Wake up democracy!

Tales of Bush approved torture

2009-03-15T22:53:00.006-06:00

This weekend there are several stories out in the news about the publication of a secret summary of Guantanamo prsioners telling how they were tortured while in American custody at various secret detention sites run by the CIA.

From the New York Review of Books:

"We think time and elections will cleanse our fallen world but they will not. Since November, George W. Bush and his administration have seemed to be rushing away from us at accelerating speed, a dark comet hurtling toward the ends of the universe. The phrase "War on Terror"—the signal slogan of that administration, so cherished by the man who took pride in proclaiming that he was "a wartime president"—has acquired in its pronouncement a permanent pair of quotation marks, suggesting something questionable, something mildly embarrassing: something past. And yet the decisions that that president made, especially the monumental decisions taken after the attacks of September 11, 2001—decisions about rendition, surveillance, interrogation—lie strewn about us still, unclaimed and unburied, like corpses freshly dead.
How should we begin to talk about this? Perhaps with a story. Stories come to us ewborn, announcing their intent: Once upon a time... In the beginning... From such signs we learn how to listen to what will come. Consider: "I woke up, naked, strapped to a bed, in a very white room. The room measured approximately 4m x 4m [13 feet by 13 feet]. The room had three solid walls, with the fourth wall consisting of metal bars separating it from a larger room. I am not sure how long I remained in the bed....""

Also this from the New York Times:

"At the same time, perhaps unwittingly, Mr. Bush made it possible that day for those on whom the alternative set of procedures were performed eventually to speak. For he announced that he would send 14 “high-value detainees” from dark into twilight: they would be transferred from the overseas “black sites” to Guantánamo. There, while awaiting trial, the International Committee of the Red Cross would be “advised of their detention, and will have the opportunity to meet with them.”
A few weeks later, from Oct. 6 to 11 and then from Dec. 4 to 14, 2006, Red Cross officials — whose duty it is to monitor compliance with the Geneva Conventions and to supervise treatment of prisoners of war — traveled to Guantánamo and began interviewing the prisoners. Their stated goal was to produce a report that would “provide a description of the treatment and material conditions of detention of the 14 during the period they were held in the C.I.A. detention program,” periods ranging “from 16 months to almost four and a half years.”
As the Red Cross interviewers informed the detainees, their report was not intended to be released to the public but, “to the extent that each detainee agreed for it to be transmitted to the authorities,” to be given in strictest secrecy to officials of the
government agency that had been in charge of holding them — in this case the Central Intelligence Agency, to whose acting general counsel, John Rizzo, the report was sent on Feb. 14, 2007. The result is a document — labeled “confidential” and clearly intended only for the eyes of those senior American officials — that tells a story of what happened to each of the 14 detainees inside the black sites.
A short time ago, this document came into my hands and I have set out the stories it tells..."
Finally, this story is covered in audio format by NPR's All Things Considered:
"Author Sheds Light On CIA's 'Black Sites'
[5 min 14 sec] All Things Considered, March 15, 2009 · The International Red Cross interviewed 14 prisoners who were detained by the CIA at "black sites," secret locations outside of the United States. These interviews were compiled into a document intended to be seen only by high-level administration insiders. But that document was obtained by Mark Danner, author of Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib and the War on Terror. It's the subject of pieces by Danner in Sunday's New York Times and in the New York Review of Books. Danner talks to host Jacki Lyden about what he found.

Barack Obama Elected President!

2008-11-04T22:22:00.002-07:00

(The Constitution Shall Survive.)

At 9:00 pm MST tonight, CNN called the election for Barack Obama. The writing was on the wall ever since Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia were called for Sen. Obama earlier tonight.

Even though it had been obvious, I heard the words, and started crying. Now mind you, I don’t cry often, but this was something I will never forget.

My feelings arise from such deep sources: 143 years after slavery was abolished, 44 years after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and after eight years of George W. Bush and his assault on our nation’s constitution and our world image, this country, which twice elected Mr. Bush, has turned to intelligent new leadership.

After a stolen election in 2000, and after years of Republican dirty tricks dating back to the Nixon administration, the Democrats have won back the United States government. Not just the presidency, but also dramatic gains in the House and Senate. The next vacancies on the United States Supreme Court will now be filled by a constitutional scholar, not a man who ignored international law and invaded Iraq.

Tonight, I am proud to be an American. And dammit, it’s been way too long since I could say that! America has changed....Yes We Can!

Sarah Palin is a criminal. Jail or the VP's mansion?

2008-10-10T22:40:00.003-06:00

Tonight I have been reading the newly released 'Troopergate' investigation of Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin's firing of her public safety director. The entire report can be downloaded HERE. (Interesting reading for a government report).

I am truly shocked at how this woman ran her office in regards to her zeal to fire her former brother in law. She twice approached her appointed public safety director, Walt Monegan, and Todd Palin approached hm more than that. They also thoroughly approached almost eveyone in the chain of command to try to get Trooper Wooten fired. When they were told that the investigation had been closed years ago, and that punishment had long since been given out, and that nothing could be done, Palin fired Monegan instead.

This report shows a petty, obsessive couple doing every thing possible to get their way. In my opinion, they are guilty of improperly trying to influence the Alaska Patrol for personal reasons. I sincerely hope a special prosecutor is appointed and that Palin and her husband are prosecuted. They repeatedly crossed the line, and they did so after being warned that their actions were improper.

Palin problems part 3.....

2008-09-12T17:48:00.002-06:00

Sorry, I can't resist another post on Rethuglican Sarah Palin's problems. They just keep on coming.... At this point, the danger is that there are so many things that the average voter's eyes glaze over, and they just assume the press is on a vendatta. Nope, the truth is that Palin REALLY IS worse than most candidates running for national office. Not only did McCain fail to thoroughly vet her, her lack of prior national exposure means that unlike Joe Bide, who previously ran for president, she has never been thoroughly checked out by the media.

Well, here goes #3.....

1. Sarah Palin's husband Todd is being subpoenaed to testify in the troopergate probe. The subpoenas are "part of the investigation into whether the Republican vice presidential candidate abused her power in trying to get her former brother-in-law fired".

2. As Mayor of Wasilla, Palin used her local government e-mail account to send a number of political e-mails during her failed 2002 campaign for Lt. Governor of Alaska. Using government facilities or resources in a political campaign is illegal.

3. In her first, and so far only, interview since being chosen as McCain's running mate, Palin did not know what the Bush Doctrine was. (It is the doctrine that the U.S. has the right to preemptively attack countries that we think might be a threat to us....). I wish none of us had ever of the Bush Doctrine either.....because I wish it didn't exist.

4. Palin lies about her view on global warming. She told ABC News that "Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect -- or no effect -- on climate change," challenged Palin. "I have not said that. However, in December of 2007, she said "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity." On August 28, 2008, she said "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made."

5. In 1998, while Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the town started a policy of billing rape victims for the cost of their rape kits. (A rape kit is an evidentiary kit used to look for the suspect's semen, hair, or fibers). This was unusual and repugnant: the Alaska legislature then passed a state law forbidding the practice. Palin's staff denies she knew about this, yet she signed a budget verification on the budget where rape kit funding was cut that she approved the budget.

6. Moderate Republicans are coming out against Palin. Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-RI, called Sen. John McCain's running mate a "cocky wacko" at an event in Washington, DC, on September 11th , the AP reports.

So many stories, so little time. Fun fun fun.....

Sarah Palin? Really?

2008-09-03T22:37:00.004-06:00

Are the Republicans stoned? They are pretending to actually LIKE John McCain's pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his Vice-President. Well, conisder the fun that we get to have looking into the following fun issues the next two months. (And these are just the ones we know about in the first week).

1. Palin at least seems to like the Alaska Independence Party. There is a dispute as to whether she was actually a member, but look at her speech to them in 2008. This group wants a vote on having Alaska secede from the United States.... Didn't we fight a civl war over secession?

2. Palin is a true right winger. She is a gun nut, favors criminalizing abortion (no exceptions even for rape or incest), and wants to drill for oil in the ANWR. She is far more conservative than John McCain. Her convention speech was excessively negative, and there was essentially no discusion of what policy differences she has with the Democrats.

3. Her family is, to be polite, colorful. Her husband has a DUI, her eldest daughter is knocked up at age 17, and she had a baby while governor at age 44. Palin apparently tried to force her daughter into a quickie marraige before the pregnancy became public....

4. Palin is under investigation for improper use of power for allegedly firing the public safety commissioner for not taking stronger action her sister's ex-husband, a highway patrolman. This patrolman sounds like a real nut job himself, so I can't blame her for wanting him fired, if he truly threatened Palin's father....Weird stuff. The investifation report is supposed to be released in October...if Palin's lawyer doesn't succeed in delaying it until after the election.

5. Did Palin have an affair with her husband's best friend? That's what the National Enquirer is reporting, so it must be true....lol.

6. Palin is a typical political hypocrite. She bragged about killing the bridge to nowhere earmark project, but previously she supported it. She was well known in her efforts to secure federal earmarks for her little town of Wasilla when she was mayor. McCain actually criticized her town's projects as examples of bad earmark spending....

7. Palin has a deeply held fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. She seems to believe that God has given the U.S. a mission to send our troops to the middle east, and according to her pastor, Ed Kalnins, '... the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Iraq were part of a "world war" over the Christian faith, one in which Jesus Christ had called upon believers to be willing to sacrifice their lives.' See THIS post for details....

8. In this interview from the time of the Alaska primary, Palin seems to almost be endorsing Ron Paul for president. Why no mention of McCain? Hmmmm.

I am sure there will be more. McCain staffers have already caught hell for not vetting Palin fully. All of the Alaska sources who knew Palin have been quoted as saying nobody asked them before she was picked....amazing. This one directly hits McCain: he had six months to pick his VP, and he had only met Palin twice, and just added her to his list of finalists a couple weeks before selecting her.

Finally, here is Bill Maher on Republican VP Pick Sarah Palin.

John McCain lacks intellect to be President

2008-08-19T12:40:00.001-06:00

Read a nice editorial today on the CNN website:

"Commentary: Is McCain another George W. Bush? by Jack Cafferty.

Editor's Note: Jack Cafferty is the author of the best-seller "It's Getting Ugly Out There: The Frauds, Bunglers, Liars, and Losers Who Are Hurting America." He provides commentary on CNN's "The Situation Room" daily from 4 p.m.-7 p.m. You can also visit Jack's Cafferty File blog.

Jack Cafferty says John McCain shows virtually no intellectual curiosity, emulating President Bush

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Russia invades Georgia and President Bush goes on vacation. Our president has spent one-third of his entire two terms in office either at Camp David, Maryland, or at Crawford, Texas, on vacation.

