wow... just wow...
Last nights (monday, Oct 30th) Keith Olbermans Countdown show on MSNBC at 7pm and 10pm was terrific.
1) first segment was about how no republicans want to be seen with Bush. In fact, on a Maryland senate candidate, Michael Steele, was on "Meet the Press" on Sunday Steele said, "I am a proud republican. My orientation is the Republican party not just one individual.... If anything I am a Lincoln republican." He went on to kind of dis Bush and distance himself from the president. You can see the video of this on www.crooksandliars.com
2) The next segment was about the irrational boosterism and enthusiasm of Karl Rove. They had Wayne Slater (Dallas Morning News) on who wrote the book and movie "Bush's Brain". He explained the techniques and motivation Karl Rove has for being so publicly enthusiastic about the Republican's chance in these elections. Again, video is up on YouTube and CrooksandLiars.com The big point he made was that the machine that Karl Rove has put together is still very much in tact and will be a big influence on this election.
3) Then Keith did a segment on "Dirty Politics". In the last week he has talked a lot about the dirty ads in Tenn. and the smears on Michael J Fox and the other goofy ads this year. This segment was all about Allen Raymond, a republican political operative, who in 2002 broke a bunch of election laws in New Hampshire and spent 3 months in Jail. He admits what he did was illegal, and then admits that he ran a dirty tele marketing campaign (funded by the RNC) against the democrats that used his phone switch to make non-stop hang up phone calls to tie up democratic phone lines on and before election day 2002(basically a denial of service attack for those of us in the computer industry). He said he was contacted by the RNC and they came up with the idea. He said, "Yes, we were trying to create chaos and prevent the democratic party from operating." Because of this dirty trick, the democratic program to give people rides to the polls on election day had to be shut down and the republican candidate won by a narrow margin. He said, "lets be clear about one thing, the New Hampshire phone jamming was not a dirty trick, it was a criminal act." Raymond pled guilty to conspiracy and was convicted. He also said that what he did was only one of the dirty tricks and that most of the people that do what he does get away with it or are protected from prosecution by the RNC and Bush admin. Again, video is on YouTube and Crooksandliars.com.
4) After a very funny oddball segment he talked about the MilBloggers. He quoted from time magazine and Newsweek magazine that this week printed letters written by men who have died in the last month in Iraq. Both expressed their disillusion with the government, Defense department, Main stream media (especially fox) and who honestly question why we are in this war. Then he had an ex soldier who runs a site called www.chasingghosts.com where he reports and comments on the MilBlogs and how the Military, after allowing them to happen for 6 years is now trying to censure and stifle these dispatches from the grunts in the field. The military has created a special unit to monitor the blogs.
5) top 3 sound bites were interesting...
O'Relly on Letterman. "You want the United states to win in Iraq, Yes or No... Its easy." Dave, "its not such an easy question for me because I am thoughtful. O'Reilly, "it isnt so black and white dave... your saying we are a bad country...". Dave, "I didnt say he was an evil... your putting words in my mouth Just like your putting artificial facts in your head..." Ouch...
then a 2000 pound pumpkin with a baby on it...
6) A very nice story on Red Auerbach, legendary boston celtic coach, dead today
worst people in the world were a moron at National review who complained about Keith's use of "Mr Bush" as a name for bush even though his boss, the great Bill Buckley, has used "mr bush" to refer to george over 150 times in the last year.
that shrill moron that slandered Murtha was at it again, this time advocating storing nuke waste in her district.
and comedian Rush Limbaugh has been saying that the MSM has sped up video of him ridiculing Michael J Fox for his appeals to support stem sell research. Keith, "Hey Rush, your lies used to be slightly amusing. Please... go back on the drugs!"
7) the last segment was about the very sad break up of Sir Paul Mc Cartney's marriage and how his ex-wife (heather fields) is saying horrible things about Linda...
Overall, the best Countdown I've ever seen...
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Keith Olbermann Rocks
I have been enjoying Keith Olbermann since I discovered him last year during the Katrina disaster. I set up my 3 tivo's to download all the news during that time and the person I ended up enjoying watching the most of was Keith. Since then I have watched him at least once a week.
His videos are all over the net. You can usually get his most current things at www.crooksandliars.com. They post something of his every couple of days. He is also all over YouTube and other video sites.
Recently he has begun to do a series of commentaries that I think are some of the greatest serious political stuff I have ever seen. When they write the history of this period, I think he is going to be mentioned as one of the great journalists of this age. (Unless the Neocons win and get to re-write the history books...)
