Fortunately, there are still a few real journalists around. One of them, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, is one of my personal heroes. He broke the story of the My Lai massacre and, more recently, the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib.
Now, according to a press release from The New Yorker, their April 17 issue will include a report by Hersh on the Bush administration's real plans for Iraq.
An excerpt:
-----
"The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack," Seymour M. Hersh reports in the April 17, 2006, issue of The New Yorker ("The Iran Plans," p. 30). Moreover, he writes, "There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change." One former senior intelligence official tells Hersh that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a potential Adolf Hitler. "That’s the name they'e using," he says. A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror says, "This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war." The danger, he adds, is that "it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability." The former senior intelligence official, referring to activity at three U.S. military facilities, says, "The planning is enormous." He depicts it as hectic and operational—far beyond the contingency work that is routinely done. One former defense official tells Hersh that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government." He adds, "I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, What are they smoking?'" A government consultant with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon confirms that undercover units are working with minority groups in Iran, and that while one goal is to have "eyes on the ground," the broader aim is to "encourage ethnic tensions" and undermine the regime.
Hersh reports, "In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat." A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, tells Hersh that the Administration is "reluctant to brief the minority." He adds, "The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq.... There’s no pressure from Congress" not to take military action. "The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it." Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, "The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision."
-----
[Read more.]
My April 10 issue arrived just a few days ago, so it appears that I'll have to wait a few more days to read it. For those of you who don't subscribe, please go out to your local newsstand next weekend and pick up a copy of the April 17 issue. Support The New Yorker and Seymour Hersh.
09 April 2006
Gonzales hints at broadened domestic spying programs
Despite mass criticism by government officials, the American people, and the world, dictator wannabe George W. Bush apparently has no intention of ignoring the Constitution and doing whatever he wants.
As if his domestic spyfest isn't enough, Attorney General Albert Gonzales now gleefully suggests that they might expand that activity (or may have already done so).
From the Washington Post via the Houston Chronicle:
-----
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Thursday left open the possibility that President Bush could order warrantless wiretaps on telephone calls occurring solely within the United States.
Such action would dramatically expand the potential reach of the National Security Agency's controversial surveillance program.
In response to a question from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., before the House Judiciary Committee, Gonzales said the government would have to determine if a conversation was related to al-Qaida and crucial to fighting terrorism before deciding whether to listen in without court supervision.
"I'm not going to rule it out," Gonzales said of the possibility of monitoring purely domestic communications.
The comments mark a dramatic departure from previous statements by Gonzales, President Bush and others within the Bush administration, who have repeatedly stressed that an NSA eavesdropping program ordered after the Sept. 11 attacks was focused only on international communications.
-----
[Read more.]
So, just because he wants to, Bush can ignore the law and can tap our phones any old time. And then, if he wants to, he can detain us indefinitely withouth charge and without due process, and torture us.
God bless America.
For more good commentary on this issue, click here to read a good piece by James Bovard titled Bush's Bogus Theory of Absolute Power.
As if his domestic spyfest isn't enough, Attorney General Albert Gonzales now gleefully suggests that they might expand that activity (or may have already done so).
From the Washington Post via the Houston Chronicle:
-----
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Thursday left open the possibility that President Bush could order warrantless wiretaps on telephone calls occurring solely within the United States.
Such action would dramatically expand the potential reach of the National Security Agency's controversial surveillance program.
In response to a question from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., before the House Judiciary Committee, Gonzales said the government would have to determine if a conversation was related to al-Qaida and crucial to fighting terrorism before deciding whether to listen in without court supervision.
"I'm not going to rule it out," Gonzales said of the possibility of monitoring purely domestic communications.
The comments mark a dramatic departure from previous statements by Gonzales, President Bush and others within the Bush administration, who have repeatedly stressed that an NSA eavesdropping program ordered after the Sept. 11 attacks was focused only on international communications.
-----
[Read more.]
So, just because he wants to, Bush can ignore the law and can tap our phones any old time. And then, if he wants to, he can detain us indefinitely withouth charge and without due process, and torture us.
God bless America.
For more good commentary on this issue, click here to read a good piece by James Bovard titled Bush's Bogus Theory of Absolute Power.
08 April 2006
Mark Fiore: Migraphobia
With his trademark wit and creativity, political cartoonist Mark Fiore pretty well sums up the immigration issue in his latest animation.
[Check it out.]
[Check it out.]
07 April 2006
Richard Cohen: Let Moussaoui live
In a piece about the Moussaoui case in yesterday's Washington Post Richard Cohen reflects my own views on the death penalty, better than I could ever express them myself.
An excerpt, via RealClearPolitics.com:
-----
The way things are going, the United States government will succeed where Zacarias Moussaoui could not. This convicted terrorist, this whack job with a suicidal bent, will almost certainly be put to death -- which is one more death than he was able to manage on his own. In the end, Moussaoui may turn out to be a suicide bomber on a four-year fuse.
Moussaoui's fate is of no concern to me. He is a very bad man, complicit in an evil plot for which he claims a central, though probably exaggerated, role. Whatever the case, he certainly set out to kill innocent Americans and whether he actually did so or not seems beside the point. He was in a position to abort the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and he did nothing to stop them. For that, he may die. So be it.
Nonetheless, while the American sense of justice might be satisfied, that is not how many other people will see it. Instead, they might marvel at how much effort had gone into the killing of a single man. They will note his trial and the lengthy part of it devoted to determining if he is worthy of the death penalty and then whether or not he will get it. The process is almost a parody of justice -- a laborious procedure to carry out what most of us recognize is nothing more than revenge. Call it justice if you will, we all know what it really is.
That, of course, is probably Moussaoui's take on it as well. He seems determined to become a martyr...
[...]
If I had my way, I would deny Moussaoui his opportunity. I would do so not just because it is pretty clear the man is crazy and, on account of that, he played a marginal role at best in the 9/11 plot, but because I would not complete the plot for him. I would not grant him what he wanted from the day he stepped foot in America -- his own death. If, in his case, the punishment is to fit the crime, then he would suffer most by spending the rest of his life behind bars. When he dies of old age, he will have been forgotten. In no place will people gather to mark his death. That will not happen if he is executed.
Of course, I would not seek his death in any case. I am opposed to capital punishment -- not for Moussaoui's sake or for another guy's, but for our own. The taking of life is something we should not permit government to do. In the first place, life is inviolate. Second, governments have abused this power in the past and will do so in the future. It is no accident that Europe bans the death penalty. Under Hitler, Stalin and others, Europeans learned what government can do.
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt, via RealClearPolitics.com:
-----
The way things are going, the United States government will succeed where Zacarias Moussaoui could not. This convicted terrorist, this whack job with a suicidal bent, will almost certainly be put to death -- which is one more death than he was able to manage on his own. In the end, Moussaoui may turn out to be a suicide bomber on a four-year fuse.
Moussaoui's fate is of no concern to me. He is a very bad man, complicit in an evil plot for which he claims a central, though probably exaggerated, role. Whatever the case, he certainly set out to kill innocent Americans and whether he actually did so or not seems beside the point. He was in a position to abort the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and he did nothing to stop them. For that, he may die. So be it.
Nonetheless, while the American sense of justice might be satisfied, that is not how many other people will see it. Instead, they might marvel at how much effort had gone into the killing of a single man. They will note his trial and the lengthy part of it devoted to determining if he is worthy of the death penalty and then whether or not he will get it. The process is almost a parody of justice -- a laborious procedure to carry out what most of us recognize is nothing more than revenge. Call it justice if you will, we all know what it really is.
That, of course, is probably Moussaoui's take on it as well. He seems determined to become a martyr...
[...]
If I had my way, I would deny Moussaoui his opportunity. I would do so not just because it is pretty clear the man is crazy and, on account of that, he played a marginal role at best in the 9/11 plot, but because I would not complete the plot for him. I would not grant him what he wanted from the day he stepped foot in America -- his own death. If, in his case, the punishment is to fit the crime, then he would suffer most by spending the rest of his life behind bars. When he dies of old age, he will have been forgotten. In no place will people gather to mark his death. That will not happen if he is executed.
Of course, I would not seek his death in any case. I am opposed to capital punishment -- not for Moussaoui's sake or for another guy's, but for our own. The taking of life is something we should not permit government to do. In the first place, life is inviolate. Second, governments have abused this power in the past and will do so in the future. It is no accident that Europe bans the death penalty. Under Hitler, Stalin and others, Europeans learned what government can do.