His time away from the Oval Office included the month leading up to 9/11, when there were signs Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America, and the time Hurricane Katrina destroyed the city of New Orleans.

Sen. John McCain takes weekends off and limits his campaign events to one a day. He made an exception for the religious forum on Saturday at Saddleback Church in Southern California.
I think he made a big mistake. When he was invited last spring to attend a discussion of the role of faith in his life with Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, at Messiah College in Pennsylvania, McCain didn't bother to show up. Now I know why.

It occurs to me that John McCain is as intellectually shallow as our current president. When asked what his Christian faith means to him, his answer was a one-liner. "It means I'm saved and forgiven." Great scholars have wrestled with the meaning of faith for centuries. McCain then retold a story we've all heard a hundred times about a guard in Vietnam drawing a cross in the sand.

Asked about his greatest moral failure, he cited his first marriage, which ended in divorce. While saying it was his greatest moral failing, he offered nothing in the way of explanation. Why not?

Throughout the evening, McCain chose to recite portions of his stump speech as answers to the questions he was being asked. Why? He has lived 71 years. Surely he has some thoughts on what it all means that go beyond canned answers culled from the same speech he delivers every day.
He was asked "if evil exists." His response was to repeat for the umpteenth time that Osama bin Laden is a bad man and he will pursue him to "the gates of hell." That was it.

He was asked to define rich. After trying to dodge the question -- his wife is worth a reported $100 million -- he finally said he thought an income of $5 million was rich.

One after another, McCain's answers were shallow, simplistic, and trite. He showed the same intellectual curiosity that George Bush has -- virtually none.

Where are John McCain's writings exploring the vexing moral issues of our time? Where are his position papers setting forth his careful consideration of foreign policy, the welfare state, education, America's moral responsibility in the world, etc., etc., etc.?

John McCain graduated 894th in a class of 899 at the Naval Academy at Annapolis. His father and grandfather were four star admirals in the Navy. Some have suggested that might have played a role in McCain being admitted. His academic record was awful. And it shows over and over again whenever McCain is called upon to think on his feet.

He no longer allows reporters unfettered access to him aboard the "Straight Talk Express" for a reason. He simply makes too many mistakes. Unless he's reciting talking points or reading from notes or a TelePrompTer, John McCain is lost. He can drop bon mots at a bowling alley or diner -- short glib responses that get a chuckle, but beyond that McCain gets in over his head very quickly.

I am sick and tired of the president of the United States embarrassing me. The world we live in is too complex to entrust it to someone else whose idea of intellectual curiosity and grasp of foreign policy issues is to tell us he can look into Vladimir Putin's eyes and see into his soul.
George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure. And the part that troubles me most is he seems content with himself.
He will leave office with the country $10 trillion in debt, fighting two wars, our international reputation in shambles, our government cloaked in secrecy and suspicion that his entire presidency has been a litany of broken laws and promises, our citizens' faith in our own country ripped to shreds. Yet Bush goes bumbling along, grinning and spewing moronic one-liners, as though nobody understands what a colossal failure he has been.

I fear to the depth of my being that John McCain is just like him."

'Operation Chaos' Backfires in Montana U.S. Senate primary

2008-06-04T07:25:00.003-06:00

Here is a hilarious result of Rush Limbaugh's 'Operation Chaos', the right wing effort to disrupt the Democratic primary for President.

"Oft-running Kelleher pulls GOP shocker!" With 66 percent of the precincts counted late Tuesday, Kelleher, age 85, led the six-person Republican Senate field with 36 percent of the vote. State Rep. Michael Lange of Billings had 23 percent, and facilities designer Kirk Bushman of Billings had 22 percent."

The winner of this race will challenge incumbent Democratic Senator Max Baucus this fall.

Three things combined to allow this result to occur: a fractured field of six running with no clear front runner, the Montana Republicans already held their caucus for president back in February, and that on June 3rd many Republicans crossed over and voted the Democratic primary ballot to try to effect the outcome of the Democratic race for president.

For example, in Billings/Yellowstone County, the most populous county in Montana, and a Republican stronghold, over 24,000 votes were cast in the Democratic primary, and only 118 votes were cast in the Republican primary! In Democratic stronghold Butte-Silver Bow County, over 11,500 votes were cast on the Democratic ballot, and only 19 Republican ballots were cast.

We can only speculate what percentage of Republicans voted Democrat to answer Rush Limbaugh's call to 'vote for Hillary to disrupt the Democrats'(Operation Chaos).

The large number of Republicans voting in the Democratic primary allowed a true fringe politician, Bob Kelleher, to capture the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate. Kelleher has called for a parliamentary system, and has run as a Libertarian and a Democrat in previous tries to get elected to various governmental posts. He has been very critical of established Republicans on a variety of issues. He has never been even close to winning anything until now, when a 'perfect storm' of factors combined.

The result of this is that the Republicans have realistically no chance to challenge Max Baucus in November. Thanks Rush!

More evidence of conservative meddling in Democratic primaries

2008-05-07T08:15:00.002-06:00

With Hillary ekeing out a 2% win in the Indiana Democratic primary, exit polls confirm that Rush Limbaugh's 'Operation Chaos' is impacting the Democratic primary.

THIS story shows that perhaps as much as 7% of the overall vote went to Hillary in Indiana from voters who will support McCain in the general election, and have conservative values. Without that 7 % of the vote, Obama wins Indiana easily.

Folks, it is past time for Hillary to withdraw. Democrats are spending millions of dollars beating each other up, while the Republicans are sitting back and smiling (or actively throwing gas on the fire).

The only way Hillary can win the nomination is to play games with the Michigan or Florida primary results and those delegates. This will truly split the Democratic party, and throw the election to McCain. If Hillary is a true Democrat, she must quit now and let the healing begin.

Are Republicans helping Hillary?

2008-04-23T23:40:00.002-06:00

Some blog posts continue to encourage Republicans who really support McCain to vote for Hillary in open primaries, since they think McCain has a better chance to beat Hillary.

Heck, I was pulling for Romnry to prolong the Republican race myself.

Former Democratic Presidential Nominee: Bush should be impeached

2008-01-06T12:27:00.000-07:00

Why I Believe Bush Must Go
Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse.

By George McGovern Sunday, January 6, 2008; From the Washington Post Page B01

As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully
concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.

After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M.
Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thought that my joining the impeachment effort
would be seen as an expression of personal vengeance toward the president who had defeated
me.

Today I have made a different choice.

Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is
marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a
lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising.

But what are the facts?

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly
violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied
to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced
our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly
"high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.

From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team's assumption of power was the product of
questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged -- perhaps even by a
congressional investigation.

In a more fundamental sense, American democracy has been derailed throughout the Bush-
Cheney regime. The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal,
nonsensical war against Iraq. That irresponsible venture has killed almost 4,000 Americans, left
many times that number mentally or physically crippled, claimed the lives of an estimated
600,000 Iraqis (according to a careful October 2006 study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg
School of Public Health) and laid waste their country. The financial cost to the United States is
now $250 million a day and is expected to exceed a total of $1 trillion, most of which we have
borrowed from the Chinese and others as our national debt has now climbed above $9 trillion --
by far the highest in our national history.

All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution
clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This
reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by
the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva
Conventions of 1949.

I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon administration. But the case
for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice
President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and
productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our
national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era? How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness?

It happened in part because the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an "imminent threat" to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- another blatant falsehood.

Many times in recent years, I have recalled Jefferson's observation: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

The basic strategy of the administration has been to encourage a climate of fear, letting it exploit
the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks not only to justify the invasion of Iraq but also to excuse such dangerous misbehavior as the illegal tapping of our telephones by government agents. The same fear-mongering has led government spokesmen and cooperative members of the press to imply that we are at war with the entire Arab and Muslim world -- more than a billion people.
Another shocking perversion has been the shipping of prisoners scooped off the streets of
Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other countries without benefit of our time-tested
laws of habeas corpus.

Although the president was advised by the intelligence agencies last August that Iran had no
program to develop nuclear weapons, he continued to lie to the country and the world. This is the same strategy of deception that brought us into war in the Arabian Desert and could lead us into an unjustified invasion of Iran. I can say with some professional knowledge and experience that if Bush invades yet another Muslim oil state, it would mark the end of U.S. influence in the
crucial Middle East for decades.

Ironically, while Bush and Cheney made counterterrorism the battle cry of their administration,
their policies -- especially the war in Iraq -- have increased the terrorist threat and reduced the
security of the United States. Consider the difference between the policies of the first President
Bush and those of his son. When the Iraqi army marched into Kuwait in August 1990, President
George H.W. Bush gathered the support of the entire world, including the United Nations, the
European Union and most of the Arab League, to quickly expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The
Saudis and Japanese paid most of the cost. Instead of getting bogged down in a costly
occupation, the administration established a policy of containing the Baathist regime with
international arms inspectors, no-fly zones and economic sanctions. Iraq was left as a stable
country with little or no capacity to threaten others.

Today, after five years of clumsy, mistaken policies and U.S. military occupation, Iraq has
become a breeding ground of terrorism and bloody civil strife. It is no secret that former
president Bush, his secretary of state, James A. Baker III, and his national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, all opposed the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.

In addition to the shocking breakdown of presidential legal and moral responsibility, there is the
scandalous neglect and mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe. The veteran CNN
commentator Jack Cafferty condenses it to a sentence: "I have never ever seen anything as badly bungled and poorly handled as this situation in New Orleans." Any impeachment proceeding must include a careful and critical look at the collapse of presidential leadership in response toperhaps the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.

Impeachment is unlikely, of course. But we must still urge Congress to act. Impeachment, quite
simply, is the procedure written into the Constitution to deal with presidents who violate the
Constitution and the laws of the land. It is also a way to signal to the American people and the
world that some of us feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the
impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray. This, I believe, is the rightful course
for an American patriot.

As former representative Elizabeth Holtzman, who played a key role in the Nixon impeachment
proceedings, wrote two years ago, "it wasn't until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had
the right in the interests of national security to override our country's laws -- that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate. . . . A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law -- and repeatedly violates the law -- thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors."

I believe we have a chance to heal the wounds the nation has suffered in the opening decade of
the 21st century. This recovery may take a generation and will depend on the election of a series of rational presidents and Congresses.

At age 85, I won't be around to witness the completion of the difficult rebuilding of our sorely damaged country, but I'd like to hold on long enough to see the healing begin. There has never been a day in my adult life when I would not have sacrificed that life to save the United States from genuine danger, such as the ones we faced when I served as a bomber pilot in World War II. We must be a great nation because from time to time, we make gigantic blunders, but so far, we have survived and recovered."

