Detainees Deserve Court Trials

Detainees Deserve Court Trials:

"In a wiser past, we tried Nazi war criminals in the sunlight. Summing up for the prosecution at Nuremberg, Robert Jackson said that 'the future will never have to ask, with misgiving: 'What could the Nazis have said in their favor?' History will know that whatever could be said, they were allowed to say. . . . The extraordinary fairness of these hearings is an attribute of our strength.'

The world has never doubted the judgment at Nuremberg. But no one will trust the work of these secret tribunals.

Mistakes are made: There will always be Adels. That's where courts come in. They are slow, but they are not beholden to the defense secretary, and in the end they get it right. They know the good guys from the bad guys. Take away the courts and everyone's a bad guy.

The secretary of defense chained Adel, took him to Cuba, imprisoned him and sends teams of lawyers to fight any effort to get his case heard. Now the Senate has voted to lock down his only hope, the courts, and to throw away the key forever."

America goes too far - Historian Paul Kennedy

Al-Ahram Weekly | Interview | America goes too far: "Can the US administration say, 'we were wrong'?

This administration can never admit to mistakes. A real leader and a mature administration can say, 'we made a mistake. We failed in our policy. We have to rethink it and do it better.' It takes a mature leader to admit mistakes and the American people would actually be happier if George Bush admitted that the administration was over-optimistic about Iraq.

Ironically, George Bush's great hero in history is Winston Churchill, the former British prime minister. Bush is always talking about Churchill but he does not realise that Great Britain, in the course of World War II, suffered many great defeats and was driven out of France in 1940, nearly lost Egypt in 1941, and Malay and Singapore in 1942. Nonetheless, Churchill went to parliament to say, 'we failed. We lost. And we are going to have to change our policy and pick ourselves up and work harder.'

Churchill did not say, like Bush today, 'Oh everything is going okay and we are winning.' Actually, few people in the outside world believe Bush, and a large number of Americans started not to believe him. He is blinkered and not able to say, 'we made a real mistake.'"

answering Janets questions

Last night when I heard that Keith Olbermann had recieved a fake Anthrax letter I decided to visit the folks at http://www.olbermannwatch.com to get their reaction.

Mostly, the people there just fling trite and nasty comments around... but I found one person asking a serious quesiton:

Janet Hawkins:

"Who would you ans your fellow quislings condemn--Bush et al or The islamofascists to death given a choice?"


So i had to respond:

Janet, honey, if you want something taken seriously, please don't use bogus rhetorical devices like false dichotomy while your asking the question. I know Hannity does it all the time but lets try to be better than that.

Still, I am going to answer your question best I can.

I condemn the Bush for his incompetence, cronyism, inept diplomacy and malfeasance. I also don't like the way his administration has supported torture, no bid contracts for friends, insane budget deficits, lack of respect for human rights and international law (most of which WE authored over the last 50 years). I think his handling of the Iraq war, Katrina, Dubai ports deal, Harriet Myers, Valery Plame and a dozen other issues has been disgraceful.

But I do not think that anyone in the Bush Administration should be put to death for it. I don't even think they should be impeached. I am kind of ambivalent about jail time for the crimes they have committed. I think they and their bankrupt neocon philosophies like preemptive invasion should be marginalized and then put out to pasture with the other bad political ideas of the past. (i.e. monarchy and communism).

At the same time, I also condemn the terrorists for acts of brutality and outright murder of innocents. Its not really an either or thing. These are criminals and should be treated as such and brought to justice. I am not big on the death penalty because I think it would be a greater punishment for these people to be put into jail and kept alive for as long as possible to stew in their own hate.

You see the bottom line is that I hold my president to a higher standard than I do the terrorists. I really want him to be a good guy. I dont hate the guy, but I am bitterly disappointed that he has turned out to be far worse than any president we have ever had. That does not mean I want to give the terrorist a free pass.