I have also enjoyed reading the blog www.olbermannwatch.com. It is run by someone named John Dollar with a serious aversion to Keith, but most of the folks that post to the site are really great and they tend to be about 75% supportive of Keith's point of view. The other 25% of the people that post there are compleatly inarticulate so you get a range of flames from them and they are easy to ignore.
WinterBear says check it out!
His videos are all over the net. You can usually get his most current things at www.crooksandliars.com. They post something of his every couple of days. He is also all over YouTube and other video sites.
Recently he has begun to do a series of commentaries that I think are some of the greatest serious political stuff I have ever seen. When they write the history of this period, I think he is going to be mentioned as one of the great journalists of this age. (Unless the Neocons win and get to re-write the history books...)
I have also enjoyed reading the blog www.olbermannwatch.com. It is run by someone named John Dollar with a serious aversion to Keith, but most of the folks that post to the site are really great and they tend to be about 75% supportive of Keith's point of view. The other 25% of the people that post there are compleatly inarticulate so you get a range of flames from them and they are easy to ignore.
WinterBear says check it out!
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
great business model
post by by misanthrope101 on slashdot.com
great business model - by misanthrope101 (Score: 5, Insightful) Thread
Since the government doesn’t need warrants/probable cause/oversight anymore, it would be easy to set up a business to sell “confiscated” laptops second-hand. With no oversight, there is no need for record-keeping, no way to see if someone is abusing their power, etc. Just yell “You hate America!” at anyone who questions how you bought your new house. It’s worked so far. The only people who believe in old-fashioned due process are apparently terrorist appeasers, if you believe the dominant Republicans and Fox News. Can anyone think of an argument FOR government oversight, warrants, and due process that would be considered persuasive in the current political environment? We seem to have given up altogether on the idea that government is dangerous to freedom.
What happened to all the “conservatives”? Am I the only conservative who actually believes in limited government? That may be the most tangible benefit of a Democratic victory in an (any) election—the conservatives would be (ostensibly, if dishonestly) anti-government again. Right now we’re stuck with the dichotomy that government-funded healthcare is creeping totalitarianism, but government torture is innocuous. Strange world we live in.
great business model - by misanthrope101 (Score: 5, Insightful) Thread
Since the government doesn’t need warrants/probable cause/oversight anymore, it would be easy to set up a business to sell “confiscated” laptops second-hand. With no oversight, there is no need for record-keeping, no way to see if someone is abusing their power, etc. Just yell “You hate America!” at anyone who questions how you bought your new house. It’s worked so far. The only people who believe in old-fashioned due process are apparently terrorist appeasers, if you believe the dominant Republicans and Fox News. Can anyone think of an argument FOR government oversight, warrants, and due process that would be considered persuasive in the current political environment? We seem to have given up altogether on the idea that government is dangerous to freedom.
What happened to all the “conservatives”? Am I the only conservative who actually believes in limited government? That may be the most tangible benefit of a Democratic victory in an (any) election—the conservatives would be (ostensibly, if dishonestly) anti-government again. Right now we’re stuck with the dichotomy that government-funded healthcare is creeping totalitarianism, but government torture is innocuous. Strange world we live in.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Thomas Paine on defending the rights of your enemy.
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression: for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that
will reach unto himself. -- Thomas Paine
oppression: for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that
will reach unto himself. -- Thomas Paine
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Why does the right still need to hate Clinton.
Why does the right wing still need to blame everything on Clinton?
They have been a complete monopoly of power for over 5 years now. We are living in a world of their making, under their polocies, and of their choosing. So why aren't they happy? Why are they angrier than ever?
Its because radicals can only survive when fear replaces reason. So they need enemies, real or imagined. Being an idealogue robs you of your critical thinking. They have to remain angry in order to continue to hold the radical ideas which they hold so dear.
They have been a complete monopoly of power for over 5 years now. We are living in a world of their making, under their polocies, and of their choosing. So why aren't they happy? Why are they angrier than ever?
Its because radicals can only survive when fear replaces reason. So they need enemies, real or imagined. Being an idealogue robs you of your critical thinking. They have to remain angry in order to continue to hold the radical ideas which they hold so dear.
its a mistake to call it a war
All Quiet on the Terror Front | MetaFilter: "Quite frankly, it was a mistake from day one to call this a War on Terror, and that terminology has driven us into some places we should not have gone [Iraq, domestic spying, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo]. The attack on 9-11 was an enormous crime, but not an act of war, and the terrorists are criminals, not soldiers. Soldiers deserve respect, but criminals deserve to be hunted down and punished. That hunt, from now on, will be an internationally coordinated police action carried out within the bounds of national constitutions and international law. The terrorists should make no mistake -- this does not change our intent to resist terrorism everywhere and to bring those responsible for it to justice. But it will be done, from now on, by making it clear that terrorists deserve the relentless persecution that criminals deserve, no not the respect and admiration soldiers get. I invite the nations of the world to join the United States in the International Major Police Action against Terrorism -- IMPACT."