Pakistan matters: Let politicians know we care.

2007-12-27T22:12:00.000-07:00

Sad and shocking news today: former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhuto was assassinated after a political rally. She was an amazingly brave woman, who returned to Pakistan to stand up for freedom and democracy, and to fight against General Musharraf's tyranny. This general, in case you weren't noticing, seized control of Pakistan several years ago in an armed coup.

When Bhuto returned from exile in October, she was almost killed when a bomb blew up 130 of her supporters in an assassination attempt. No arrests have been made, and the Musharraf administration has refused to call in credible outside investigators.

Then today, only a little more than 2 months after the last attempt, Bhutto was shot and then blown up by an unknown assassin. Where was the overwhelming security that should have been present? Musharraf either ordered this killing himself, or at least allowed the lax security that was clearly to blame.

Why should we care? Here is why, from the CNN headline story tonight:

"Pakistan is the only Islamic state with a nuclear arsenal. And Washington has private concerns about the security of those weapons. Those worries will intensify in the wake of Benazir Bhutto's assassination. An arms control expert says one thing is certain: It is "not a good idea to have 70 nuclear weapons in the hands of a country that is falling apart."

New Music that Matters.

2007-10-09T22:35:00.000-06:00

Two new albums recently that ROCK and are politically relevant...some excerpts...

1. Magic by Bruce Springsteen. This one again is with the E-Street band, as Bruce has ended (for now) his foray into folk music. Noteworthy is "Last to Die";

"We don't measure the blood we've drawn anymore
We just stack the bodies outside the door
Who'll be the last to die for a mistake
The last to die for a mistake
Whose blood will spill, whose heart will break
Who'll be the last to die for a mistake
The wise men were all fools
What to do...."

2. Revival by John Fogerty. John rocks out in the old Creedence style. Politically noteworthy is 'I Can't Take it no More';

"I Can't Take It No More
I Can't Take It No More
I'm sick and tired of your dirty little war
I Can't Take It No More
You know you lied about the casualties
You know you lied about the WMD's
You know you lied about the detainees
All over this world

Stop talking about staying the course
You keep a-beating that old dead horse
You know you lied about how we went to war
I Can't Take It No More
I bet you never saw the old school yard
I bet you never saw the national guard
Your daddy wrote a check and there you are
Another fortunate son ..."

Then there is "Gunslinger"
"Lookin' out across this town
Kinda makes me wonder how
All the things that make us greatgot left so hard behind
This used to be a peaceful place
decent folks hard workin' ways
Now they hide behind locked doors
afraid to speak their minds

I think we need a gunslinger
Somebody tough to tame this town
I think we need a gunslinger
There'll be justice all around..."

3. Finally there is the new Joni Mitchell album "Shine", her first in years....Politically of note is 'Strong and Wrong'

"Strong and wrong ...you win--
Only because That's the way its always been.
Men love war!
That's what history' s for.
History...A mass--murder mystery...
His story

Strong and wrong
You lose everything
Without the heart
You need
To hear a robin sing
Where have all the songbirds gone?
Gone!
All I hear are crows in flight
Singing 'might is right'
'Might is right!'..."

And finally, one that I can't resist posting in it's entirety...
Bad Dreams Are Good
by Joni Mitchell

The cats are in the flower beds
A red hawk rides the sky
I guess I should be happy
Just to be alive
But
We have poisoned everything
And oblivious to it all
The cell-phone zombies babble
Through the shopping malls
While condors fall from Indian skies
Whales beach and die in sand
Bad Dreams are good
In the Great Plan

And you cannot be trusted
Do you even know you are lying?
It’s dangerous to kid yourself
You go deaf, dumb, and blind
You take with such entitlement
You give bad attitude
You have No grace
No empathy
No gratitude
You have no sense of consequence
Oh, my head is in my hands
Bad Dreams are good
In the Great Plan

Before that altering apple
We were one with everything
No sense of self and other
No self-consciousness
But now we have to grapple
With this man-made world backfiring
Keeping one eye on our brother’s deadly selfishness

Everyone’s a victim here
Nobody’s hands are clean
There’s so very little left of wild Eden Earth
So near the jaws of our machines
We live in these electric scabs
These lesions once were lakes
We don’t know how to shoulder blame
Or learn from past mistakes
So who will come to save the day?
Mighty Mouse. . . ? Superman. . . ?
Bad Dreams are good
In the Great Plan

In the dark
A shining ray
I heard a three-year-old boy say
Bad Dreams are good
In the Great Plan

Judge strikes down Patriot Act provisions

2007-09-07T08:10:00.000-06:00

In a detailed, 103 page ruling, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York said the FBI's use of secret "national security letters" to demand such data violates the First Amendment and constitutional provisions on the separation of powers, because the FBI can impose indefinite gag orders on the companies and the courts have little opportunity to review the letters.

The full story is HERE.

I will post a link to the full opinion when it is available.

Attorney General Gonzales resigns, finally

2007-08-27T07:11:00.000-06:00

The [good] news of the day is that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned. He is apparently to be replaced by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

Of course this is long overdue. It was predictable that Bush would not want to carry Gonzales into an election year: too much drain on the party. Gonzales is easily the worst AG this country has ever had. He makes John Mitchell, Nixon's AG (who did time), look like a slacker.

Chertoff is far more qualified than Gonzales ever was to be the AG. Magna laude from Harvard Law. Clerked for Justice Brennan at the Supreme Court. He has been a federal prosecutor, and a federal appeals court judge. He headed the Department of Justice Criminal Division early in the Bush administration. He is no liberal.....but he is eminently qualified.

Hopefully, this will mean something for restoring the rule of law to this country. We shall see. The confirmation hearings should be interesting.

FISA Court secretly strikes down King George spying program

2007-08-02T23:33:00.000-06:00

Reuters Report: Court secretly struck down Bush spying

"A U.S. intelligence court earlier this year secretly struck down a key element of President George W. Bush's warrantless spying program, The Washington Post reported in its Friday edition.

The decision is one reason Congress is trying to give legal authorization to the spying program in fevered negotiations with the Bush administration this week, the Post reported.

The intelligence-court judge, who remains anonymous, concluded that the government had overstepped its authority by monitoring overseas communications that pass through the United States, the Post said, citing anonymous government and congressional sources.

The Bush administration expanded its surveillance efforts after the September 11, 2001, hijacking attacks, without court oversight. The court was allowed to review the program in January.

The surveillance court judge's ruling has prevented the National Security Agency from monitoring foreign telephone calls and e-mails that travel through the United States, the Post reported.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, mentioned the court setback on Fox News on Tuesday, drawing a rebuke from House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emmanuel. A Boehner spokesman said he did not reveal classified information.

The Democratic-led Congress hopes to reach a deal with the White House in the next few days that would expand the government's power to eavesdrop on telephone calls and e-mail from abroad.

The effort would modernize the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval to monitor communications with people inside the United States.

The White House wants to bypass the court when spying on overseas foreigners, whether they are communicating with a U.S. citizen or not. Democrats object."

All I can say is wow....this decision needs to be released PUBLICLY. How can changes to laws be even considered based upon reacting to a secret court decision? Secret court decision.....holy mother of God. We have gone through the looking glass.

A secret judge has struck down a secret spy program in a secret court decision. Will King George abide by the decision? We think....but shhhhhhh! It's a secret!

Do I need to say it again? Call your Senator. Call your congressman or congresswoman. Tell them not to approve any more secret spy programs, whether or not it is an improvement over Bush's existing lawless program. Make King George actually follow the law for a change.....instead of sweet-talking Congress into changing it whenever it is inconvenient for him.

And who shall prosecute AG Gonzales for perjury?

2007-07-25T12:39:00.000-06:00

In light of the King George administration's statement last week that it will not enforce subpoenas against administration officials, and yesterday's tesimony by AG Gonzales that even Republicans found not to be credible, who is left that could review and prosecute the Untited States Attorney General for perjury?

Or will Bush simply pardon him?

Folks, this refusal to follow the law is nothing less than a coup d'etat. Just wait till the administration finds some flaw in the election next year, and refuses to cede power.....

We should all be calling our elected officials and be protesting in the streets. While we still can....

King George claims his executive privilege trumps laws

2007-07-20T07:50:00.000-06:00

In a stunning development, King George claims that he has no accountability to Congress. His administration has decided to simply ignore Congressional subpoenas. When threatened with contempt charges, Bush administration officials are now saying they will not allow Justice Department officials to proceed with any criminal charges.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

The full story is HERE in the Washington Post.

King George lets Libby escape prison time

2007-07-02T22:35:00.000-06:00

As many of us expected, King George commuted Scooter Libby's sentence for Obstruction of Justice. Libby will serve zero day in the bucket, although the conviction and the fines continue to stand. (For now, until the full pardon later on).

What did Scooter actually do? Lied and misled a grand jury, under oath, during an investigation of the political 'outing' of undercover agent Valerie Plame's identity. In truth, Scooter played a major role in leaking to the press about Plame, blowing her cover, and possibly ruining a source of intelligence on Iranian nukes. To the grand jury, he told self-serving, and administration protecting, lies.

Now the pay back. He gets off without prison. Hmmmm.... seems like a quid pro quo to me. A pay off. A bribe. But Bush has nothing to fear. After all, which U.S. Attroney would come after him?

This is a travesty of the 'no man is above the law' myth.

Smart high school students urge Bush to ban use of torture

2007-06-27T23:27:00.000-06:00

This interesting note from the Seattle Post Intelligencer:

"WASHINGTON -- President Bush was presented with a letter Monday signed by 50 high school seniors in the Presidential Scholars program urging a halt to "violations of the human rights" of terror suspects held by the United States.

The White House said Bush had not expected the letter but took a moment to read it and talk with a young woman who handed it to him. "The president enjoyed a visit with the students, accepted the letter and upon reading it let the student know that the United States does not torture and that we value human rights," deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.
The students had been invited to the East Room to hear the president speak about his effort to win congressional reauthorization of his education law known as No Child Left Behind.
The handwritten letter said the students "believe we have a responsibility to voice our convictions."

"We do not want America to represent torture. We urge you to do all in your power to stop violations of the human rights of detainees, to cease illegal renditions, and to apply the Geneva Convention to all detainees, including those designated enemy combatants," the letter said.
The designation as a Presidential Scholar is one of the nation's highest honors for graduating high school students. Each year the program selects one male and one female student from each state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Americans living abroad, 15 at-large students, and up to 20 students in the arts on the basis of outstanding scholarship, service, leadership and creativity.

