOWN!

Announcer: George W. Bush, COME ON DOWN! . . . [pause] Now they're telling me he never reported for duty after he was transferred out to Alabama. OK then, Dick Cheney, COME ON DOWN!!

Announcer: [pause] What do you mean he said he had other priorities? Hell, just grab three more people without an "R" after their name . . . And now . . . here's the star of our show . . . Booooooooob BURKA!

Bob Burka: Welcome to Worldwide Preemptive War, and the first item we have up for bid is an invasion and occupation of Iraq, estimated to take 6 days, or 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months. Who will guess the closest to the real cost plus, without going over?

Contestant 1: I don't even want to go. I bid 100 billion, Bob, it could never possibly be that much.

Contestant 2: 5 billion.

Contestant 3: 20 billion.

Contestant 4: One dollar, leave me out of it too.

Bob Burka: And the actual final cost of the Iraq war and occupation to the American taxpayer is . . . at least 2 TRILLION DOLLARS. Contestant 1, you WIN! You get to play our first game, "Kill An Insurgent." And if you do, what do we have to give you today?

Announcer: It's a NEW CAR!! . . . The latest model armored Humvee with stylish V-shaped underbody to try to deflect some of the many roadside IED explosions you're sure to encounter in your daily patrols. The fact is, you'll be getting one of the very few of these actually out there. A prize worth 150,000 dollars, for which the Pentagon paid five times that much.

Bob Burka: You know how the game is played, you have 15 seconds to open fire on anything that moves, and if you kill an insurgent, you WIN! Go.

Contestant 1: STOP! [rat-tatta-tat] HALT!! DON'T MOVE!! [ker-pow, boom]

Bob Burka: Well, let's see how you did . . . Oh, I'm so sorry, you killed 19 civilians, including a family of four who could not understand the commands you were shouting at them in English, but you didn't get any insurgents. But wait . . . our judges have ruled that because some of their RELATIVES will now join the insurgency . . . you WIN! Let's have another contestant.

Announcer: Rush Limbaugh, COME ON DOWN!

Announcer: [pause] What are you talking about he had an ingrown hair follicle on his butt, and can't have a job where he has to sit for extended periods of time? Look, just draft . . . uh, I mean take, some high school student with no other chance of sustaining employment in this globally outsourced economy.

Bob Burka: Let's tell our contestants the next item up for bid.

Announcer: Now that we're in Iraq, next we want you to guess how many more years we're going to have to stay there.

Contestant 1: One year, Bob.

Contestant 2: Three years.

Contestant 3: Two years.

Contestant 4: Bring the troops home now! [gets tackled by a dozen security guards and dragged off the stage]

Bob Burka: And the actual length of the occupation is . . . at least 10 years, since none of the leading presidential candidates will even promise we'll be out of there by 2013. You're a winner, Contestant 2! And what do we have for you in our next game.

Announcer: It's a fabulous vacation in sunny Ramadi! . . . Yes, you will be sent on an ENDLESS deployment to the city where the action never stops, conveniently located in the famous Sunni Triangle, with all your expenses paid EXCEPT for long term medical care and rehabilitation, courtesy of the Walter Reed Army Hospital bureaucracy. Estimated cost to the American taxpayer 36 thousand a year, unless you're a contract mercenary, in which case as much as ten times that.

Bob Burka: Now, to win this prize all you have to do is guess which of these quotes is a lie.

[Recording 1] We don't torture.

[Recording 2] We don't eavesdrop without a court order.

[Recording 3] We have not yet decided to bomb Iran.

Contestant 2: But, Bob, they're ALL lies.

Bob Burka: See how easy it is. You're going to Ramadi! And now we come to our final Showcase. Behind one of the doors is an exit strategy, but behind the other is yet more senseless and counterproductive death and destruction. Contestant 1, you have
selected door on the left. Let's see what you've won.

Announcer: It's a hopeless quagmire!! . . . The proportion of the Iraqi people who approve of attacks on Americans will increase ultimately from the current 60 percent to a full 100, while the homegrown insurgency continues to defeat billion dollar technology with weapons improvised from the massive explosives stockpile they looted just after the initial invasion.

Bob Burka: And behind the door on the right, what do we have for Contestant 2?

Announcer: It's a full on regional conflagration precipitated by an attack on Iran without evidence or justification, including the possible fall of Pakistan to jihadist militants, putting operational nuclear weapons in their hands immediately, plus collapse of the global economy from skyrocketing oil prices, and asymmetric terrorist attacks against American interests all around the world.

Bob Burka: Hey, let's give everybody BOTH showcases!

Contestant 2: But you promised there was an exit strategy.

Bob Burka: So I lied. We're not planning on leaving ever.

Bob Burka: [cue music out] Be sure to tune in tomorrow for another Worldwide Preemptive War show. Until then, rest in peace! I mean, bye bye!

Regress is the new progress in Iraq

From MoveOn.org:

This was one of the bloodiest summers for US troops in Iraq, Iraqi casualties are running at twice the pace of last year, and 15 of 18 of President Bush's own benchmarks remain unmet.

Farenheit 1600

In email from Democrats.com:

Recently in Salon, noted correspondent Sidney Blumenthal wrote that the film No End In Sight "has the White House spooked" by the prospect of former high level officials like Colin Powell being inspired by the insiders in the film to speak out against the shortsightedness of the disastrous Iraq policy, destroying the last vestiges of the administration's credibility.