-----
[Read more.]
06 April 2006
Don't worry, the perverts are protecting us
By now, if you haven't been living under a rock, you've heard about the Department of Homeland Security employee who was arrested on Tuesday for trying to seduce what he thought was a 14-year-old teenage girl online (but was really a detective).
Well, it gets worse. It's starting to look like the DHS is a breeding ground for pedophiles.
It turns out that a second DHS guy had been busted last October for exposing himself to a teenage girl in a mall -- but this guy had actually been the head of the DHS's Operation Predator, which is the agency's program to bust sexual predators. [Read more.]
I guess it takes one to know one.
These are the people in charge of protecting us -- and our children.
Well, it gets worse. It's starting to look like the DHS is a breeding ground for pedophiles.
It turns out that a second DHS guy had been busted last October for exposing himself to a teenage girl in a mall -- but this guy had actually been the head of the DHS's Operation Predator, which is the agency's program to bust sexual predators. [Read more.]
I guess it takes one to know one.
These are the people in charge of protecting us -- and our children.
05 April 2006
New Amnesty report on renditions
Today, Amnesty International has released a new report on the U.S. government's program of rendering "terror suspects" to other countries to be tortured.
From an Amnesty press release:
-----
In a new report published today, "USA - Below the radar: Secret flights to torture and 'disappearance'", Amnesty International gives comprehensive information concerning rendition flights and describes the conditions under which victims were held.
The human rights organisation has analysed the movements of airplanes directly linked to the CIA between 2001 and 2005, specifically, the aircraft that transported well known rendition victims such as Khaled el-Masri, Maher Arar and Abu Omar. The analysis shows that these airplanes often used European airspace, although it does not prove that they were always transporting prisoners.
Amnesty International has interviewed several victims of rendition. Their testimonies were coherent and plausible when checked against factual data such as flight information. Also consistent was the description, by every single one, of incidents of torture and other ill-treatment.
-----
[Read more.]
[Read the actual report.]
From an Amnesty press release:
-----
In a new report published today, "USA - Below the radar: Secret flights to torture and 'disappearance'", Amnesty International gives comprehensive information concerning rendition flights and describes the conditions under which victims were held.
The human rights organisation has analysed the movements of airplanes directly linked to the CIA between 2001 and 2005, specifically, the aircraft that transported well known rendition victims such as Khaled el-Masri, Maher Arar and Abu Omar. The analysis shows that these airplanes often used European airspace, although it does not prove that they were always transporting prisoners.
Amnesty International has interviewed several victims of rendition. Their testimonies were coherent and plausible when checked against factual data such as flight information. Also consistent was the description, by every single one, of incidents of torture and other ill-treatment.
-----
[Read more.]
[Read the actual report.]
Abramoff offered to aid Sudan
How low can a lobbyist go? Pretty low, when you're talking about Jack Abramoff.
Recent news reports suggest that he tried to arrange to accept money from the Sudanese government (which is responsible for a horrific genocide that is still taking place in the Darfur region of Sudan) in exchange for some pro-Sudan PR.
From yesterday's Los Angeles Times:
-----
Two eyewitnesses say that former lobbyist Jack Abramoff proposed to sell his services to the much-criticized government of Sudan to help improve its abysmal reputation in the United States, especially among Christian evangelicals who were campaigning against human rights violations in the troubled African nation.
Khidir Haroun Ahmed, Sudan's ambassador to the United States, said in an interview that Abramoff proposed a multimillion-dollar lobbying contract in late 2001 but that the proposal was "never seriously considered" by the Sudanese. He declined to elaborate.
The story Ahmed and a former Abramoff associate tell about the solicitation of Sudan, which the U.S. had sanctioned for its record on terrorism and rights violations, is a striking example of the kind of aggressive machinations of Abramoff as spelled out in the criminal cases against him. The super-lobbyist made tens of millions of dollars representing - and sometimes defrauding - corporations, foreign clients and American Indian gambling interests.
A spokesman for Abramoff, Andrew Blum, confirmed that a conversation took place between Abramoff and the ambassador but said Abramoff never sought a contract and rejected working for the Sudanese because of that country's human rights record.
The ambassador and the former associate of Abramoff dispute Blum's account. The former associate said the ex-lobbyist discussed the possible contract while sitting with the ambassador in Abramoff's skybox at Washington's Fed-Ex field during a Redskin football game in late 2001.
The former associate, who did not want to be named out of fear it might damage future business opportunities, said that Abramoff proposed a $16- to $18-million contract - "a staggering sum" for the destitute nation - but one that the lobbyist considered reasonable because international disapproval was so costly to Sudan's economy.
-----
[Read more.]
So there you have it: For enough money, Jack Abramoff will merrily promote the perpetrators of unthinkable human rights abuses.
How can he sleep at night?
Recent news reports suggest that he tried to arrange to accept money from the Sudanese government (which is responsible for a horrific genocide that is still taking place in the Darfur region of Sudan) in exchange for some pro-Sudan PR.
From yesterday's Los Angeles Times:
-----
Two eyewitnesses say that former lobbyist Jack Abramoff proposed to sell his services to the much-criticized government of Sudan to help improve its abysmal reputation in the United States, especially among Christian evangelicals who were campaigning against human rights violations in the troubled African nation.
Khidir Haroun Ahmed, Sudan's ambassador to the United States, said in an interview that Abramoff proposed a multimillion-dollar lobbying contract in late 2001 but that the proposal was "never seriously considered" by the Sudanese. He declined to elaborate.
The story Ahmed and a former Abramoff associate tell about the solicitation of Sudan, which the U.S. had sanctioned for its record on terrorism and rights violations, is a striking example of the kind of aggressive machinations of Abramoff as spelled out in the criminal cases against him. The super-lobbyist made tens of millions of dollars representing - and sometimes defrauding - corporations, foreign clients and American Indian gambling interests.
A spokesman for Abramoff, Andrew Blum, confirmed that a conversation took place between Abramoff and the ambassador but said Abramoff never sought a contract and rejected working for the Sudanese because of that country's human rights record.
The ambassador and the former associate of Abramoff dispute Blum's account. The former associate said the ex-lobbyist discussed the possible contract while sitting with the ambassador in Abramoff's skybox at Washington's Fed-Ex field during a Redskin football game in late 2001.
The former associate, who did not want to be named out of fear it might damage future business opportunities, said that Abramoff proposed a $16- to $18-million contract - "a staggering sum" for the destitute nation - but one that the lobbyist considered reasonable because international disapproval was so costly to Sudan's economy.
-----
[Read more.]
So there you have it: For enough money, Jack Abramoff will merrily promote the perpetrators of unthinkable human rights abuses.
How can he sleep at night?
Everyone must see this: "Falluja - The Hidden Massacre"
I recently attended a screening of the documentary film Falluja - The Hidden Massacre.
Produced by an Italian filmmaker, and containing interviews with former U.S. marines and others, it exposes the truth about the U.S. military's use of white phosphorus in Falluja (which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and international human rights law).
The effect on civilians was, of course, devastating. (White phosphorus essentially melts the skin and organs, and it doesn't care whether you're a soldier or a civilian, or whether you're a man, a woman, or a little kid.)
The film contains some horrific footage. But everyone needs to see it. Hiding from the truth doesn't make it go away.
[Download the video (free)]
Produced by an Italian filmmaker, and containing interviews with former U.S. marines and others, it exposes the truth about the U.S. military's use of white phosphorus in Falluja (which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and international human rights law).
The effect on civilians was, of course, devastating. (White phosphorus essentially melts the skin and organs, and it doesn't care whether you're a soldier or a civilian, or whether you're a man, a woman, or a little kid.)
The film contains some horrific footage. But everyone needs to see it. Hiding from the truth doesn't make it go away.
[Download the video (free)]
Dahr Jamail: How massacres become the norm
In an article published yesterday at truthout.org, journalist Dahr Jamail, who has spent a lot of time in Iraq, explores the psychology of war crimes, some of the "atrocity-producing situations" in which these crimes have occurred in Iraq, and how the U.S. military lies to try to cover up these crimes. Very disturbing.
An excerpt:
-----
US soldiers killing innocent civilians in Iraq is not news. Just as it was not news that US soldiers slaughtered countless innocent civilians in Vietnam. However, when some rare reportage of this non news from Iraq does seep through the cracks of the corporate media, albeit briefly, the American public seems shocked. Private and public statements of denial and dismissal immediately start to fill the air. We hear, "American soldiers would never do such a thing," or "Who would make such a ridiculous claim?"