By the way... if you want to be taken seriously outside of the right wing echo chambers you should drop the term Islamofascist. It makes no since. A fascist is someone who believes government and corporate interests should work together to form a "more perfect" state. Italy and Germany were the only truly fascist states. The USA has some fascist tendencies but we keep them in check most of the time. The people your calling islamofascists have no state, hate most corporations and want to establish a theocracy. Islamic Extreamists is a much better term.

Amusing Bin Laden

Staying the Course is no doubt a source of great amusement for bin Laden and associates. In one fell swoop, Bush has tied up and drained our military, depleted national funds, provided al qaeda training grounds, fresh recruits, as well as keeping the nation occupied while the Taliban has regained power in Afghanistan, and terrorists across the globe have no doubt closely watched while we're distracted.

Remember Al Qieda's support for Bush in 2004?

We have not had any more attacks on US soil because the Terrorist are perfectly happy with the Bush Administrations actions post 9-11.

100% of Al Qaeda Madrid Train Bombers endorsed their hero, George W Bush in 2004.

'We are very keen that you do not lose in the forthcoming elections as we know very well that any big attack can bring down your government and this is what we do not want.

"We cannot get anyone who is more foolish than you, who deals with matters with force instead of wisdom and diplomacy.

"Your stupidity and religious extremism is what we want as our people will not awaken from their deep sleep except when there is an enemy."

Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade of al Qaeda Quoted by Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html

John Hodgeman on the truth

Features : Radar Online: "What is unique about our life today is that The Daily Show is breaking a taboo simply by making plain, truthful, obvious observations about our existing government, its bankruptcy of competence and vision when faced with the basic jobs with which it is tasked."

WWJD - What would Jefferson do?

One of the problems is that the Bush administration has compleatly hijacked our langage.

We have not been "at War" since May or June 2003. We are in an occupation. The war was brilliantly executed and lasted about a month. The occupation has been botched beyond belief.

The neocons want it both ways.. they want to stiffle decent by being at war, but they dont declare war because that complicates things for them. This has worked out really well for them and almost noone critisizes their mastery of orwellian techniques.

Bush loves being the "war president" He started calling himself that shortly after 9-11 and he says it with a gleam in his eye. But it is just another lie in order to stiffle decent and give him more power.

Vietnam was more of a real war. Still undeclared but there was a real governement on the other sides of the lines.

I dont know if you remember, but it was unfashionable in "hawkish" circles to call vietnam a war. One way to rattle the establishment was to call it a war. That didnt become popular until later. It was a "police action" as was Korea.

What if you brought back a founding father... say Jefferson and tried to explain current events to him. You tell him we are in the 3rd year of a war in Iraq. He would ask who is the leader of this Iraq and how many troops do they have. He would be dumbfounded that we are still "at war" with a country with a leader thats been on trial for a year and which has had no army in the field for 3 years.

He woud be dumbfounded. I know I am....

(BTW.. later I would have to explain how last week our senitors comprimised with the president to allow officially sanctioned torture. I am pretty sure his head would explode at that point.)

Bush seeks immunity for violating War Crimes Act

Bush seeks immunity for violating War Crimes Act: September 23, 2006BY ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN

Thirty-two years ago, President Gerald Ford created a political firestorm by pardoning former President Richard Nixon of all crimes he may have committed in Watergate -- and lost his election as a result. Now, President Bush, to avoid a similar public outcry, is quietly trying to pardon himself of any crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of U.S. detainees.

The ''pardon'' is buried in Bush's proposed legislation to create a new kind of military tribunal for cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. The ''pardon'' provision has nothing to do with the tribunals. Instead, it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11.

Press accounts of the provision have described it as providing immunity for CIA interrogators. But its terms cover the president and other top officials because the act applies to any U.S. national.

Avoiding prosecution under the War Crimes Act has been an obsession of this administration since shortly after 9/11. In a January 2002 memorandum to the president, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales pointed out the problem of prosecution for detainee mistreatment under the War Crimes Act. He notes that given the vague language of the statute, no one could predict what future ''prosecutors and independent counsels'' might do if they decided to bring charges under the act. As an author of the 1978 special prosecutor statute, I know that independent counsels (who used to be called ''special prosecutors'' prior to the statute's reauthorization in 1994) aren't for low-level government officials such as CIA interrogators, but for the president and his Cabinet. It is clear that Gonzales was concerned about top administration officials.