"I know all of you worked hard to reach this day," Bush told the students in his education speech. "Your families are proud of your effort, and we welcome your family members here. Your teachers are proud of your effort, and we welcome your teachers. And our entire nation is proud to call you Presidential Scholar."

The scholars travel to Washington each June for seminars, lectures and workshops with government officials, elected representatives and others."

On immigration....

2007-06-07T00:08:00.000-06:00

On immigration....Perhaps our right wing religious friends should ask themselves.....

"What Would Jesus Do?"

Memorial Day Notes

2007-05-28T16:42:00.001-06:00

Today I sat through the annual Memorial Day service here in town, and listened to a local prominent veteran berate flag-burners, and talk about a Montana man who died fighting the "Iraqis".

Of course, my thoughts, which I kept to myself were that I thought we were fighting to save Iraq, not 'fighting Iraqis'. And I think flag burning is the biggest red herring ever invented by the right wing. The idea that we need a flag burning amendment to the constitution is the stupidest thing I ever heard. I'm 47, and I have never seen anyone burn a flag except in respectful flag retirement ceremonies. It is simply a non-existent problem, one invented by the right wing.

It is sad to see people care more about the symbol of democracy than democracy itself.

I deeply appreciate that our military has done their job, and done it very well. I honor the ultimate sacrifice made by thousands of service people. Thank you!

However, the rest of us have failed in our job. We have allowed King George to take us into a war in Iraq, without good or true reasons. We are mired in a quagmire every bit as bad as Vietnam. We have allowed the erosion of our rights through the 'Patriot Act'. We have lost the right of habeas corpus. Wiretaps continue without warrants. The political process has undermined neutral law enforcement at US Attorney's Offices.

In response, we have elected a Democratic Congress. What has that gotten us so far? A little more oversight, and that is all. Bush continues onward, barely slowed down.

I'll say what I've said before: we need to speak up! Raise some Hell! Write letters to the editor. GO beyond our comfort zone and talk to others. Call our Senators and Congress. We can't just stand back and leave our Veterans in harms way for no good reason.

As John Kerry said in 1971 about the Vietnam War, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

VA Tech Murders

2007-04-19T08:02:00.000-06:00

I am disgusted by the VA Tech murders, as is everyone.

I am also repulsed by the media coverage. MSNBC has played into the murder's hands by publishing much of his deranged filth. The other media outlets play along, drooling over photos and manifestos.

I refuse to use even the name of the killer.....that is what he wanted.

Hasn't anyone considered that by giving saturation media coverage to this wimpy coward, who killed unarmed civilians, that we encourage other wanna-be/suicidal/misfits to do the same thing? Is there any question but that Columbine and the resulting media coverage encouraged the continuing string of killings including VA Tech? The sick and deranged minds of these killers feed off of the fame they get, albeit post-mortem.

What should happen is calmer, same day coverage, and then toned-down follow-up. Anything like packages of tapes or photos sent to the media should NEVER be published. That simply feeds the cycle. The editors of MSNBC should be sued by the victims of the next homidial idiot who is encouraged by the 'fame' the VA Tech killer is getting.

D.C. Circuit Court Upholds Military Commissions Act

2007-02-20T23:53:00.000-07:00

All Things Considered, February 20, 2007 · The federal appeals court has upheld the controversial detainee bill known as the Military Commissions Act. In a 2-1 ruling, the court said the measure constitutionally wiped out all of the pending court cases from detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

The act allows the government to try detainees in military proceedings, giving detainees access to federal civilian courts only for appeals.... The story is posted HERE.

We shall see what the Supreme Court says on appeal....

"To question authority is a patriotic act"

2007-02-14T21:56:00.000-07:00

My old political science professor, Dr. Steven Ludd, apparently retired last year. I went back and read a couple things about him, and ran into the following:

"After 30 years of teaching BGSU students constitutional law, Professor Steven Ludd said, "we're in trouble." Today's generation of students don't question authority, he said.

Ludd highlighted individual liberties and responsibilities, and focused on how the writers of the U.S. constitution sought to "balance two competing ideas: liberty and order and justice."

A child of the sixties, Ludd said it wasn't hard to become active in a decade where a president was assassinated and an undeclared war claimed the lives of over 50,000 Americans. Today there are several issues that once again question what the balance of liberties and order and justice should be, such as the Patriot Act, the War on Terrorism and the debate over abortion.

"Everyone has an opinion and so few people have an understanding," Ludd said. Ludd said many people - referring to students in particular - accept majoritarian power without question. "To question authority is a patriotic act," Ludd said.

Ludd also thinks the federal government has gone too far. The sixth amendment guarantees a fair and speedy trial. However post-9/11 congress has made exceptions. One such exception is Jose Padilla. According to a CNN report, he is the man suspected of conspiring with Al-Qaida to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb" in U.S. apartments. Without ever being charged, Padilla has been detained in a military jail in Charleston, S. C. for three years.

Ludd said this is wrong. He should be innocent until prove guilty. "Padilla should have counsel. Padilla should have a trial," he said.

The sixth amendment isn't the only part of the Bill of Rights under scrutiny. According to Ludd the ninth amendment could potentially impact more people than any other amendment. Ludd said the government recognized it couldn't possibly cover all the rights of the people quoting the ninth amendment "All those rights shall not be disparaged, but retained by the people." It is through the ninth amendment that justices have been able to expand other amendments, such as the right to privacy. Ludd said it was used to obtain legal birth control pills, condoms, and the landmark Roe vs. Wade case legalizing abortion, which people are still questioning.

Many of these powerful questions need to be addressed in the next few years, Ludd said. Addressing these issues is part of citizenship, something Ludd said schools are doing a poor job of teaching. He said they make children spout facts without allowing them to think for themselves and question the government's motives. Speaking on the idea of teaching children to question authority Ludd asked, "Can't we reward respect for law and government and at same time recognize its failures?"

Ludd stressed U.S. citizens should question authority respectfully. But said people should "accept personal responsibility." "I have to be responsible for the actions of my government," Ludd said.

Attacking 'terrorists' in Somalia....

2007-01-09T23:52:00.000-07:00

Today there were several news stories of the United States military conducting attacks on suspected Al Queda terrorists leaders in Somalia. Several unconfirmed sources report that civilians and even children may have been killed. This one has the makings of another American p.r. fiasco in the Islamic world. See the N.Y. TImes Article....

The targets of the attack were the reported leaders of the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa that killed 257 people, and wounded over 4,000. (See THIS ARTICLE) Specifically, Abu Taha al-Sudan was thought to be present.

I started off thinking I would rant against these attacks, which I thought had been done absent any real proof or conviction. Imagine my surprise when I learned that there was at least a semblance, during the Clinton administration, of actually following the 'Rule of Law' here. The leaders of the 1998 bombings were charged, several were arrested and rendered to U.S. custody, tried, and convicted in these bombings. Several have never been caught, including Osama bin Laden. Warrants of arrest are outstanding....

Is it o.k. to launch a ferocious gunship attack on a convoy of vehicles to try to kill bad terorists that stand convicted, in absentia, of severe terrorist crimes? What about innocent thrid party casualties? It can certainly be argued these terrorists had no regard for civilians in 1998, and they were using these civilians as human shields for their own protection. These attacks may well also disrupt future terror plots and save other innocent lives.

It can also be argued that two wrongs don't make a right. We are little better than terrorists ourselves when we conduct militaty attacks in third world countries, with no declaration of war, with the express purpsoe of killing our enemies. It can also be argued that the goal of ridding ourselves of dangerous extremist Islamic groups will not be achieved. The bad publicity of these attacks could well lead to another surge of membership to Al Queda, by relatives and friends of the victims, to try to get revenge for these killings. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind....

It really is a tough issue. What do all of you readers think?

U.S. Army forming secret squad of zombie soldiers?

2007-01-05T22:32:00.000-07:00

This weird note today: The U.S. Army is trying to get soldiers 'killed in action' in Iraq to re-enlist. See THIS LINK.

Now that their secret program has been outed, clearly the army has fallen back to their 'cover story', and they are pretending that this was all a 'computer mistake'. It seems fairly obvious what they were REALLY doing: trying to form a secret squad of the dead and near dead, zombie soldiers...for some weird secret mission.

Now we know that getting live soldiers to re-enlist is getting harder and harder, given the Bush-Iraq debacle. Recruiting standards have already been lowered several times. I think we have to all agree that trying to sign up dead guys, especially those that already made the supreme sacrifice for our country, goes a little too far...

Montana election results: Tester by a whisker...no recount likely.

2006-11-08T08:08:00.000-07:00

As I write this at 8:00 am Mountain time on November 8th, Jon Tester leads the U.S. Senate race in Montana by 1,735 votes out of 398,259 votes cast. Since I am an attorney who has practiced law in Montana for over 20 years, I thought I should post my take on this election result, since control of the Senate hangs in the balance.

The only county that has not yet reported is Meagher County. This county is heavily Republican. In the 2006 primary, Repubs garnered about 397 votes, and Dems only 116. This county will likely come in with about a 300-400 vote margin for Burns.

Once Meagher County is counted, Tester will likely only be ahead by about 1,300 to 1,400 votes.

Next, they will need to be a count of any provisional ballots. Then we will need to look again at the margin of difference.

The results may not be close enough for a recount. Montana law on recounts states as follows:
Montana Code Section 13-16-201:
"a candidate ... defeated by a margin not exceeding 1/4 of 1% of the total votes cast for all candidates for the same position, and the defeated candidate, within 5 days after the official canvass, files a petition with the secretary of state as set forth in subsection (1)(a). The secretary of state shall immediately notify by certified mail each election administrator whose county includes any precincts that voted for the office, and a recount must be conducted in those precincts."

With a current margin of 1,735 out of 398,259 votes cast, the margin is 4/10s of 1%...too wide for a recount. If Meagher County reduces the margin to 1,400, that would still be .35 of 1%. The margin between the candidates would need to drop to about 996 votes to trigger a recount.

There are also provisions for a court mandated recount.
13-16-301. "Application and court order for recount. (1) (a) Within 5 days after the canvass of election returns, an unsuccessful candidate for any public office at an election may apply to the district court of the county where the election was held for an order directing the county recount board to make a recount of the votes cast in any or all of the precincts. If the election was held in more than one county, the application shall be made to the district court of the county where the candidate resides....
(2) The application shall specify the grounds for a recount and be verified by the applicant that the matters contained in it are true to the best of the applicant's knowledge, information, and belief.
(3) Within 5 days after filing of the application, the judge shall hear the application and determine its sufficiency.
(4) If the judge finds there is probable cause to believe that the votes cast for the applicant or the ballot issue were not correctly counted, he shall order the appropriate county recount board to assemble within 5 days after the order is issued at a time and place fixed by the order. The board shall meet and recount the ballots as specified in the order."