It amazes me that so many people in the US today somehow seriously believe that American soldiers would never kill civilians. Despite the fact that they are in a no-win guerrilla war in Iraq which, like any other guerrilla war, always generates more civilian casualties than combatant casualties on either side.
Robert J. Lifton is a prominent American psychiatrist who lobbied for the inclusion of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders after his work with US veterans from Vietnam. His studies on the behavior of those who have committed war crimes led him to believe it does not require an unusual level of mental illness or of personal evil to carry out such crimes. Rather, these crimes are nearly guaranteed to occur in what Lifton refers to as "atrocity-producing situations."
Several of his books, like The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide, examine how abnormal conditions work on normal minds, enabling them to commit the most horrendous crimes imaginable.
Iraq today is most certainly an "atrocity-producing situation," as it has been from the very beginning of the occupation.
The latest reported war crime, a US military raid on the al-Mustafa Shia mosque in Baghdad on March 26th, which killed at least 16 people, is only one instance of the phenomena that Lifton has spoken of.
An AP video of the scene shows male bodies tangled together in a bloody mass on the floor of the Imams' living quarters - all of them with shotgun wounds and other bullet holes. The tape also shows shell casings of the caliber used by the US military scattered about on the floor. An official from the al-Sadr political bloc reported that American forces had surrounded the hospital where the wounded were taken for treatment after the massacre.
The slaughter was followed by an instant and predictable disinformation blitz by the US military. The second ranking US commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, told reporters "someone went in and made the scene look different from what it was."
On March 15th, 11 Iraqis, mostly women and children, were massacred by US troops in Balad. Witnesses told reporters that US helicopters landed near a home, which was then stormed by US troops. Everyone visible was rounded up and taken inside the house where they were killed. The victims' ages ranged from six months to 75 years.
The US military acknowledged the raid, but claimed to have captured a resistance fighter and insisted that only four people had been killed. Their claim would have held good but for the discrepancies that the available evidence presents. For one, the photographs that the AP reporter took of the scene reveal a collapsed roof, three destroyed cars and two dead cows. The other indictment comes from the detailed report of the incident prepared by Iraq Police. It matches witness accounts and accuses the American troops of murdering Iraqi civilians.
"The American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 persons, including five children, four women and two men. Then they bombed the house, burned three vehicles and killed the animals." The report includes the observation of local medics that all of the bodies had bullet wounds in the head.
Ahmed Khalaf, the nephew of one of the victims said, "The killed family was not part of the resistance, they were women and children. The Americans have promised us a better life, but we get only death." AP photos of the aftermath showed the bodies of five children, two men and four others covered in blankets being driven to a nearby hospital.
Reminiscent of Vietnam?
Another appalling example of the effect of an "atrocity-producing situation" was experienced last November 19th in Haditha. American troops, in retaliation against a roadside bomb attack, stormed nearby homes and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a three-year-old girl.
US military response? All 15 civilians were killed by the blast of the roadside bomb.
In this case, reality refuted their claim when a student of journalism from Haditha showed up with a video tape of the dead, still in their nightclothes.
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt:
-----
US soldiers killing innocent civilians in Iraq is not news. Just as it was not news that US soldiers slaughtered countless innocent civilians in Vietnam. However, when some rare reportage of this non news from Iraq does seep through the cracks of the corporate media, albeit briefly, the American public seems shocked. Private and public statements of denial and dismissal immediately start to fill the air. We hear, "American soldiers would never do such a thing," or "Who would make such a ridiculous claim?"
It amazes me that so many people in the US today somehow seriously believe that American soldiers would never kill civilians. Despite the fact that they are in a no-win guerrilla war in Iraq which, like any other guerrilla war, always generates more civilian casualties than combatant casualties on either side.
Robert J. Lifton is a prominent American psychiatrist who lobbied for the inclusion of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders after his work with US veterans from Vietnam. His studies on the behavior of those who have committed war crimes led him to believe it does not require an unusual level of mental illness or of personal evil to carry out such crimes. Rather, these crimes are nearly guaranteed to occur in what Lifton refers to as "atrocity-producing situations."
Several of his books, like The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide, examine how abnormal conditions work on normal minds, enabling them to commit the most horrendous crimes imaginable.
Iraq today is most certainly an "atrocity-producing situation," as it has been from the very beginning of the occupation.
The latest reported war crime, a US military raid on the al-Mustafa Shia mosque in Baghdad on March 26th, which killed at least 16 people, is only one instance of the phenomena that Lifton has spoken of.
An AP video of the scene shows male bodies tangled together in a bloody mass on the floor of the Imams' living quarters - all of them with shotgun wounds and other bullet holes. The tape also shows shell casings of the caliber used by the US military scattered about on the floor. An official from the al-Sadr political bloc reported that American forces had surrounded the hospital where the wounded were taken for treatment after the massacre.
The slaughter was followed by an instant and predictable disinformation blitz by the US military. The second ranking US commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, told reporters "someone went in and made the scene look different from what it was."
On March 15th, 11 Iraqis, mostly women and children, were massacred by US troops in Balad. Witnesses told reporters that US helicopters landed near a home, which was then stormed by US troops. Everyone visible was rounded up and taken inside the house where they were killed. The victims' ages ranged from six months to 75 years.
The US military acknowledged the raid, but claimed to have captured a resistance fighter and insisted that only four people had been killed. Their claim would have held good but for the discrepancies that the available evidence presents. For one, the photographs that the AP reporter took of the scene reveal a collapsed roof, three destroyed cars and two dead cows. The other indictment comes from the detailed report of the incident prepared by Iraq Police. It matches witness accounts and accuses the American troops of murdering Iraqi civilians.
"The American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 persons, including five children, four women and two men. Then they bombed the house, burned three vehicles and killed the animals." The report includes the observation of local medics that all of the bodies had bullet wounds in the head.
Ahmed Khalaf, the nephew of one of the victims said, "The killed family was not part of the resistance, they were women and children. The Americans have promised us a better life, but we get only death." AP photos of the aftermath showed the bodies of five children, two men and four others covered in blankets being driven to a nearby hospital.
Reminiscent of Vietnam?
Another appalling example of the effect of an "atrocity-producing situation" was experienced last November 19th in Haditha. American troops, in retaliation against a roadside bomb attack, stormed nearby homes and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a three-year-old girl.
US military response? All 15 civilians were killed by the blast of the roadside bomb.
In this case, reality refuted their claim when a student of journalism from Haditha showed up with a video tape of the dead, still in their nightclothes.
-----
[Read more.]
04 April 2006
More fun with Jose Padilla, Sammy Alito, and the shrinking Constitution
The Alliance for Justice has weighed in on the Supreme Court's refusal yesterday to hear Jose Padilla's case.
An excerpt:
-----
Yesterday, long-detained U.S. citizen and alleged "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla fell one vote short of persuading the Supreme Court to hear his challenge to the Bush administration’s effort to hold him indefinitely without court review. Padilla needed four votes to have his case heard and mustered only three – from Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer. But three other justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, appeared ready to rebuff the Bush administration's thumbing its nose at the concept of judicial review. And one other justice, Antonin Scalia, already has said that indefinitely detaining American citizens, even in the war on terror, is unconstitutional. That probably leaves only two justices – Justices Thomas and Alito – potentially poised to back the administration’s rather breathtaking assertion that our system of checks and balances isn’t really so checked and balanced after all.
We already know Justice Thomas' view from a 2004 case, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, an 8-1 decision where he issued the lone dissent. A true believer in the radical theory that the president basically can do whatever he wants, without judicial oversight, simply by saying it somehow implicates his commander-in-chief powers, Justice Thomas is the Bush administration's best friend. And the Constitution's worst. Justice Alito's silence in Padilla ominously – but not conclusively – suggests he may follow suit if given the chance. Were he to do so, all of the fears, expressed during recently-concluded confirmation hearings, about Justice Alito being excessively deferential to presidential authority, would quickly be realized.
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt:
-----
Yesterday, long-detained U.S. citizen and alleged "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla fell one vote short of persuading the Supreme Court to hear his challenge to the Bush administration’s effort to hold him indefinitely without court review. Padilla needed four votes to have his case heard and mustered only three – from Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer. But three other justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, appeared ready to rebuff the Bush administration's thumbing its nose at the concept of judicial review. And one other justice, Antonin Scalia, already has said that indefinitely detaining American citizens, even in the war on terror, is unconstitutional. That probably leaves only two justices – Justices Thomas and Alito – potentially poised to back the administration’s rather breathtaking assertion that our system of checks and balances isn’t really so checked and balanced after all.