Gonzales also understood that the specter of prosecution could hang over top administration officials involved in detainee mistreatment throughout their lives. Because there is no statute of limitations in cases where death resulted from the mistreatment, prosecutors far into the future, not appointed by Bush or beholden to him, would be making the decisions whether to prosecute.

To ''reduce the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act,'' Gonzales recommended that Bush not apply the Geneva Conventions to al-Qaida and the Taliban. Since the War Crimes Act carried out the Geneva Conventions, Gonzales reasoned that if the Conventions didn't apply, neither did the War Crimes Act. Bush implemented the recommendation on Feb. 7, 2002.

When the Supreme Court recently decided that the Conventions did apply to al-Qaida and Taliban detainees, the possibility of criminal liability for high-level administration officials reared its ugly head again.

What to do? The administration has apparently decided to secure immunity from prosecution through legislation. Under cover of the controversy involving the military tribunals and whether they could use hearsay or coerced evidence, the administration is trying to pardon itself, hoping that no one will notice. The urgent timetable has to do more than anything with the possibility that the next Congress may be controlled by Democrats, who will not permit such a provision to be adopted.

Creating immunity retroactively for violating the law sets a terrible precedent. The president takes an oath of office to uphold the Constitution; that document requires him to obey the laws, not violate them. A president who knowingly and deliberately violates U.S. criminal laws should not be able to use stealth tactics to immunize himself from liability, and Congress should not go along."

So, you're Dick Cheney and you've got a war to start

Letter from Here: "So, you're Dick Cheney and you've got a war to start


Picture this: You're the most powerful vice president the country has ever known. In your dark, saturnine view, there are a lot of good reasons to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein, but you need a casus belli. Weapons of mass destruction should do it. You're sure they've got some stuff left over from 1991. Its just a matter of finding it.

You start to pressure the limp-wristed wimps at CIA to do their jobs and dig up the evidence you know is there. In the summer of 2001, even before 9/11, the agency's Counterproliferation Division expands one of its units and renames it the Joint Task Force on Iraq. They're tasked with finding the evidence. They have a network of covert ops operating under deep cover. But they don't find squat. It seems to you that the JTFI is ineffectual or worse. They keep debunking WMD claims. Even when hand-picked defectors provided by Ahmad Chalabi are set right in front of them, all they do is discredit them. Two years, and they're still empty-handed. Hopeless.The war goes forward, no thanks to the JTFI, but you don't forget. Those crypto-liberals at CIA need to be taught a lesson. You don't want them getting in the way next time -- in Iran, say.

You wait for the right opportunity and eventually, that summer, you arrange to have the covert director of operations of JTFI outed. The entire network has to be rolled up and sources are compromised, and the director's career is ruined. That should be a lesson those weasels in the agency will never forget!The insiders get the message. For everyone else, you cover your tracks by making it seem that the real target of your little vendetta was the director's spouse. Meanwhile, you've eliminated a lot of the dissenters who disagree with your interpretation of the intelligence. The rest should be much more docile now.If all this damage had been done by a spy, it would have been a major scandal, but hey -- you're the vice president and your friends control most of the government.

Oh, and the name of the director of operations? Valerie Plame."

Chris Floyd - Empire Burlesque - High Crimes and Low Comedy in the Bush Imperium - Aid and Comfort: The New Bush-bin Laden Alliance

Chris Floyd - Empire Burlesque - High Crimes and Low Comedy in the Bush Imperium - Aid and Comfort: The New Bush-bin Laden Alliance: "Is anyone really surprised at this? Bush has never had the slightest intention of catching Osama bin Laden. He needs bin Laden like he needs air or water. Without bin Laden, he is nothing. Without bin Laden, he wouldn't be a 'War President' wielding dictatorial powers over a cowed, confused nation. Without bin Laden -- whom Bush has now taken to quoting as an expert on world affairs -- the Potomac pipsqueak would be just another failed, one-term president named George Bush, a national joke, a trivia quiz answer, a half-forgotten goober ridiculed for a feckless reign that made Jimmy Carter look like Bismarck. Without bin Laden, Bush never would have had the chance to seal his prejudices and inadequacies in the blood of tens of thousands of innocent people. How could he ever give up bin Laden, who gave him his truest self? Bush is bin Laden, bin Laden is Bush: they gaze at each other lovingly across the smoldering ruins of cities and the festering pits of mass graves, and whisper tenderly one to the other: 'You complete me.'"