So in Montana, there should not be a recount UNLESS there is probable cause to believe that the votes cast were not counted correctly.

Iraq Getting Worse, Not Better

2006-11-03T13:04:00.000-07:00

Veteran Iraq NPR correspondent Anne Garrels and and the Washington Post's Anthony Shadid discuss how the real situation in Iraq is getting progressively worse.

This is the real deal on how things are going in Iraq. Mandatory listening..... Click HERE TO LISTEN.

Vote Vote Vote the Republicans OUT!

2006-11-03T08:15:00.000-07:00

Get everyone who will vote against a Republican to turn out and VOTE!

King George's latest diatribe, speaking at a rally held at Georgia Southern University:"the Democrat (sic) approach in Iraq comes down to this: the terrorists win and America loses."The man just can't stop being a demagogue. He NEEDS a House oversight investigation or ten.

My [fearless] one week to go prediction on the midterm election:U.S. House: Democrats net gain of 27 seats.U.S. Senate: Democrats net gain of three seats.If I am right, the Dems will take over the House, and the Rethugs will keep the Senate. Oh well...even control of one house in our bicameral system will be a major improvement. Bush will need consensus to pass new laws....it's a start! But we MUST ALL VOTE!

Finally! "Bush sees possible Iraq-Vietnam parallel"

2006-10-19T12:38:00.000-06:00

I couldn't help but chuckle when I saw that headline. George really is a little slow....a few years after everyone other literate person in the western world, King George FINALLY sees the parallel between Iraq and Vietnam....See THIS STORY. Lol... ;)

Frontline: The Enemy Within

2006-10-14T09:00:00.000-06:00

This week PBS aired a fascinating documentary titled "The Enemy Within". If you haven't seen it, I strongly recommend that you watch it online HERE.

This show compellingly rebuts administration claims that there are 'sleeper cells'' and that over 400 terrorists have been arrested in the United States. In fact, the so-called 'Enemy Within' is a political invention, and is mostly an illusion.

It is scary to see how this illusory threat has been used, mostly by Republicans, to justify illegal wiretaps, warrantless detentions, torture-like interrogations, and loss of the right of Habeas Corpus. All of these activites are argued to be justified based on fighting this unseen enemy. Yet, when you look in depth into whether this enemy even exists, you find almost nothing. Very disturbing....

A shameful retreat from our values

2006-10-03T23:18:00.000-06:00

By Garrison Keillor - From the Montana Standard 10/03/2006

I would not send my college kid off for a semester abroad if I were you. This week, we have suspended human rights in America, and what goes around comes around.

Ixnay habeas corpus.

The U.S. Senate, in all its splendor and majesty, has decided that an ‘‘enemy combatant’’ is any non-citizen whom the president says is an enemy combatant, including your Korean greengrocer or your Swedish grandmother or your Czech au pair, and can be arrested and held for as long as authorities wish without any right of appeal to a court of law to examine the matter.

The Senate also decided it’s up to the president to decide whether it’s OK to make these enemies stand naked in cold rooms for a couple days in blinding light and be beaten by interrogators.

This is now purely a bureaucratic matter: The plenipotentiary stamps the file ‘‘enemy combatants’’ and throws the poor schnooks into prison and at his leisure he tries them by any sort of kangaroo court he wishes to assemble and they have no right to see the evidence against them, and there is no appeal. This was passed by 65 senators and will now be signed by Mr. Bush, put into effect, and in due course be thrown out by the courts.

It’s good that Barry Goldwater is dead because this would have killed him. Go back to the Senate of 1964 — Goldwater, Dirksen, Russell, McCarthy, Javits, Morse, Fulbright — and you won’t find more than 10 votes for it. None of the men and women who voted for this bill has any right to speak in public about the rule of law anymore, or to take a high moral view of the Third Reich, or to wax poetic about the American Idea. Mark their names.

Any institution of higher learning that grants honorary degrees to these people forfeits its honor. Alexander, Allard, Allen, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Burns, Burr, Carper, Chambliss, Coburn, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Cornyn, Craig, Crapo, DeMint, DeWine, Dole, Domenici, Ensign, Enzi, Frist, Graham, Grassley, Gregg, Hagel, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Isakson, Johnson, Kyl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Lott, Lugar, Martinez, McCain, McConnell, Menendez, Murkowski, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Pryor, Roberts, Rockefeller, Salazar, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Specter, Stabenow, Stevens, Sununu, Talent, Thomas, Thune, Vitter, Voinovich, Warner.

To paraphrase Sir Walter Scott: Mark their names and mark them well. For them, no minstrel raptures swell. High though their titles, proud their name, boundless their wealth as wish can claim, these wretched figures shall go down to the vile dust from whence they sprung, unwept, unhonored and unsung.

If, however, the Court does not toss out the bill, then our country has taken a step toward totalitarianism.

I got some insight last week into who supports torture when I went down to Dallas to speak at Highland Park Methodist Church. It was spooky. I walked in, was met by two burly security men with walkie-talkies, and within 10 minutes was told by three people that this was the Bushes’ church and that it would be better if I didn’t talk about politics. I was there on a book tour for ‘‘Homegrown Democrat,’’ but they thought it better if I didn’t mention it. So I tried to make light of it: I told the audience, ‘‘I don’t need to talk politics. I have no need even to be interested in politics — I’m a citizen, I have plenty of money and my grandsons are at least 12 years away from being eligible for military service.’’ And the audience applauded! Those were their sentiments exactly. We’ve got ours, and who cares?

The Methodists of Dallas can be fairly sure that none of them will be snatched off the streets, flown to Guantanamo, stripped naked, forced to stand for 48 hours in a freezing room with deafening noise, so why should they worry? If you can’t trust a Methodist with absolute power to arrest people and not have to say why, then whom can you trust?

— Garrison Keillor’s ‘‘A Prairie Home Companion’’ can be heard Saturday nights on public radio stations across the country.

Cheney says Democrats soft on national security: We say Republicans stupid on terrorism...

2006-09-25T22:55:00.000-06:00

Okay, so it's name calling time. VP Dick (The Thug) Cheney has decided to call Democrats 'soft on terrorism'.

Lets fight 'em head on for once!

Bush and Cheney are just plain stupid on terrorism. They lead us into attacking Iraq, which had nothing to do with terrorism, based on false claims of WMDs and ties to Bin Laden. All we end up doing is getting bogged down in a quagmire, costing thousands of lives, and inciting tens of thousands in the middle east to join terrorist groups, like Al Queda in Iraq.

They kidnap and torture thousands of Muslims on suspicion of terrorism, creating thousands more pissed off people who now hate the U.S. worse than ever.

While doing all of this, they tread all over the constitution, and our reputation as a law abiding, due process respecting country, by engaging in violations of human rights, illegal wiretaps, and holding countless prisoners indefinitely in secret prisons without filing any charges (but with plenty of torture-like activity).

All in all, I accuse Republicans of the King George variety of being just plain dumb. (Ok, they are also lying wesels, but that can be the subject of a future column....)

Iraq War Fuels Terrorism Threat Says U.S. Report

2006-09-25T08:14:00.000-06:00

Iraq

Morning Edition, September 25, 2006 · The U.S. war in Iraq has increased, not decreased, the threat of terrorism, according to a top-level, classified intelligence summary.

Findings of that National Intelligence Estimate on "Trends in Global Terrorism" were first reported over the weekend by The New York Times.

The intellegence report finds the war in Iraq has fueled a new generation of Islamic radicalism, which has spread around the globe.

U.S. imprisons 14,000 without charges

2006-09-17T11:02:00.000-06:00

Yet another embarassing story about how we are losing moral authority around the world because of our tactics which deny due process of law to thousands.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke out this week about how we are losing our moral authority. "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." Powell said in a letter to the Senate Committee that is writing new law on handling U.S. detainees, after the Supreme Court struck down King George's unilateral detainee policies.

To prove the point, look at this new article from the Associated Press:

September 17, 2006, By PATRICK QUINN:
"BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - In the few short years since the first shackled Afghan shuffled off to Guantanamo, the U.S. military has created a global network of overseas prisons, its islands of high security keeping 14,000 detainees beyond the reach of established law.

Disclosures of torture and long-term arbitrary detentions have won rebuke from leading voices including the U.N. secretary-general and the U.S. Supreme Court. But the bitterest words come from inside the system, the size of several major U.S. penitentiaries.

"It was hard to believe I'd get out," Baghdad shopkeeper Amjad Qassim al-Aliyawi told The Associated Press after his release - without charge - last month. "I lived with the Americans for one year and eight months as if I was living in hell."

Captured on battlefields, pulled from beds at midnight, grabbed off streets as suspected insurgents, tens of thousands now have passed through U.S. detention, the vast majority in Iraq....

As with others, Karim's confinement may simply have strengthened support for the anti-U.S. resistance. "I will hate Americans for the rest of my life," he said."

See THIS LINK for the full story.

ASK your Senate and Congressional candidates how they stand on this issue. This is truly our number one 'security issue'. If we come to be seen in the world as ruthless thugs who kidnap people and hold them without charges or trials, we will assuredly create more new terrorists than we can ever handle. We will never kidnap and terrify people into security. Our safety and security depends on protecting our constitutional rights and values, and respecting the rule of law.

Boycott ABC Television

2006-09-11T20:44:00.000-06:00

Well, they aired it. After all the pre-airing complaints about the 'docudrama' on the 9/11 attacks, ABC/Disney aired the highly inacurate and partisan version of the attacks on a 2 night miniseries.

I waited to post this till after the program ran, so as not to give any more attention to this show, and not to allow it to benefit from the free PR buzz, albeit negative buzz, that occurred.

No party is blameless in the 9/11 attacks. However, by airing such a political hack job less than 60 days before the fall elections, the vicious right wing is pulling out all stops to hold onto power. Make no mistake: these people are scared. Why?

Maybe they worry about impeachment for King George. Maybe they worry about FISA arrests for felony wiretap violations. Maybe about international law violations for torture and illegal renditions and secret prisons, and violating the Geneva conventions. Maybe they just love the power.

Whatever the reason, we will see the nastiest campaign in our lifetime in the next two months. A scared Rethugllican will stop at nothing to get re-elected. The 9/11 lie-odrama is only the beginning. Hold on tight, here we go!