Time Magazine has called the film "Without a doubt the most important film you are likely to see this year," and it is possibly the best reviewed film of the entire year, as you can see from the selection of critic quotes below.

The film is playing in theatres in most major cities nationwide. For a list of dates and locations, visit http://www.noendinsightmovie.com/. If you care about where we're headed as a country, you owe it to yourself to see what the NY Times calls "an absolutely vital" film.

"PREPARE TO BE RIVETED. NO END IN SIGHT IS WITHOUT QUESTION THE MOST IMPORTANT MOVIE YOU ARE LIKELY TO SEE THIS YEAR." —Richard Schickel, Time

"THIS POWERHOUSE OF A MOVIE SHOULD BE REQUIRED VIEWING FOR EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS. Lucid, without partisan rhetoric, and not to be missed." —David Ansen, Newsweek

"TWO VERY BIG THUMBS UP. IT IS ESSENTIAL VIEWING FOR ANY PATRIOT. I LOVE THIS FILM BECAUSE I LOVE MY COUNTRY" —Richard Roeper, Ebert & Roeper

"AN ABSOLUTELY VITAL FILM. Exacting, enraging and revelatory. A clear, temperate and devastating account of high level arrogance and incompetence." —A.O. Scott, NY Times

"THE MOVIE IS A CLASSIC. An extraordinary, elegant looking film." —David Denby, New Yorker

"A TRUE RARITY. A model of concision and clarity, it's probably the onlyone of the Iraq documentaries with the potential to reach across partisan lines." —Dennis Lim, LA Times

"****" —Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

"**** IT MAY BE THE BEST FILM OF THE YEAR SO FAR. Devastating, factually air-tight and blessedly free of simplification." —Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune

"**** STAGGERING! A DAMNING POLITICAL THRILLER." —Wesley Morris, Boston Globe

"PLEASE SEND EVERYONE YOU KNOW TO SEE IT. The film convicts the Bush Administration more clearly, specifically and forcefully than any previous documentary, and more wrenchingly than any book could do." —Stuart Klawans, The Nation

A video supporting the Matthew Shepherd Act

From The Human Rights Campaign:

The radical right is out in force, spreading lies and flooding Congress with calls and letters against the Matthew Shepard Act. They're out-messaging us five to one.

Don't leave your senators with a distorted view of their constituents' beliefs. Make sure all your friends and family see the powerful video.

You can send a message to your senator from the HRC website.

Di Fi's statement of support for Feingold-Reid

Mr. President.

The time has come for those of us in the Senate who believe that the Iraq war is counterproductive to stand up and make our voice heard. That's why I voted in favor of the Feingold-Reid amendment that would bring this war to an end.

This is not a perfect amendment, nor a perfect resolution to this war. But the outlook for success in Iraq is bleak. And it grows bleaker by the day. This is no fault of the men and women of our armed forces. Our forces have done everything asked of them. They've fought bravely and admirably.

But - as our generals have said repeatedly - this war cannot be won by military means. A political solution is necessary, but there has been no meaningful progress on reconciliation. And the simple fact is failures of the Bush Administration have left our nation with no good options.

Either the bloody status quo can continue indefinitely - an endless string of bombings, IEDs, and sectarian violence. There is no end in sight. No strategy to change course. And no exit plan.

Or our nation can begin to reduce our troop levels in Iraq and remove our soldiers from this cauldron of violence.

The options in front of us might be different if this Administration had shown some willingness to change course, develop an exit strategy, and implement a timetable. And if this were the case, I would not vote for this amendment. But the Administration has signaled over and over and over again the lack of a clear-eyed appraisal of the situation in Iraq.

The American people made their voice heard last November that they wanted a change of course. Democrats in Congress have tried repeatedly to force the Administration to transition the mission. But the Bush Administration has refused. Over and over again. And most recently, President Bush vetoed responsible legislation to set benchmarks and a timetable for redeployment.

So I believe that the time has come for the Senate to assert its will and to carry out its responsibility under Article I of the Constitution "to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces." The time has come to recognize the reality of this civil war and the inability of an American fighting force to quell hundreds of years of hatred, combined with the view of the Iraqi people that our brave men and women are seen as an occupying force.

The time has come to take the strongest possible position.

The time has come to say this war must end.

Of the vehicles we have available for us to do this, this comes the closest. It may not be perfect in its timing, but it clearly says that the time has come for the Senate of the United States to exert its Constitutional obligation, which after all is the only finite option available to us to signal the seriousness of our view.

This is not a vote that I take lightly, and I wish that I did not have to take it. This situation - the Administration's lack of flexibility, its continuation of failed strategies, and current events in the evolution of the civil war - leave me with no alternative.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

10 mind-boggling reasons for impeachment

From Democrats.com:

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina and in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

Sign the petition for impeachment at Democrats.com. They're getting close to reaching their goal of 100,000 signatures.

Turks rally for a secular government

One and a half million people protesting the encroachment of religious law into their secular state. Amazing. Who would've thought so many people capable of that?

The protest took place today in Izmir, Turkey, where the pro-Islamic ruling party tried to strong-arm a presidential candidate into office by passing a constitutional amendment allowing the people, rather than the parliament, to elect the president and then by calling for early elections. The current president, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, is a secularist who keeps the government in check by vetoing bills and appointments. (Now isn't that a switch?)

You can learn more in the BBC article.

It's encouraging to learn that the judiciary of a Muslim country "fiercely guards" secular law and that there is such a strong will at the grassroots level to maintain secularism. Contrast this to Chief Justice Scalia and to the Dominionist movement in the U.S.