Bush Fascist Index

I wonder sometimes if the people using the word "islamoFacist" have any idea what they are doing or are they purposefully miss using the definition of Facist for effect.

Bush Fascist Index: "'Fascism: Any program for setting up a centralized authcratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition.' --Merriam-Webster Dictionary"

CIA Covert Detention Acknowledged | MetaFilter

CIA Covert Detention Acknowledged | MetaFilter: "The United States does not torture, Bush says....

That's why Bush has JUST SENT yet another bill to Congress which would legalize torture. Although the press is only talking about the bill legalizing kangaroo trials for people the U.S. has kidnapped (a trial where the defendant doesn't get to know the charges against him, see the evidence against him, or present any evidence of his own can't be called anything but a kangaroo court), the bill would also legalize the U.S.'s current practices of psychological torture. The bill redefines torture (again) to be only severe physical pain, and to not include any of the myriad other ways in which man can torture man, such as sleep deprivation, continuous light or darkness, extreme hot/cold, extreme noise, being shackled to the floor in a squatting position for 12 hours at a time, etc. etc.

George Bush is - at the same time as he says the U.S. doesn't torture - amending U.S. law to permit the above. Indeed, when he signed the last bill about torture, his signing statement said he didn't even consider the minimal torture restrictions there to be valid.
Mr Bush also said he was asking Congress to pass urgent legislation[....] He said the laws must make it explicit that US personnel were fulfilling their obligations under the Geneva Convention.
The bill George Bush just sent to Congress would modify (reduce) the U.S.'s obligations under the Genva Conventions. It specifically changes the U.S.'s treaty obligations under the Conventions. So what Bush is saying is, 'We must change the laws of the United States to fit what we are doing.'

The very public and time-coordinated announcement by the Army that they will amend their field manuals to prohibit torture is intended to confuse the issue further. The CIA will be doing most of the torturing, and they've made no such announcement.

I honestly do not know how far the United States has to fall before any significant part of the population starts to push back. I believe, unfortunately, that there is no such limit; I think the fall is actually self-reinforcing. Once the U.S. goes past a certain limit, it will be so dangerous to speak out against it (you'll disappear), that no one will and people who previously spoke against it will fall silent.

posted by jellicle at 3:25 PM
PST
on September 6 "

So, Osama walks into this bar, see? Greg Palast

So, Osama walks into this bar, see? Greg Palast:

"There are three possible explanations for the Administration's publishing a good-day-for-bombing color guidebook.
1. God is on Osama's side.
2. George is on Osama's side.
3. Fear sells better than sex.
A gold star if you picked #3.

The Fear Factory
I'm going to tell you something which is straight-up heresy: America is not under attack by terrorists. There is no WAR on terror because, except for one day five years ago, al Qaeda has pretty much left us alone.
That's because Osama got what he wanted. There is no mystery about what Al Qaeda was after. Like everyone from the Girl Scouts to Bono, Osama put his wish on his web site. He had a single demand: Crusaders out of the land of the two Holy Places.

To translate: get US troops out of Saudi Arabia.

And George Bush gave it to him. On April 29, 2003, two days before landing on the aircraft carrier Lincoln, our self-described "War President" quietly put out a notice that he was withdrawing our troops from Saudi soil. In other words, our cowering cowboy gave in whimpering to Osama's demand.

The press took no note. They were all wiggie over Bush's waddling around the carrier deck in a disco-aged jump suit announcing, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." But it wasn't America's mission that was accomplished, it was Osama's."