Federal Judge Orders End to Warrantless Wiretapping

2006-08-17T21:04:00.000-06:00

"A federal judge in Detroit ruled today that the Bush administration’s eavesdropping program is illegal and unconstitutional, and she ordered that it cease at once.
" Full NY Times Story here.....

The actual opinion is HERE in pdf.....

This decision follows the position advocated by this Blog...See THIS POST...

Lets hope this decision is upheld on appeal.

Justice Kennedy exhorts us to follow "The Rule of Law"

2006-08-09T08:46:00.000-06:00

In a speech to the American Bar Association, Supreme Court Justice Kennedy defines what is meant by the 'Rule of Law' and tells us that he is worried that the message isn't getting out well enough. He says half of the world is the jury, the verdict is out, and freedom hangs in the balance.... good stuff.

An excerpted video of the remarks was provided by the ABA, and can be accessed below.

It's time to close down "secret" jails

2006-07-29T08:16:00.000-06:00

Yesterday various news services reported that the "The U.N. Human Rights Committee on Friday told Washington it should immediately shut all "secret detention" facilities and give the International Committee of the Red Cross access to anybody held in armed conflict." See FULL STORY HERE.

Again I come back to due process, the rule of law, and our image around the world. We are supposed to be an example of how the rule of law works. Instead, we are running the new Gulags. We are seen around the world as violators of human rights, instead of a moral beacon. All in five years....it is so sad.

I continue to be shocked at how little air time this story got. Here the United Nations calls on OUR COUNTRY to stop secretly seizing people and holding them in jails hidden around the world without due process, or even Red Cross access. Nobody cares.

Election time approaches. These issues need to be asked to everyone running for office:
1. Do you support running hidden jails for people seized and held without warrants?
2. Do you support warrantless wiretaps?
3. Do you support using torture on prisoners?
4. Do you support prosecuting people who leak information on illegal government activities?
5. Do you support holding prisoners forever without ever filing charges against them?
6. Do you support an all powerful presidency?
7. Do you agree that the United States should be an example of the rule of law and due process for all?

Crackdown on leaks to the press?

2006-07-11T22:46:00.000-06:00

Reuters and Yahoo are reporting that

"The Bush administration is preparing a crackdown on intelligence leaks to the media and will try to pursue prosecutions in some recent cases, the chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee on Tuesday. Michigan Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra also suggested some unauthorized leaks could have been deliberate attempts to help al Qaeda.

"More frequently than what we would like, we find out that the intelligence community has been penetrated, not necessarily by al Qaeda, but by other nations or organizations," he said. "I don't have any evidence. But from my perspective, when you have information that is leaked that is clearly helpful to our enemy, you cannot discount that possibility," he added.

My first reaction is that Hoekstra himself is an al Queda operative, sent to convince the world of how stupid Americans must be to elect a moron like him.

On further reflection, I think he is right. I think whoever leaked CIA Agent Valerie Plame's identity should be prosecuted, even if it is Cheney and Bush.

As my friend Napolean D. would say: Idiot!

Bush polcies have caused "irreparable damage' to United States reputation

2006-07-04T08:58:00.000-06:00

Rear Admiral Donald Guter was the Judge Advocate General of the Navy at the time the military tribunal policies were written. Admiral Guter argued against these Bush policies from within the administration at the time they were being implemented. Asked whether the decision gave him an "I told you so moment", he responded:

"I think the damage that's been to our reputation, the damage thats been done to at least our standing with respect to the rule of law and arguing for respect for our military prisoners and others, I think that has been so diminished by what has happened and whats been done that its hard to feel any kind of gloating over the decision."

"I think we've suffered probably irreparable harm in the international community for my lifetime, and for my kids lifetime, but I think that this [the Hamden decision] might be a chance to start fresh."

Hear the entire interview HERE.

Supremes rebuke King George!

2006-06-29T09:48:00.000-06:00

Today the Supreme Court struck down the use of military tribunals to try suspected Al Queda members. In a 5-3 decision, (Roberts recused himself but would clearly have decided with the minority) Justice John Paul Stevens found that the Geneva Convention applies to prisoners held at Gitmo prison camp.

From the Washington Post:
"Supreme Court Rejects Guantanamo War Crimes Trials
In 5-3 Decision, Justices Rebuke Bush's Anti-Terror Policy

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 29, 2006; 10:44 AM

The Supreme Court today delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration over its plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, ruling that the commissions are unconstitutional.

In a 5-3 decision, the court said the trials were not authorized under U.S. law or the Geneva Conventions. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion in the case, called Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. recused himself from the case.

The ruling, which overturned a federal appeals court decision in which Roberts had participated, represented a defeat for President Bush, who had ordered military trials for detainees at the Guantanamo Bay naval base. About 450 detainees captured in the war on terrorism are currently held at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

The case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a 36-year-old Yemeni with links to al-Qaeda, was considered a key test of the judiciary's power during wartime and carried the potential to make a lasting impact on American law. It challenged the very legality of the military commissions established by President Bush to try terrorism suspects.

The case raised core constitutional principles of separation of powers as well as fundamental issues of individual rights. Specifically, the questions concerned:

# The power of Congress and the executive to strip the federal courts and the Supreme Court of jurisdiction.

# The authority of the executive to lock up individuals under claims of wartime power, without benefit of traditional protections such as a jury trial, the right to cross-examine one's accusers and the right to judicial appeal.

# The applicability of international treaties -- specifically the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war -- to the government's treatment of those it deems "enemy combatants."

Hamdan was captured by Afghan militiamen in late November 2001 after the radical Islamic Taliban movement was driven from power in Afghanistan by U.S.-backed Afghan forces. He was subsequently turned over to U.S. authorities, who sent him to the U.S. detention facility at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba in 2002.

He acknowledged that he had worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden, whom he met in Afghanistan in 1996. But he denied having any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks carried out by bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.

On Nov. 13, 2001 -- the day the Afghan capital, Kabul, fell to U.S.-backed forces after five years of Taliban rule -- President Bush issued Military Order No. 1 declaring that military commissions would try foreign terrorist suspects for alleged war crimes and sentence them to punishments including death. The administration argued that the commissions were authorized by laws on military justice, by a congressional resolution passed on Sept. 14, 2001, and by the powers vested in the president as commander in chief under the U.S. Constitution.

Hamdan later became one of the first 10 detainees at Guantanamo chosen to face military trials. He was charged in July 2004 with conspiracy to commit terrorism and war crimes while serving as a weapons courier and driver for bin Laden and other top al-Qaeda members. If convicted, he faced a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Military prosecutors alleged that Hamdan delivered arms, ammunition and other supplies to al-Qaeda fighters, picked up weapons at Taliban warehouses and drove or accompanied bin Laden to appearances at al-Qaeda training camps and other events. During these appearances, bin Laden would give speeches encouraging followers to carry out suicide attacks and engage in holy war against Americans, the prosecution alleged.

Specifically, prosecutors charged, Hamdan served as a driver in a convoy in which bin Laden fled potential U.S. reprisal attacks in Afghanistan at the time of the al-Qaeda bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998 and the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. In addition, he allegedly received weapons training at al-Qaeda's Farouq training camp in southern Afghanistan on various occasions between 1996 and 2001.

In April 2004, Hamdan, represented by Georgetown University law professor Neal K. Katyal, , filed a petition for habeas corpus, challenging the legality of his detention. While the petition was pending before the U.S. District Court in Washington, the government formally filed the conspiracy charges against him and set in motion his trial before a military commission.

In August 2004, Hamdan appeared in a makeshift courtroom at Guantanamo as the U.S. military formally opened its first trial of an alleged al-Qaeda collaborator. His appearance, after nearly three years in detention, marked the first time that the United States had used military commissions to try war crimes suspects since World War II.

Hamdan's military attorney promptly attacked the military commission process, calling it unfair, and challenged the qualifications of the presiding officer and several other members.

In November 2004, the U.S. District Court granted Hamdan's habeas petition in part, ordering a halt to the military commission. The court ruled that Hamdan could not be tried by a military commission unless a competent tribunal determined that he was actually an "unlawful combatant" and not a prisoner of war under the 1949 Geneva Convention.

Hamdan maintained that instead of facing a military commission under a presidential order, he should be tried by a court martial under the U.S. Code of Military Justice in accordance with the 1949 convention. That would afford him the same rights accorded to U.S. military personnel tried by courts martial, rather than the restrictions he would encounter in a military commission. Human rights groups have charged that the commissions' rules do not meet international standards for fair trials.

The Bush administration appealed the District Court's ruling, and the Defense Department meanwhile gave Hamdan and other Guantanamo detainees hearings before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal. In Hamdan's case, the tribunal affirmed that he was an enemy combatant requiring continued detention. It said he was "either a member of or affiliated with al-Qaeda."

In July 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the District Court's decision, breathing new life into the military commissions. The appeals court said the Geneva Convention does not apply to al-Qaeda members and that the military commissions were authorized by Congress.

The Supreme Court agreed in November last year to hear Hamdan's appeal of the ruling. Chief Justice Roberts, one of the judges who voted against Hamdan's appeal when he served on the appeals court, recused himself from the case.

Congress entered the fray in December, passing the Detainee Treatment Act, which stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over Guantanamo detainees' habeas corpus petitions that were "pending on or after" the date of the law's enactment. The act also provided an alternative military process for reviewing the enemy combatant status of detainees and designated the D.C. Circuit appeals court as the sole venue for appeals of military commission verdicts.

Arguing that the act implicitly accepts the legitimacy of the military commissions and that it disallows Hamdan's habeas petition, the administration asked the Supreme Court in January to dismiss the case. Administration lawyers said the proper time for Hamdan to file a constitutional challenge was after his trial before a military commission."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Gitmo Suicides- As. Warfare?

2006-06-12T23:26:00.000-06:00

On 'All Things Considered' tonight I found myself, for the first time in a while, not agreeing with the 'liberal' reaction to a current event.

The Gitmo suicides really ARE an act of warfare, albeit sad and desperate. Here are three guys, with absolutely no due process, being held incommunicado, without any charges, forever. Gee, I wonder why they would ever want to die.

I am offended at the call for more 'mental health counseling' for the Gitmo prisoners. Come on....get real. These guys did the only available thing to get world attention to their plight at Gitmo. Doesn't seem like mentally ill behavior to me. Seems like a fairly brave, rational choice by men we have placed in an impossible situation.

I am actually surprised the minions of King George admitted it was an act of Asymmetrical warfare. That comment basically legitimized these suicides, and confirmed these men as martyrs in their homelands.