We already know Justice Thomas' view from a 2004 case, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, an 8-1 decision where he issued the lone dissent. A true believer in the radical theory that the president basically can do whatever he wants, without judicial oversight, simply by saying it somehow implicates his commander-in-chief powers, Justice Thomas is the Bush administration's best friend. And the Constitution's worst. Justice Alito's silence in Padilla ominously – but not conclusively – suggests he may follow suit if given the chance. Were he to do so, all of the fears, expressed during recently-concluded confirmation hearings, about Justice Alito being excessively deferential to presidential authority, would quickly be realized.
-----
[Read more.]
Bush team wins on power to detain, for now
Yesterday, the Supreme Court declined to review the Jose Padilla case. So, at least in this case for now, Bush retains the power to detain American citizens indefinitely, without legal recourse, innocent or not, just because he wants to.
Today's Christian Science Monitor contains an interesting article about the case.
An excerpt:
-----
The US Supreme Court has handed the White House a temporary victory in a legal battle over the war on terror by declining to take up the appeal of suspected Al Qaeda operative Jose Padilla.
Mr. Padilla's lawyers were waging a potential landmark appeal challenging President Bush's power to indefinitely detain American citizens arrested on US soil as enemy combatants.
Rather than argue the case on the merits, the Bush administration had undertaken an array of procedural maneuvers that appear to have been calculated to avoid Supreme Court review of the case. Many legal analysts were watching closely to see if the high court would permit the government to benefit from such tactics.
But in its Monday order, the justices made clear that while they were divided on whether to take up Padilla's case, a majority was prepared to hear the case should the administration attempt to shift him back into open-ended military custody.
The move means that the justices have left for another day consideration of one of the most controversial aspects of the Bush presidency - whether Mr. Bush has the power to order the open-ended military detention of a US citizen seized on US soil.
In addition, the order comes less than a week after the high court heard oral argument in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden. Mr. Hamdan and his lawyers are challenging the legality of the military commission process at the terrorism prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Legal analysts say the high court may have waited to hear arguments in the Hamdan case before deciding whether to take up Padilla's case.
-----
[Read more.]
Who will they come for next? Someone you know, perhaps?
Today's Christian Science Monitor contains an interesting article about the case.
An excerpt:
-----
The US Supreme Court has handed the White House a temporary victory in a legal battle over the war on terror by declining to take up the appeal of suspected Al Qaeda operative Jose Padilla.
Mr. Padilla's lawyers were waging a potential landmark appeal challenging President Bush's power to indefinitely detain American citizens arrested on US soil as enemy combatants.
Rather than argue the case on the merits, the Bush administration had undertaken an array of procedural maneuvers that appear to have been calculated to avoid Supreme Court review of the case. Many legal analysts were watching closely to see if the high court would permit the government to benefit from such tactics.
But in its Monday order, the justices made clear that while they were divided on whether to take up Padilla's case, a majority was prepared to hear the case should the administration attempt to shift him back into open-ended military custody.
The move means that the justices have left for another day consideration of one of the most controversial aspects of the Bush presidency - whether Mr. Bush has the power to order the open-ended military detention of a US citizen seized on US soil.
In addition, the order comes less than a week after the high court heard oral argument in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden. Mr. Hamdan and his lawyers are challenging the legality of the military commission process at the terrorism prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Legal analysts say the high court may have waited to hear arguments in the Hamdan case before deciding whether to take up Padilla's case.
-----
[Read more.]
Who will they come for next? Someone you know, perhaps?
Is it too late to stop global warming?
While the rest of the world has tried to take steps to curb global warming, Bush continues to say that he cares, while at the same time doing almost nothing to solve the problem. To reduce harmful emissions, after all, would be an inconvenience to his rich corporate buddies.
Our future generations will likely have a very big price to pay for Bush's greed and apathy.
From the Associated Press via Common Dreams:
-----
A man stands on a railroad track as a train rumbles closer.
"Global warming?" he says. "Some say irreversible consequences are 30 years away. Thirty years. That won't affect me."
He steps off the tracks -- just in time. But behind him is a little girl, left in front of the roaring train.
The screen goes black. A message appears: "There's still time."
It's just an ad, part of a campaign from the advocacy group Environmental Defense, which hopes to convince Americans they can do something about global warming, that there's still time.
But many scientists are not so sure that the oncoming train of global warming can be avoided. Temperatures are going to rise for decades to come because the chief gas that causes global warming lingers in the atmosphere for about a century.
"In the short term, I'm not sure that anyone can stop it," said John Walsh, director of the Center for Global Change and Arctic System Research at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks.
There are limits, experts say, to how much individuals can do. The best we can hope for is to prevent the worst -- world-altering disasters such as catastrophic climate change and a drastic rise in sea levels, say 10 leading climate scientists interviewed by The Associated Press. They pull out ominous phrases such as "point of no return."
The big disasters are thought to be just decades away. Stopping or delaying them would require bold changes by people and government.
"The big payoff is going to be for our children," said Tim Barnett, a senior scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California. "Together, if we take a concentrated action as a people, we might be able to slow it down enough to avoid these surprises."
-----
[Read more.]
Our future generations will likely have a very big price to pay for Bush's greed and apathy.
From the Associated Press via Common Dreams:
-----
A man stands on a railroad track as a train rumbles closer.
"Global warming?" he says. "Some say irreversible consequences are 30 years away. Thirty years. That won't affect me."
He steps off the tracks -- just in time. But behind him is a little girl, left in front of the roaring train.
The screen goes black. A message appears: "There's still time."
It's just an ad, part of a campaign from the advocacy group Environmental Defense, which hopes to convince Americans they can do something about global warming, that there's still time.
But many scientists are not so sure that the oncoming train of global warming can be avoided. Temperatures are going to rise for decades to come because the chief gas that causes global warming lingers in the atmosphere for about a century.
"In the short term, I'm not sure that anyone can stop it," said John Walsh, director of the Center for Global Change and Arctic System Research at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks.
There are limits, experts say, to how much individuals can do. The best we can hope for is to prevent the worst -- world-altering disasters such as catastrophic climate change and a drastic rise in sea levels, say 10 leading climate scientists interviewed by The Associated Press. They pull out ominous phrases such as "point of no return."
The big disasters are thought to be just decades away. Stopping or delaying them would require bold changes by people and government.
"The big payoff is going to be for our children," said Tim Barnett, a senior scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California. "Together, if we take a concentrated action as a people, we might be able to slow it down enough to avoid these surprises."
-----
[Read more.]
Obama strikes out at Bush's energy policy
Senator Barack Obama took Bush to task yesterday over the oil/energy issue.
Bush talks about alternative energy, but he will never put his money where his mouth is. And I mean that literally. After all, he and his best buddies are all intimately connected to the oil industry.
From The Associated Press via CBS News:
-----
Sen. Barack Obama accused the Bush administration Monday of a "stubborn refusal" to attack the causes of climate change, and said tougher fuel standards, stricter curbs on oil imports and more investment in cleaner energy are essential to avert global catastrophe.
"Saying that America is addicted to oil without following a real plan for energy independence is like admitting alcoholism and then skipping out on the 12-step program," the Illinois Democrat said. He referred to one of the principal themes of President Bush's State of the Union address Jan. 31.
"It's not enough to identify the challenge. We have to meet it," Obama said in remarks prepared for the annual luncheon of The Associated Press, held on the opening day of the Newspaper Association of America's convention.
-----
[Read more.]
Bush talks about alternative energy, but he will never put his money where his mouth is. And I mean that literally. After all, he and his best buddies are all intimately connected to the oil industry.
From The Associated Press via CBS News:
-----
Sen. Barack Obama accused the Bush administration Monday of a "stubborn refusal" to attack the causes of climate change, and said tougher fuel standards, stricter curbs on oil imports and more investment in cleaner energy are essential to avert global catastrophe.
"Saying that America is addicted to oil without following a real plan for energy independence is like admitting alcoholism and then skipping out on the 12-step program," the Illinois Democrat said. He referred to one of the principal themes of President Bush's State of the Union address Jan. 31.
"It's not enough to identify the challenge. We have to meet it," Obama said in remarks prepared for the annual luncheon of The Associated Press, held on the opening day of the Newspaper Association of America's convention.