Thursday, September 28, 2006
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."
"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.'"
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.
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
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
Monday, September 25, 2006
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.)
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.)
Sunday, September 24, 2006
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."
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."
Friday, September 22, 2006
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."
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."
Friday, September 08, 2006
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"
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"
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
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 "
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 "
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
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."
"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."
Thursday, August 17, 2006
The Bush legacy
He also as at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine. His Texas driving record has been erased and is no longer available to the public. Gee, I wonder why.
He went AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during time of REAL war.
He steadfastly refuses to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use, which are of concern to an American public who must depend on the mental and physical well-being of their president.
All records of his tenure as governor of Texas have been sealed in his father's library, unavailable for public view.
All records of any SEC investigations into his insider trading or bankrupt companies have been sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which he served on the board have been sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
Any records or minutes from meetings he attended regarding public energy policy have been sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
That's before he became President. Since then, he's spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury, shattering the record for the biggest annual deficit in history
He's presided over the biggest drop in the history of the stock market. In his first two years in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs. He cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history. He set the all-time record for most real estate foreclosures in a 12-month period. He's the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously struggle against bankruptcy.
He's the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record. He has appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history. He changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts. But he's also the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
He's set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history. While on a month long vacation, he presided over the worst security failure in US history.
He's presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
He's cut health care benefits for war veterans.
He set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president in US history.
He's set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president, since the advent of TV.
He's signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other US president in history, while dissolving more international treaties than any president in US history.
15 million people simultaneously took to the streets to protest against him, shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
His presidency has been the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history, even that of Nixon, the King of Paranoia.
His cabinet members are the richest of any administration in US history.
He's presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.
He set the all-time record for the biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any other president in US history.
He's the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community.
He's created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history
of the United States, the Bureau of Homeland Security
He is the first president in US history to compel the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission. He has withdrawn the US from the World Court of Law.
He's the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board. He is the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections. Yet he has spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
He has removed more checks and balances, and has had the least amount of Congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
He refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default
no longer abides by the Geneva Conventions.
He is the all-time US and world record holder for most corporate campaign donations. The biggest lifetime contributor to his campaign presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history, the late Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
He set all-time record for the number of administration appointees who
violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations
bidding for gov't contracts.
He has removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history. In a little over two years.
He is the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view his presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability, not Islamic terrorists.
He went AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during time of REAL war.
He steadfastly refuses to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use, which are of concern to an American public who must depend on the mental and physical well-being of their president.
All records of his tenure as governor of Texas have been sealed in his father's library, unavailable for public view.
All records of any SEC investigations into his insider trading or bankrupt companies have been sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which he served on the board have been sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
Any records or minutes from meetings he attended regarding public energy policy have been sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
That's before he became President. Since then, he's spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury, shattering the record for the biggest annual deficit in history
He's presided over the biggest drop in the history of the stock market. In his first two years in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs. He cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history. He set the all-time record for most real estate foreclosures in a 12-month period. He's the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously struggle against bankruptcy.
He's the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record. He has appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history. He changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts. But he's also the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
He's set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history. While on a month long vacation, he presided over the worst security failure in US history.
He's presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
He's cut health care benefits for war veterans.
He set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president in US history.
He's set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president, since the advent of TV.
He's signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other US president in history, while dissolving more international treaties than any president in US history.
15 million people simultaneously took to the streets to protest against him, shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
His presidency has been the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history, even that of Nixon, the King of Paranoia.
His cabinet members are the richest of any administration in US history.
He's presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.
He set the all-time record for the biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any other president in US history.
He's the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community.
He's created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history
of the United States, the Bureau of Homeland Security
He is the first president in US history to compel the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission. He has withdrawn the US from the World Court of Law.
He's the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board. He is the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections. Yet he has spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
He has removed more checks and balances, and has had the least amount of Congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
He refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default
no longer abides by the Geneva Conventions.
He is the all-time US and world record holder for most corporate campaign donations. The biggest lifetime contributor to his campaign presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history, the late Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
He set all-time record for the number of administration appointees who
violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations
bidding for gov't contracts.
He has removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history. In a little over two years.
He is the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view his presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability, not Islamic terrorists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)