What we need is a dose of due process. We need to show the world that we treat our prisoners with extra fairness and civility. Our national image is severely tarnished by running what is basically an illegal camp for alleged Al Queda members. We are giving them the perfect argument to win hearts and minds in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries.

I don't want us to close Gitmo. I want it to be run as a humane POW camp, and follow either the Geneva Convention OR our federal criminal laws where prisoners get charged, tried, and access to the courts. Give the Red Cross full access. Treat the prisoners humanely. Give them something to live for. That is how we fight back in an 'Asymmetrical defense'.

Locking ANYONE up without due process of law is just wrong, and violates every right generations of Americans have fought and died for. It needs to stop NOW.

Ban Republican marriage?

2006-06-05T23:00:00.000-06:00

King George, seeking to distract citizens from the exploits of his corrupt administration, is advocating a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Bush is trying to solidify his political base by pandering to their hate of gay marriage. What in the world are they so afraid of? Nothing, really. They just want to find one issue that will mobilize social conservatives to get out and vote this fall.

I have a better idea. Lets just pass a law to ban Republican marriage. Before anyone can get a marriage license, they would have to certify that they are not Republican, and did not ever vote for King George. Then, and only then, could they get married or procreate.

I realize that some will claim that this idea is discriminatory. Hmmmm. Maybe we need a constitutional amendment instead of a mere law, so that it would pass constitional muster. Anyone want to help me form a PAC?

What about our civil rights law?

2006-05-22T07:54:00.000-06:00

This weekend there were a number of news stories about how our fine federal government will investigate and prosecute any leaks of classified information about the NSA domestic spying program. See THIS LINK as an example.

The new fact is that our esteemed Attorney General will also go after the reporters too, and not just the leaker. Talk about chilling our rights to a free press! Last I checked, the freedom of press is still a protected civil liberty.

I propose this little idea: If the feds prosecute a leaker or reporter, and the federal whistleblower law, or our general constitutional protections, result in their acquital, then that federal prosecutor and any of his/her superiors who ordered the prosectution, should themselves be prosecuted for violations of civil rights under the federal civil rights laws. That would even the playing field a little bit! It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. See THIS web site.

Anyone wanting to make a criminal complaint against the Attorney General should go THIS LINK. Ironic, huh?

"Mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans..."

2006-05-12T07:11:00.000-06:00

A couple years ago when I was a local prosecutor, there was a previously convicted sex offender who tried to snatch up a young girl in our town. This man was from out of state, and we identified him through his license plate number. We found out that he had a cell phone, and wanted to get his phone records to see if we could corroborate that he was actually in our town at the time of the crime.

I applied to our local district court, and had to swear out a statement setting forth probable cause to believe this man committed a crime before the judge could authorize a court order to obtain his phone records. I had to do this because the phone company told me they would not give us his records without a court order.

Now, the latest revelation of illegal Bush activity is that three major phone companies have apparently turned over wholesale information of ALL their phone records on everyone, to the federal government! USA Today reported on May 11th that AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth telephone companies began turning over records of tens of millions of their customers' phone calls to the National Security Agency program shortly after the September 11, 2001. The report has been essentially confirmed by Senator Trent Lott.

Apparently the NSA wants a massive database of who called who. While this could certainly be useful for tracking terrorist networks, it is a massive invasion of our right to privacy. (A federal right to privacy has been found to be implied in the U.S. Constitution by the Supreme Court).

King George has of course blasted THE LEAK of this inofrmation, and insists he was not "mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans..." However, that is EXACTLY what he allowed the NSA to do.

Our country has functioned quite well for 217 years with constitutional protections for everyone, even suspected sex offenders. If local authorities can work through this system to show 'probable cause' to get needed phone information, and get court orders to make sure privacy rights are honored, the federal government can certainly do the same.

We need to be outraged, and to let our senators and congressmen and congresswomen know that we are mad. This administration needs to stop abusing their power, and follow the constitution. This is another brick in the wall of impeachment.

History DOES repeat itself

2006-05-10T07:36:00.000-06:00

Readers of this blog will be aware that I have noted the similarities between Bush's abuse of executive power, and those of Tricky Dick Nixon.

This morning I was listening to an old Chicago song called Dialogue Part 1. The song is basically a discussion between a politically active college student and an average student who wasn't yet active. The lyrics go like this: "Don't it make you angry, where war is dragging on? Well I hope the president knows what he's into, I don't know." Another verse ends with "Well I always thought that everything was fine...."

This song was written in 1972. We were destined to live with Nixon another two years until he resigned in August of 1974, and the Vietnam War didn't end until April 1975.

It seems to me that we are at the point of awakening to the King George absues, like we were in 1972 with Nixon. Witness that the current crop of protest music is coming around: Neil Young's Living With War...etc. Iraq=Vietnam, Domestic spying=Watergate, Valerie Plame outing=Ellsburg burglary, etc.

This goes to prove my favorite quote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana.

Fascinating interview comparing Watergate and King George crimes

2006-04-28T08:48:00.000-06:00

On the April 27th "Democracy Now" broadcast, there is a fascinating discussion with former Nixon administration White House Counsel John Dean and Daniel Ellsberg, comparing the acts and crimes of the Nixon adinistration with those of the Bush administration.

Who would know better than these two men, who were central figures in the Nixon era events. Listen to this discussion online HERE.

Are you a 'Progressive Patriot'?

2006-04-20T00:12:00.000-06:00

Got an e-mail tonight from my friend Russ. He invites us all to join a new movement that favors at least censure of President Bush. They even steal my King George tag! (Okay, I know I wasn't the first to use it!)

Watch the Video HERE. Their website is also interesting HERE.

Did King George condone leak?

2006-04-07T08:27:00.000-06:00

The news out of Washington indicates that Scooter Libby testied under oath before the grand jury that George Bush authorized him to leak the National Intelligence Estimate that led to the exposure of CIA Agent Valerie Plame.(See below)

If true, the utter hypocrisy of this is astounding. Bush vowed to 'fire' whoever did the leak of Plame's identity, and also heavily criticized leaks in general.

See these stories on CNN and Rawstory for more info....

Supreme Court hears Bush illegal detention case

2006-03-28T20:07:00.000-07:00

Today the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

Salim Ahmed Hamdan is reputed to be Bin Laden's driver. He is charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes, and was set for trial before a military tribunal. He has been held for over three years at Guatanamo Bay prison camp, with no access to the courts until two years ago, when the Supreme Court ruled that while the government had the right to hold detainees at Guantanamo, the prisoners could also challenge their status in federal courts. The justices at the time did not give specifics on how that should be done, or address the tribunal issue.

Bush declared Hamdan, born in 1970, an "enemy combatant," and asserted he was not covered by the Geneva Conventions, which protect regular prisoners of war. Hamdan was charged with various conspiracy counts related to terrorism. Hamdan challenged his trial before a military tribunal. He won his case in federal district court, and then lost on appeal to the District of Columbia Federal Circuit Court. His case was granted cert last November.

Several of the Justices sounded very skeptical today of governement claims that Hamdem may be tried before a miltiary tribunal instead of in an actual court, that the Geneva Convention does not apply, as well as Bush Administration claims that the Court lacks jurisdiction to act.

Hopefully the Supremes will slap the Bush arguments down. There must be some due process for these prisoners. Otherwise, they are denied treatment as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, and denied all protections. Many will say 'who cares' what these terrorirsts are denied. My response is how do we know they are actually terrorists without a real trial or due process protections? ANYONE can be scooped up and detained with only the mere claim that they are a terrorist.(Of course it might be more likely to be detained when you drive Bin Laden's car;)

If we forfeit our rights to protect ourselves from terrorism, we will have lost exactly what we most need to protect.

Resource Links: NPR Story from All things Considered, NW University Case summary and links to briefs

Is life in Iraq better now?

2006-03-21T07:33:00.000-07:00

NPR's Anne Garrels, who has been covering Iraq for years, since before our invasion, does this interview with her driver and translator. They discuss the changes in Iraq since the U.S. invasion. Fascinating and sad. Listen at THIS LINK.

Bush considered illegal searches too

2006-03-19T08:24:00.000-07:00

While claiming the authority has not been used, senior administration officials claim that the same authority that the president has to conduct wiretaps would allow physical searches of suspect's homes.

US News and World reports that "The (senior Justice) lawyers talked with senior FBI officials about using the same legal authority to conduct physical searches of homes and businesses of terrorism suspects--also without court approval, one current and one former government official tell U.S. News...FBI Director Robert Mueller was alarmed by the proposal, the two officials said, and pushed back hard against it....
John Martin, a former Justice Department attorney who prosecuted the two most important cases involving warrantless searches and surveillance, says the department is sending an unambiguous message to Congress. "They couldn't make it clearer," says Martin, "that they are also making the case for inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless physical searches." The full story is at THIS LINK.

Feingold introduces censure measure

2006-03-13T08:19:00.000-07:00

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold today is introducing a measure to censure King George for violating the constitutional rights of thousands of people by conducting an illegal wiretapping program. See THIS LINK.

This should be a litmus test of who we support politically or financially. If any candidate won't support AT LEAST censure of Bush, they don't deserve to be in office. Of course if they favor impeachment, all the better...

All the Republican rhetoric defending Bush is nonsense. Saying that he acted forcefully to defend our country might have been valid if he had only ordered the wiretap program for a month or two after 9/11/01, and then sought new laws. But when he has made it a permanent, secret program, violating the constitution and committing repeated felonies under FISA, THAT merits at least censure.

Conservative Justice O'Connor warns of dangers of "dictatorship"

2006-03-11T08:12:00.000-07:00

Newly retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in a speech to Georgetown University warned that it takes 'a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.'

She also attacked Republicans who have sought to restrict the judicial branch of government. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former communist countries where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O’Connor said we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strongarm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies.

An NPR report on this speech is available HERE.

Bush caught lying again

2006-03-03T08:00:00.001-07:00

This week transcripts and videos were released showing King George being briefed about Katrina in the days leading up to the disaster. Here is one excerpt:
"I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously a very, very grave concern," Meteorologist Max Mayfield told the briefing."

Then later, after the levees were breached, and New Orleans flooded, George Bush was interviewed by ABC news. Bush told ABC's Diane Sawyer during an exclusive interview (video here) "I don't think anyone could have anticipated the breach of the levees,"

George is busted. Either he told a clear lie, or, even worse, he didn't understand his briefing from three days before. If there had just been that one briefing, we may be able to dismiss Bush's error. However, in fact, there was an entire federal hurricane simulation involving New Orleans that predicted levees being breached.

And numerous media outlets are not even mentioning Bush's lie. See This Link.