-----
[Read more.]
03 April 2006
The Dems really do have a good plan for America
The right-wing pundits keep telling us that the Democrats have no real plan for national security. They tell us that the Democrats have no real message other than "we're not Republicans."
Now we have proof to the contrary: The new publication "Real Security: The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore our Leadership in the World".
Everyone should read it and compare it to what the Republicans have been doing to keep us "safe".
An excerpt:
-----
The first responsibility of our government is the security of every American. In this era of unprecedented and unpredictable challenge, we must be prepared for any threat.
The men and women of America's armed forces and those on the front lines here at home have met every challenge with skill, bravery, and selfless dedication. They, along with veterans, military retirees and the families of those who have given their lives or have been wounded in defense of our country, deserve the gratitude and support of the American people. We will always honor their service and fulfill our promises to them. We believe America is best protected, and freedom best advanced, by national security policies -- including homeland, energy, and diplomatic strategies -- that are both tough and smart.
Democrats off er a plan for Real Security to rebuild our military; equip and train our first responders and others on the front lines here at home; provide needed benefits to our troops and veterans; fully man and equip our National Guard; promote alternative fuels and reduce dependence on foreign oil; and restore Americans' confidence in their government's ability to respond in the face of a terrorist attack or natural disaster.
To protect the American people, we will immediately implement the recommendations of the independent bipartisan 9/11 Commission and finally protect our ports and airports, our borders, mass transit systems, our chemical and nuclear power plants, and our food and water supplies from terrorist
attack.
After September 11, all Americans trusted President Bush to take the steps necessary to keep our country safe. Since then, inadequate planning and incompetent policies have failed to make Americans as safe as we should be. The tragedy of Hurricane Katrina showed that the federal government was still not prepared to respond.
Under President Bush and the Republican majority in Congress, the war in Iraq began with manipulated intelligence and no plan for success; our ports and other critical infrastructure remain vulnerable, while both soldiers in the
field and first responders at home lack the basic equipment and resources they were promised. Both in the Persian Gulf and our own Gulf Coast, lucrative no-bid contracts have gone to companies such as Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown and Root, and others with friends in high places and records of cheating taxpayers. And despite record high fuel prices, our country remains heavily dependent on foreign oil because of an energy policy that benefi ts the big oil interests.
Americans want and deserve change. Democrats' plan for Real Security will protect Americans and restore our country's position of international leadership.
-----
[Download the whole report. (PDF)]
Now we have proof to the contrary: The new publication "Real Security: The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore our Leadership in the World".
Everyone should read it and compare it to what the Republicans have been doing to keep us "safe".
An excerpt:
-----
The first responsibility of our government is the security of every American. In this era of unprecedented and unpredictable challenge, we must be prepared for any threat.
The men and women of America's armed forces and those on the front lines here at home have met every challenge with skill, bravery, and selfless dedication. They, along with veterans, military retirees and the families of those who have given their lives or have been wounded in defense of our country, deserve the gratitude and support of the American people. We will always honor their service and fulfill our promises to them. We believe America is best protected, and freedom best advanced, by national security policies -- including homeland, energy, and diplomatic strategies -- that are both tough and smart.
Democrats off er a plan for Real Security to rebuild our military; equip and train our first responders and others on the front lines here at home; provide needed benefits to our troops and veterans; fully man and equip our National Guard; promote alternative fuels and reduce dependence on foreign oil; and restore Americans' confidence in their government's ability to respond in the face of a terrorist attack or natural disaster.
To protect the American people, we will immediately implement the recommendations of the independent bipartisan 9/11 Commission and finally protect our ports and airports, our borders, mass transit systems, our chemical and nuclear power plants, and our food and water supplies from terrorist
attack.
After September 11, all Americans trusted President Bush to take the steps necessary to keep our country safe. Since then, inadequate planning and incompetent policies have failed to make Americans as safe as we should be. The tragedy of Hurricane Katrina showed that the federal government was still not prepared to respond.
Under President Bush and the Republican majority in Congress, the war in Iraq began with manipulated intelligence and no plan for success; our ports and other critical infrastructure remain vulnerable, while both soldiers in the
field and first responders at home lack the basic equipment and resources they were promised. Both in the Persian Gulf and our own Gulf Coast, lucrative no-bid contracts have gone to companies such as Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown and Root, and others with friends in high places and records of cheating taxpayers. And despite record high fuel prices, our country remains heavily dependent on foreign oil because of an energy policy that benefi ts the big oil interests.
Americans want and deserve change. Democrats' plan for Real Security will protect Americans and restore our country's position of international leadership.
-----
[Download the whole report. (PDF)]
02 April 2006
Mark Fiore: Preemptive apology
The latest animation by political cartoonist Mark Fiore deals with how the world stands idle (and makes lame, inexcusable excuses) while the horrific genocide continues in Darfur, in western Sudan.
[Check it out.]
At the end of the video, click the link to do something about it.
[Check it out.]
At the end of the video, click the link to do something about it.
01 April 2006
Jill Carroll's story changes, now that she can speak freely
Wow. I stand corrected. Yesterday I jumped to the conclusion that Jill Carroll was speaking freely upon her release in Iraq yesterday.
Today, the Christian Science Monitor has published a statement in which Ms. Carroll discloses that she was forced to say that her captors had treated her well.
[Read her statement.]
Mistreatment of any prisoner, of any human being, or of any living creature, is unforgiveable.
Today, the Christian Science Monitor has published a statement in which Ms. Carroll discloses that she was forced to say that her captors had treated her well.
[Read her statement.]
Mistreatment of any prisoner, of any human being, or of any living creature, is unforgiveable.
Condi admits the U.S. made mistakes in Iraq
The "infallible" "led-by-God" Bush administration is now admitting that they perhaps could have done a few things differently in Iraq. (Nevertheless, they are still defending the fact that they launched an unprovoked war of aggression against a country that posed no threat to us.)
From Reuters via Yahoo! News:
-----
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accepted on Friday the United States had probably made thousands of errors in Iraq but defended the overall strategy of removing Saddam Hussein.
Local Muslims and anti-war activists told Rice to "Go Home" when British counterpart Jack Straw earlier led her on a tour of his home town of Blackburn in the industrial northwest, an area which rarely plays host to overseas politicians.
"Yes, I know we have made tactical errors, thousands of them," she said in answer to a question over whether lessons had been learned since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
"I believe strongly that it was the right strategic decision, that Saddam had been a threat to the international community long enough," she added.
Earlier, about 250 protesters gathered outside a school which Rice visited, waving placards urging her to go home and shouting as her motorcade arrived.
Many of them were locals from Straw's constituency of Blackburn, a former cotton town with a 20 percent Muslim population. Straw invited Rice to the area after he toured her home state of Alabama last year.
Protesters had already persuaded a mosque in the town to withdraw its invitation to her.
"The Muslim population is very angry. She's not welcome in Blackburn," said Suliman, one of the demonstrators outside Pleckgate school, where Rice met young pupils.
"How many lives per gallon?" asked one of the placards held aloft, in reference to the U.S. invasion of oil-rich Iraq which many Britons opposed.
-----
[Read more.]
Might this new tactic be a means to pave the way to better results for the GOP in the coming middterm elections?
Will it work?
From Reuters via Yahoo! News:
-----
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accepted on Friday the United States had probably made thousands of errors in Iraq but defended the overall strategy of removing Saddam Hussein.
Local Muslims and anti-war activists told Rice to "Go Home" when British counterpart Jack Straw earlier led her on a tour of his home town of Blackburn in the industrial northwest, an area which rarely plays host to overseas politicians.
"Yes, I know we have made tactical errors, thousands of them," she said in answer to a question over whether lessons had been learned since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
"I believe strongly that it was the right strategic decision, that Saddam had been a threat to the international community long enough," she added.
Earlier, about 250 protesters gathered outside a school which Rice visited, waving placards urging her to go home and shouting as her motorcade arrived.
Many of them were locals from Straw's constituency of Blackburn, a former cotton town with a 20 percent Muslim population. Straw invited Rice to the area after he toured her home state of Alabama last year.
Protesters had already persuaded a mosque in the town to withdraw its invitation to her.
"The Muslim population is very angry. She's not welcome in Blackburn," said Suliman, one of the demonstrators outside Pleckgate school, where Rice met young pupils.
"How many lives per gallon?" asked one of the placards held aloft, in reference to the U.S. invasion of oil-rich Iraq which many Britons opposed.
-----
[Read more.]
Might this new tactic be a means to pave the way to better results for the GOP in the coming middterm elections?
Will it work?
31 March 2006
Jill Carroll got getter treatment than our own detainees
I was right.
In her statement to the press upon her release yesterday, kidnapped American journalist Jill Carroll said that her captors treated her well. They never hit her, and they never threatened her. She had a room with a window and a bathroom. [Read story.]
What Jill's kidnappers did was very wrong, but at least they didn't abuse her, and I was so relieved to hear that news.
Now compare that with how the U.S. treats its own detainees.
So who are the real barbarians?
In her statement to the press upon her release yesterday, kidnapped American journalist Jill Carroll said that her captors treated her well. They never hit her, and they never threatened her. She had a room with a window and a bathroom. [Read story.]
What Jill's kidnappers did was very wrong, but at least they didn't abuse her, and I was so relieved to hear that news.
Now compare that with how the U.S. treats its own detainees.
So who are the real barbarians?
30 March 2006
Great news: Journalist Jill Carroll freed in Iraq!
I awoke this morning to the good news that journalist Jill Carroll has been freed in Iraq. She had been kidnapped on 07 January.
[Read story.]
I look forward to hearing her story.
I am thinking it likely that her captors treated her better than we treat our detainees.
[Read story.]
I look forward to hearing her story.
I am thinking it likely that her captors treated her better than we treat our detainees.
Lobbying coincidence?
I was struck by two headlines that hit the news yesterday:
1. Corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to 5 years and 10 months in prison. [Read story.]
2. The Senate passed a lobbying/ethics reform bill. [Read story.]
What an intriguing coincidence.
1. Corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to 5 years and 10 months in prison. [Read story.]
2. The Senate passed a lobbying/ethics reform bill. [Read story.]
What an intriguing coincidence.
29 March 2006
U.S. soldiers fleeing to Canada
I can't blame them. I probably would do the same.
In my opinion, these brave soldiers are heroes, for standing up to the corrupt Bush administration and its violations of the rules of war.
From The Guardian (UK):
-----
Hundreds of deserters from the US armed forces have crossed into Canada and are now seeking political refugee status there, arguing that violations of the rules of war in Iraq by the US entitle them to asylum.
A decision on a test case involving two US servicemen is due shortly and is being watched with interest by fellow servicemen on both sides of the border. At least 20 others have already applied for asylum and there are an estimated 400 in Canada out of more than 9,000 who have deserted since the conflict started in 2003.
Ryan Johnson, 22, from near Fresno in California, was due to be deployed with his unit to Iraq in January last year but crossed the Canadian border in June and is seeking asylum. "I had spoken to many soldiers who had been in Iraq and who told me about innocent civilians being killed and about bombing civilian neighbourhoods," he told the Guardian.
"It's been really great since I've been here. Generally, people have been really hospitable and understanding, although there have been a few who have been for the war." He is now unable to return to the US. "I don't have a problem with that. I'm in Canada and that's that."
Mr Johnson said it was unclear exactly how many US soldiers were in Canada but he thought 400 was a "realistic figure". He had been on speaking tours across the country as part of a war resisters' movement and had come across other servicemen living underground.
Jeffry House, a Toronto lawyer who represents many of the men, said that an increasing number were seeking asylum. "There are a fair number without status and a fair number on student visas," he said, and under UN guidelines on refugee status they were entitled to seek asylum.
-----
[Read more.]
Bush appears to have nothing but disdain for international laws and conventions, which were designed to protect our troops. With each passing day, the rest of the world respects us a less and less. And I suppose we deserve it.
In my opinion, these brave soldiers are heroes, for standing up to the corrupt Bush administration and its violations of the rules of war.
From The Guardian (UK):
-----
Hundreds of deserters from the US armed forces have crossed into Canada and are now seeking political refugee status there, arguing that violations of the rules of war in Iraq by the US entitle them to asylum.
A decision on a test case involving two US servicemen is due shortly and is being watched with interest by fellow servicemen on both sides of the border. At least 20 others have already applied for asylum and there are an estimated 400 in Canada out of more than 9,000 who have deserted since the conflict started in 2003.
Ryan Johnson, 22, from near Fresno in California, was due to be deployed with his unit to Iraq in January last year but crossed the Canadian border in June and is seeking asylum. "I had spoken to many soldiers who had been in Iraq and who told me about innocent civilians being killed and about bombing civilian neighbourhoods," he told the Guardian.
"It's been really great since I've been here. Generally, people have been really hospitable and understanding, although there have been a few who have been for the war." He is now unable to return to the US. "I don't have a problem with that. I'm in Canada and that's that."
Mr Johnson said it was unclear exactly how many US soldiers were in Canada but he thought 400 was a "realistic figure". He had been on speaking tours across the country as part of a war resisters' movement and had come across other servicemen living underground.
Jeffry House, a Toronto lawyer who represents many of the men, said that an increasing number were seeking asylum. "There are a fair number without status and a fair number on student visas," he said, and under UN guidelines on refugee status they were entitled to seek asylum.
-----
[Read more.]
Bush appears to have nothing but disdain for international laws and conventions, which were designed to protect our troops. With each passing day, the rest of the world respects us a less and less. And I suppose we deserve it.
28 March 2006
Freedom not so good after all for Afghan Christian convert?
As it turns out, the saga of the Afghan man who had been sentenced to death for converting to Christianity might not yet have such a happy ending, even though he has now been freed.
Many fundamentalists are calling for his beheading, so I fear for his safety.
He is seeking asylum outside Afghanistan, but that could take time.
[Get an update.]
Fingers crossed that he remains safe.
Nice "democracy" you've created in Afghanistan, Mr. Bush.
Many fundamentalists are calling for his beheading, so I fear for his safety.
He is seeking asylum outside Afghanistan, but that could take time.
[Get an update.]
Fingers crossed that he remains safe.
Nice "democracy" you've created in Afghanistan, Mr. Bush.
More evidence that Bush was determined to invade Iraq no matter what
We now have even more proof that George W. Bush took us to war on false pretenses.
He was determined to invade Iraq regardless of WMDs or anything else.
[Read story.]
So many people have died, or have been injured or maimed, for no good reason.
And Bush still sits there in office. Go figure.
He was determined to invade Iraq regardless of WMDs or anything else.
[Read story.]
So many people have died, or have been injured or maimed, for no good reason.
And Bush still sits there in office. Go figure.
27 March 2006
Scalia says detainees have no rights
One of our Supreme Court justices is letting his personal life and his emotions get in the way of his pledge to uphold the Constitutional rights of prisoners within U.S. jurisdiction.
From Newsweek:
-----
The Supreme Court this week will hear arguments in a big case: whether to allow the Bush administration to try Guantanamo detainees in special military tribunals with limited rights for the accused. But Justice Antonin Scalia has already spoken his mind about some of the issues in the matter. During an unpublicized March 8 talk at the University of Freiberg in Switzerland, Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S. Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," he says on a tape of the talk reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break." Challenged by one audience member about whether the Gitmo detainees don't have protections under the Geneva or human-rights conventions, Scalia shot back: "If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy." Scalia was apparently referring to his son Matthew, who served with the U.S. Army in Iraq. Scalia did say, though, that he was concerned "there may be no end to this war."
-----
[Read more.]
Hey, Justice Scalia: Can you say "conflict of interest"?
Better yet: Can you say "I recuse myself?"
From Newsweek:
-----
The Supreme Court this week will hear arguments in a big case: whether to allow the Bush administration to try Guantanamo detainees in special military tribunals with limited rights for the accused. But Justice Antonin Scalia has already spoken his mind about some of the issues in the matter. During an unpublicized March 8 talk at the University of Freiberg in Switzerland, Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S. Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," he says on a tape of the talk reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break." Challenged by one audience member about whether the Gitmo detainees don't have protections under the Geneva or human-rights conventions, Scalia shot back: "If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy." Scalia was apparently referring to his son Matthew, who served with the U.S. Army in Iraq. Scalia did say, though, that he was concerned "there may be no end to this war."
-----
[Read more.]
Hey, Justice Scalia: Can you say "conflict of interest"?
Better yet: Can you say "I recuse myself?"
26 March 2006
Government won't let meat packer test for mad cow disease
The Bush administration keeps talking about keeping us safe. Meantime, they ignore drowning black people in New Orleans, they try to sell our ports to the UAE, and now they refuse to let meat packers adequately test for mad cow disease.