Shame.

2006-02-28T08:00:00.000-07:00

I don't know if this is good or bad news. The New York Times reports that the United States has settled a civil rights law suit filed by Ehab Elmaghraby by agreeing to pay him $300,000.

Mr. Elmaghraby was 'detained' for almost a year following the 9/11 attack. He was "an Egyptian who was among dozens of Muslim men swept up in the New York area after 9/11, held for months in a federal detention center in Brooklyn and deported after being cleared of links to terrorism."

The settlement came after the government had argued that the lawsuits should be dismissed without testimony because the extraordinary circumstances of the terror attacks justified extraordinary measures to confine noncitizens who fell under suspicion, and because top officials need governmental immunity to combat future threats to national security without fear of being sued. However U.S. District Judge John Gleeson said "Our nation's unique and complex law enforcement and security challenges in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do not warrant the elimination of remedies for the constitutional violations alleged here."

See this Link for the whole story.

It is shameful when we arrest and detain people based on race or religion out of fear. I suppose it is good that we agreed to pay this man a settlement. However, we should be outraged that here in our country, someone can be locked up for A YEAR, held in relative isolation, and abused the way this man was. This case alone merits a congressional investigation and removal from office for those who flaunted the Constitution and allowed these abuses to occur.

Signs of King George's foolishness abound...

2006-02-26T11:53:00.000-07:00

I would love to be wrong about this. However, there are continuing signs that King George has embroiled us in two no-win wars.

Iraq appears to teeter on the verge of civil war among various Muslim sects. Hundreds died this week after a holy shrine was blown up. NPR quotes one Iraqi businessman as saying America was behind the sectarian violence. Even assuming that this is untrue, it is more proof that we are losing the battle for hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. See THIS LINK.

In Afghanistan, there is a massive prison uprising, as well as continued failure to catch Bin Laden. Violence has slowly escalated there as well, although no where near the level in Iraq. See THIS LINK.

All of this U.S. imperialism is directly contrary to Bush's campaign rant against U.S. nation building. During a debate with then-Vice President Al Gore on Oct. 11, 2000, in Winston-Salem, N.C., Bush said: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. . . . I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."

I know that after 9/11/01, Bush's worldview changed. However, this merely shows the problems with his shallowness. He has gone from one extreme to the other. We need to realize we cannot isolate ourselves, yet we need to pull back from trying to fix everything wrong in the world. Balance is the key.

Repubs consider dumping Cheney

2006-02-17T00:15:00.000-07:00

We will see if this goes anywhere, but long time Republican speechwriter Peggy Noonan is writing about other Repubs starting to think how nice it would be to dump Deadeye Dick...See THIS LINK.

Cheney and Libby's outing of agent caused grave damage

2006-02-14T08:25:00.000-07:00

New reports indicate that the outing of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent (See next post) caused grave damage to our program of finding out about Iran's nuclear program. One source estimated the leak could set the program back ten years. See THIS LINK.

Cheney's going down....(And I don't mean cause he shot a guy)

2006-02-11T09:10:00.000-07:00

There was a big development this week that in my opinion could lead to the downfall of V.P. Dick Cheney. It is all connected to the investigation by a special prosecutor of who leaked the identity of CIA Agent Valerie Plame to the press.

The background gets a little complex. In the 2003 State of the Union address, King George claimed that Sadam Hussein was trying to get uranium from Africa. Based on this and other WMD claims, we invaded and 'conquered' Iraq a few months later. As we now know, there were no WMD found.

The administration sent Joe Wilson, a former ambassador, to Africa to investigate these claims of uranium to Iraq. He found nothing to support the claims, and he started talking publicly. First he 'leaked' the info to the press, then he went public and went on talk shows. At the same time info was leaking that the CIA had warned that WMD claims were probably not true. This made Bush & Co. look bad.

A decision was made by SOMEONE to leak the fact that Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent, to try to discredit him by showing his bias and a connection between the two stories. The story appeared in the NY TImes, and people were outraged that a covert CIA agent's identity had been leaked. A special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, was named to find out who leaked the info. Judy Miller, the NY Times reporter who got the story, spent months in jail refusing to divulge her source.

Finally, her source, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, released her from her promise of confidentiality. She testified. Libby has now been indicted by the prosecutor for Obstruction, Perjury, etc.

Now the Libby defense team is apparently planning on raising the defense that he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq. See THIS link.

So we have the VP and the White House compromising the identity of a covert CIA agent for politcal gain. Agent Plame's contacts and associates, still undercover, were also put at risk. Then they lie, cover up, and even e-mail records are missing that could implicate them. This administration is ruthless, dangerous, and should be impeached.

George Washington and Honest Abe wiretapping?

2006-02-06T21:59:00.000-07:00

Today, United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed as follows during his Congressional testimony:

"I gave in my opening statement several examples where President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, and President Roosevelt, have all authorized electronic suveilance on a FAR broader scale, FAR borader, without any probable cause." Alberto Gonzales, February 6, 2006 testimony.

Good thing for Alberto that he was not required to give his testimony under oath. ;)

Special Prosecutor for warrantless wiretaps

2006-02-04T00:12:00.000-07:00

MoveOn.org, a political action committee that started up during the Clinton impeachent, is going to start running ads calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush wiretapping program.
See https://political.moveon.org/donate/notillegal.html This site contains an excellent explanation of why the program is felonious, and why King George's arguments are empty.

MoveOn also has a cool Quicktime version of their ad available online at https://political.moveon.org/donate/notillegal-QT.html This ad shows King George and Richard Nixon morphing into each other. Hmmmm...sounds like a point I made a couple days ago.

While some of us might prefer to skip the investigation and go straight to impeachment, this is a reasonable, moderate compromise. We should make this a political issue by asking EVERY congressional and senatorial candidate if they will support a special prosecutor to look into these wiretap activities.

Whatever happened to free speech?

2006-02-01T06:37:00.000-07:00

Last night, right before the State of the Union speech, peace activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested for unzipping her coat and wearing a t-shirt which says "2,245 Dead. How many more?"

This is an outrage. What is this country coming to? Tell everyone. Here is a summary of the story including Cindy's own note. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/7330

Update: Double standard. Beverly Young, wife of Rep Bill Young of Florida, was also removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt. Hers read, "Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom." However, she was merely told to leave the building and was not arrested. See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183392,00.html

Cindy Sheehan, for the same act, was handcuffed, marched out of the Capitol, and charged with a crime. (Which I predict will soon be dropped).

One standard for pro-war t-shirts, another for anti-war shirts. Hmmmm.

Update #2. Capitol Police have apologized to Sheehan and Young. As I predicted above, they are asking to drop charges against Sheehan. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020100348.html

King George wants a line item veto?

2006-01-31T20:11:00.000-07:00

In his State of the Union speech, George asked for Congress to give him the 'line item veto'. That made me do a double-take.

There was a line item veto once before. It was put in place in the early 90s, and was then overtuned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case titled Clinton v. City of New York on June 25, 1998.

The Supremes found this law violated the 'presentment clause' of the Constitution. The presentment clause can be found in Article I Section 7 of the Constitution, which reads in part, "Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approves he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections, to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it."

In other words, the Constitution directly requires an all or nothing approval by the president. No part approval or part veto. To change this, an amendment to the constitution will be required.

Aside from the crazy idea that anyone would give King George even more power, his request of Congress has already been found unconstititional by the Supreme Court. His request for a line item veto is nothing more than empty political rhetoric.

A More Sophisticated Nixon?

2006-01-30T07:42:00.000-07:00

Back in 1973, President Nixon forced the resignations of the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General because they wouldn't fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox when he was getting too close to the heart of Watergate. The third in command (one Robert Bork) carried out the order, and Cox was fired. This incident, widely known as the Saturday Night Massacre, hastened the downfall of the Nixon regime. See This Link.

Now, the Jack Abramoff scandal comes along, and King George has followed suit. Only nobody had to be fired, because Rove and company are smart enough to know how to avoid a huge outcry. Instead, they got the bright idea to promote the chief prosecutor on the Abramoff case, Noel Hillman. See THIS link.

The result is to slow down the Abramoff investigation. This may just delay the indictments of key Republican lawmakers until after the election this fall. Although those indicted will be gone, there will be less political fallout for other Republicans.

It has also come to light that the Bush Administration previously removed the federal prosecutor of Guam, just as he was closing in on links between Abramoff and the Republican Party there. See THIS link for an excellent story.

Imagine the uproar if Clinton had removed Ken Starr at the height of Whitewater or Monicagate? I'm sure Richard Nixon would be proud!

King George lies!

2006-01-29T10:10:00.000-07:00

In case anyone still thinks George Bush is an honest man, we should look at this big lie he told during the 2004 election:

In April 2004, Bush told an audience in Buffalo, New York: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Want to see the context? The entire speech is on the White House (!) web site. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Of course now we know that when he gave this speech, Bush had been ordering warrantless wiretaps for over two years. Why? Because it was too hard to comply with those rigorous FISA requirements, which requires retroactive approval of a secret court within 72 hours AFTER the wiretap.

This lie makes Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman" lie pale in comparison, since it actually has something to do with his job. Not only did King George commit a felony and break the FISA law, (which says this law is the exclusive way to do wiretaps on domestic-foreign calls, and that any violation is a felony), but he purposely misled voters during the last election about his actions.

Which congressman or congresswoman has the guts to introduce the first bill of impeachment?

It's time to wake up!

2006-01-29T09:07:00.000-07:00

Recently there were several stories about how when you first wake up, it's like you are drunk. You fumble around to turn off the alarm clock, and then stumble out of bed.

I think this is the stage our country is in right now. We are starting to wake up to the danger of the 'silent majority's' long time apathy to what has been going on with King George's Administration.

Today I read an article on the latest involuntary draft of 50,000 Americans into the Army. While they may have initially enlisted, they are now being forced to continue to serve longer than they ever agreed to. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060129/pl_nm/iraq_usa_stoploss_dc

This scares the hell out of me. I think about my two young boys, and I see them being drafted in a few years to go fight in the middle east. Clearly, the 'volunteer' army cannot long survive involuntary extensions of service time. Many will not enlist for indefinite service commitments.

As much as it scares me to say, I wonder if a draft wouldn't be a good thing in a way. That might be what it takes to awaken this country. Instead of those 'other' peoples kids being put in harms way, it would be everyone's kids. Then maybe we will all care a little more what our country is doing in the world. Then, maybe we will care about policies and practices that do nothing but inflame others and make terrorism attractive in the third world.

It's time to wake up our country, end the apathy, and let this republic experience true democracy.