Bush has no conscience.
And I think I'll remain a vegetarian.
From the Associated Press via the Star-Telegram:
-----
A Kansas meatpacker sued the government on Thursday for refusing to let the company test for mad cow disease in every animal it slaughters.
Creekstone Farms Premium Beef says it has Japanese customers who want comprehensive testing. The Agriculture Department threatened criminal prosecution if Creekstone did the tests, according to the company's lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.
"We're not in any way saying that U.S. beef isn't safe; we believe it's the safest beef supply in the world, but that's not the issue," chief executive John Stewart said at a news conference.
"We're talking about consumers, and consumers want the product tested," Stewart said.
Testing for mad cow disease in the United States is controlled by the department, which tests about 1 percent of the 35 million cattle, or about 350,000, that are slaughtered each year. The department is planning to reduce that level of testing.
Stewart said he was surprised at the plan to scale back testing. "Given the concerns internationally, I'm not so sure that's the right thing to do."
Private companies certified by the department make screening tests used to detect mad cow disease. The department says it has sole authority over the sale and use of the tests.
-----
[Read more.]
Bush has no conscience.
And I think I'll remain a vegetarian.
From the Associated Press via the Star-Telegram:
-----
A Kansas meatpacker sued the government on Thursday for refusing to let the company test for mad cow disease in every animal it slaughters.
Creekstone Farms Premium Beef says it has Japanese customers who want comprehensive testing. The Agriculture Department threatened criminal prosecution if Creekstone did the tests, according to the company's lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.
"We're not in any way saying that U.S. beef isn't safe; we believe it's the safest beef supply in the world, but that's not the issue," chief executive John Stewart said at a news conference.
"We're talking about consumers, and consumers want the product tested," Stewart said.
Testing for mad cow disease in the United States is controlled by the department, which tests about 1 percent of the 35 million cattle, or about 350,000, that are slaughtered each year. The department is planning to reduce that level of testing.
Stewart said he was surprised at the plan to scale back testing. "Given the concerns internationally, I'm not so sure that's the right thing to do."
Private companies certified by the department make screening tests used to detect mad cow disease. The department says it has sole authority over the sale and use of the tests.
-----
[Read more.]
Yale gives scholarship to Taliban member
John Walker Lindh was arrested, imprisoned, and abused for his association with the Taliban. Meanwhile, this other Taliban guy gets a Yale scholarship.
From the OpinionJournal:
-----
Something is very wrong at our elite universities. Last month Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard; today Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi will speak by video to a conference at Columbia University that his regime is cosponsoring. (Columbia won't answer questions about how much funding it got from Libya or what implied strings were attached.) Then there's Yale, which for three weeks has refused to make any comment or defense beyond a vague 144-word statement about its decision to admit Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi--a former ambassador-at-large of the murderous Afghan Taliban--as a special student.
The three backers of the foundation that, along with Yale, is subsidizing Mr. Hashemi's tuition have told the Yale Daily News that they are withdrawing their support. But the university remains mute and paralyzed. "The intelligentsia haven't told Yalies what to think yet, because even they haven't made up their minds," says Daniel Gelernter, a Yale freshman whose father is a Yale professor. He clearly has: He calls the Taliban "an evil and macabre terrorist group. . . . The fact that Hashemi didn't do actual killing does not absolve him. Goebbels didn't shoot anyone either."
Universities are places where free inquiry, debate and information sharing are supposed to be guiding lights. In reality, the ivory towers too often now resemble dark castles, which raise their drawbridges at the first hint of criticism or scrutiny. Never has the moat separating elite universities from the rest of America been wider than in the case of Yale's Taliban Man.
In justifying its grant of a place to Mr. Hashemi, Yale has cited his approval by the State Department. And Yale's sole official statement says it hopes "his courses help him understand the broader context for the conflicts that led to the creation of the Taliban and to its fall. . . . Universities are places that must strive to increase understanding." That justification is unsettling to two women who will join voices at Yale tonight. Natalie Healy lost her Navy SEAL son Dan in Afghanistan last year when a Taliban rocket hit his helicopter. Ms. Healy, who notes that her son had four children of his own, is appalled at Yale's new student. "Lots of people could benefit from a Yale education, so why reward this man who was part of the group that killed Dan?" she told me. "I want to tell [Yale President] Richard Levin that his not allowing ROTC on campus is one thing, but welcoming a former member of the Taliban is deeply insulting to families who have children fighting them right now."
Ten days ago Ms. Healy met Malalai Joya, a member of Afghanistan's parliament, when she spoke near her home in Exeter, N.H. Tonight, Ms. Joya will speak at Yale on behalf of the Afghan Women's Mission. She is appalled that many people have forgotten the crimes of the Taliban, and was surprised to hear that Mr. Hashemi, who, like her, is 27 years old, is attending Yale. "He should apologize to my people and expose what he and others did under the Taliban," she told me. "He knew very well what criminal acts they committed; he was not too young to know. It would be better if he faced a court of justice than be a student at Yale University."
-----
[Read more.]
Hey, didn't George W. Bush go to Yale?
From the OpinionJournal:
-----
Something is very wrong at our elite universities. Last month Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard; today Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi will speak by video to a conference at Columbia University that his regime is cosponsoring. (Columbia won't answer questions about how much funding it got from Libya or what implied strings were attached.) Then there's Yale, which for three weeks has refused to make any comment or defense beyond a vague 144-word statement about its decision to admit Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi--a former ambassador-at-large of the murderous Afghan Taliban--as a special student.
The three backers of the foundation that, along with Yale, is subsidizing Mr. Hashemi's tuition have told the Yale Daily News that they are withdrawing their support. But the university remains mute and paralyzed. "The intelligentsia haven't told Yalies what to think yet, because even they haven't made up their minds," says Daniel Gelernter, a Yale freshman whose father is a Yale professor. He clearly has: He calls the Taliban "an evil and macabre terrorist group. . . . The fact that Hashemi didn't do actual killing does not absolve him. Goebbels didn't shoot anyone either."
Universities are places where free inquiry, debate and information sharing are supposed to be guiding lights. In reality, the ivory towers too often now resemble dark castles, which raise their drawbridges at the first hint of criticism or scrutiny. Never has the moat separating elite universities from the rest of America been wider than in the case of Yale's Taliban Man.
In justifying its grant of a place to Mr. Hashemi, Yale has cited his approval by the State Department. And Yale's sole official statement says it hopes "his courses help him understand the broader context for the conflicts that led to the creation of the Taliban and to its fall. . . . Universities are places that must strive to increase understanding." That justification is unsettling to two women who will join voices at Yale tonight. Natalie Healy lost her Navy SEAL son Dan in Afghanistan last year when a Taliban rocket hit his helicopter. Ms. Healy, who notes that her son had four children of his own, is appalled at Yale's new student. "Lots of people could benefit from a Yale education, so why reward this man who was part of the group that killed Dan?" she told me. "I want to tell [Yale President] Richard Levin that his not allowing ROTC on campus is one thing, but welcoming a former member of the Taliban is deeply insulting to families who have children fighting them right now."
Ten days ago Ms. Healy met Malalai Joya, a member of Afghanistan's parliament, when she spoke near her home in Exeter, N.H. Tonight, Ms. Joya will speak at Yale on behalf of the Afghan Women's Mission. She is appalled that many people have forgotten the crimes of the Taliban, and was surprised to hear that Mr. Hashemi, who, like her, is 27 years old, is attending Yale. "He should apologize to my people and expose what he and others did under the Taliban," she told me. "He knew very well what criminal acts they committed; he was not too young to know. It would be better if he faced a court of justice than be a student at Yale University."
-----
[Read more.]
Hey, didn't George W. Bush go to Yale?
Breaking news: Afghanistan might not execute Christian
It seems that there are some new developments in the case of the Afghan man who was sentenced to die for converting to Christianity.
[Read the update.]
Perhaps the international outpouring of outrage did some good.
Perhaps this should give us hope that we can stop other injustices.
(Or perhaps I'm just naive.)
[Read the update.]
Perhaps the international outpouring of outrage did some good.
Perhaps this should give us hope that we can stop other injustices.
(Or perhaps I'm just naive.)
Iraqi children continue to be main victims Of U.S. occupation
The children don't matter. It's only the oil that matters. Oil, power, and greed.
From a piece by Dr. Cesar Chelala at Information Clearing House:
-----
One of the most tragic consequenes of the Iraq war has been its effect on children. The war continues to claim them among its main victims, while the health of the majority of the population also continues to deteriorate. In the 1980s, Iraq had one of the best health care systems in the region. Following the 2003 invasion by the coalition forces, an ongoing cycle of insurgent violence and occupation forces’ counter-attacks have significantly damaged the basic health infrastructure in the country. As a result, Iraq’s health system cannot respond to the most basic health needs of the population.
In 1991, there were in Iraq 1,800 health care centers. A decade and a half later, that number is almost half and almost a third of these require major rehabilitation. This is paralleled by the country’s fall in the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Index from 96 to 127, one of the most dramatic declines in human welfare in recent history.
According to Jean Ziegler, the U.N. Human Rights Commission’s special expert on the right to food, the rate of malnutrition among Iraqi children has almost doubled since Saddam Hussein’s ouster in April 2003. Today, at 7.7 percent, Iraq’s child acute malnutrition rate is roughly equal to that of Burundi, an African nation ravaged by more than a decade of war. It is far higher than the rates in Ugand and Haiti, countries also devastated by unrelenting violence.
The population health problems are dramatically different than those facing young Iraqis a generation ago, when obesity was one of the main nutrition-related public health concerns. High rates of malnutrition started in the 1990s as a result of the U.N.-imposed sanctions to punish the Saddam Hussein regime for invading Kuwait in 1990.
Lack of dependable electricity and shortages of potable water throughout the country have led to the deterioration of the population’s health, resulting in outbreaks of typhoid fever, particularly in southern Iraq. The collapse of the water and sewage systems is probably the cause of outbreaks of hepatitis particularly lethal to pregnant women. According to the Iraq Living Conditions Survey of 22,000 households, a joint effort of the Iraq government and UNDP (United Nations Development Programme,) some 47% of urban households and only 3% of rural households have a sewage connection.
-----
[Read more.]
From a piece by Dr. Cesar Chelala at Information Clearing House:
-----
One of the most tragic consequenes of the Iraq war has been its effect on children. The war continues to claim them among its main victims, while the health of the majority of the population also continues to deteriorate. In the 1980s, Iraq had one of the best health care systems in the region. Following the 2003 invasion by the coalition forces, an ongoing cycle of insurgent violence and occupation forces’ counter-attacks have significantly damaged the basic health infrastructure in the country. As a result, Iraq’s health system cannot respond to the most basic health needs of the population.
In 1991, there were in Iraq 1,800 health care centers. A decade and a half later, that number is almost half and almost a third of these require major rehabilitation. This is paralleled by the country’s fall in the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Index from 96 to 127, one of the most dramatic declines in human welfare in recent history.
According to Jean Ziegler, the U.N. Human Rights Commission’s special expert on the right to food, the rate of malnutrition among Iraqi children has almost doubled since Saddam Hussein’s ouster in April 2003. Today, at 7.7 percent, Iraq’s child acute malnutrition rate is roughly equal to that of Burundi, an African nation ravaged by more than a decade of war. It is far higher than the rates in Ugand and Haiti, countries also devastated by unrelenting violence.
The population health problems are dramatically different than those facing young Iraqis a generation ago, when obesity was one of the main nutrition-related public health concerns. High rates of malnutrition started in the 1990s as a result of the U.N.-imposed sanctions to punish the Saddam Hussein regime for invading Kuwait in 1990.
Lack of dependable electricity and shortages of potable water throughout the country have led to the deterioration of the population’s health, resulting in outbreaks of typhoid fever, particularly in southern Iraq. The collapse of the water and sewage systems is probably the cause of outbreaks of hepatitis particularly lethal to pregnant women. According to the Iraq Living Conditions Survey of 22,000 households, a joint effort of the Iraq government and UNDP (United Nations Development Programme,) some 47% of urban households and only 3% of rural households have a sewage connection.
-----
[Read more.]
FEMA breaks promise on Katrina contracts
Contractors doing Hurricane Katrina recovery work have wasted millions of our tax dollars. So what happens to them? They get rewarded for "good performance", of course, because they're politically connected.
From the Associated Press via MSNBC:
-----
FEMA has broken its promise to reopen four multimillion-dollar no-bid contracts for Hurricane Katrina work, including three that federal auditors say wasted significant amounts of money.
Officials said they awarded the four contracts last October to speed recovery efforts that might have been slowed by competitive bidding. Some critics, however, suggested they were rewards for politically connected firms.
Acting FEMA Director R. David Paulison pledged last fall to rebid the contracts, which were awarded to Shaw Group Inc., Bechtel Corp., CH2M Hill Inc. and Fluor Corp. Later, the agency acknowledged the rebidding wouldn’t happen until February.
This week, FEMA said the contracts wouldn’t be rebid after all. In fact, they have been extended, in part because of good performance, said Michael Widomski, a spokesman for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
-----
[Read more.]
FEMA, you're doing a heck of a job.
From the Associated Press via MSNBC:
-----
FEMA has broken its promise to reopen four multimillion-dollar no-bid contracts for Hurricane Katrina work, including three that federal auditors say wasted significant amounts of money.
Officials said they awarded the four contracts last October to speed recovery efforts that might have been slowed by competitive bidding. Some critics, however, suggested they were rewards for politically connected firms.
Acting FEMA Director R. David Paulison pledged last fall to rebid the contracts, which were awarded to Shaw Group Inc., Bechtel Corp., CH2M Hill Inc. and Fluor Corp. Later, the agency acknowledged the rebidding wouldn’t happen until February.
This week, FEMA said the contracts wouldn’t be rebid after all. In fact, they have been extended, in part because of good performance, said Michael Widomski, a spokesman for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
-----
[Read more.]
FEMA, you're doing a heck of a job.
25 March 2006
Bush shuns PATRIOT Act requirement
Once again, Bush shows us that he thinks he's above the law.
If a law gets in the way of his having absolute unchecked power, he has Gonzales find a loophole to ignore and bypass the law.
He has done this so that he can torture people.
And he keeps doing this so that he can spy on us whenever he wants to without telling anyone.
Bush believes that he can do whatever he wants and not be held accountable to Congress or to We The People. He believes that it is up to him, and only him, to interpret the laws that he may or may not choose to follow.
From the Boston Globe via Common Dreams:
-----
When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.
The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.
Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it "a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a "signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.
In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would "impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."
Bush wrote: "The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "
The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.
After The New York Times disclosed in December that Bush had authorized the military to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining warrants, as required by law, Bush said his wartime powers gave him the right to ignore the warrant law.
And when Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any detainee in US custody, Bush signed the bill but issued a signing statement declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh interrogation techniques was necessary to protect national security.
Past presidents occasionally used such signing statements to describe their interpretations of laws, but Bush has expanded the practice. He has also been more assertive in claiming the authority to override provisions he thinks intrude on his power, legal scholars said.
-----
[Read more.]
Now let's take a peek at the dictionary:
-----
dictatorship
n : a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
-----
Hmmmmmmm....
Now consider the following:
-----
"We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace."
-- George W. Bush, in an address to the U.N. General Assembly, 21 September 2004
-----
Hmmmmmmm....
If a law gets in the way of his having absolute unchecked power, he has Gonzales find a loophole to ignore and bypass the law.
He has done this so that he can torture people.
And he keeps doing this so that he can spy on us whenever he wants to without telling anyone.
Bush believes that he can do whatever he wants and not be held accountable to Congress or to We The People. He believes that it is up to him, and only him, to interpret the laws that he may or may not choose to follow.
From the Boston Globe via Common Dreams:
-----
When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.
The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.
Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it "a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a "signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.
In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would "impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."
Bush wrote: "The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "
The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.
After The New York Times disclosed in December that Bush had authorized the military to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining warrants, as required by law, Bush said his wartime powers gave him the right to ignore the warrant law.
And when Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any detainee in US custody, Bush signed the bill but issued a signing statement declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh interrogation techniques was necessary to protect national security.
Past presidents occasionally used such signing statements to describe their interpretations of laws, but Bush has expanded the practice. He has also been more assertive in claiming the authority to override provisions he thinks intrude on his power, legal scholars said.
-----
[Read more.]
Now let's take a peek at the dictionary:
-----
dictatorship
n : a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
-----
Hmmmmmmm....
Now consider the following:
-----
"We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace."
-- George W. Bush, in an address to the U.N. General Assembly, 21 September 2004
-----
Hmmmmmmm....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)