WTF Items for the Day
- Appeals Court Invalidates Detainee’s ‘Enemy’ Status
A federal appeals court in Washington has invalidated the Bush administration’s finding that a detainee held for more than six years in the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba is an “enemy combatant,” and has ordered the government to release him, transfer him or offer him a new hearing.
Oh, and the White House pooh-poohed legal advice saying he risked judicial scrutiny of detention policies.
- Report Says Partisanship Reigned in Justice Department Hiring Program
High-ranking political appointees at the Justice Department labored to stock a prestigious hiring program with young conservatives in a five-year-long attempt to reshape the department’s ranks, according to an inspector general’s report to be released today.
Wow, there’s a surprise. After firing US Attorneys that didn’t toe the Bushies’ line, who’s surprised by this?
- McCain: No Habeas for Bin Laden, Right to the Gallows John McCain says:
…After enthusiastically embracing the Supreme Court decision granting habeas in U.S. civilian courts to dangerous terrorist detainees, he is now running away from the consequences of that decision and what it would mean if Osama bin Laden were captured. Senator Obama refuses to clarify whether he believes habeas should be granted to Osama bin Laden, and instead cites the precedent of the Nuremburg [sic] war trials…There was no habeas at Nuremburg [sic] and there should be no habeas for Osama bin Laden.
..Let me be clear, under my administration Osama bin Laden will either be killed on the battlefield or executed.
Just to be clear here, does anyone seriously believe bin Laden would set foot on American soil. Pulease! Meanwhile, Al Qaeda grows more vocal online.
- The new FISA bill now in the Senate gives “wholesale approval for NSAt o conduct bulk monitoring of electronic communications.
- Bush Administration shoots down plan to overhaul army contract oversight. After all, why be accountable for nearly 5 billion charged in fraud or another 5 billion spent without documentation?
- Wexler points out how the McClellan testimony points to the Bush Administration crimes, and calls for accountability
This is really why the American electorate should not be so dumb about their constitutional rights. I have just listed six separate stories published in one day, all pointing to the utter disregard this administration has for basic civil rights guaranteed by our Constitution.
While the mainstream media stokes the fear that Iran will attack, participating once again in the administration’s plan to keep us in line by keeping us afraid, no one is paying attention to the true goal of Bush and the neocons: To erode civil rights and the constitution so deeply that Americans will not understand what they have surrendered through ignorance, nor what they have lost.
Sphere: Related ContentFearmongering 101: Be Afraid of Iran?
This week’s top fear flavor: Iran. Fear that Iran will attack us if Barack Obama is elected. And fear that if Iran doesn’t attack us, Israel will attack Iran after Obama is elected but before he is inagurated. (Okay, the second one is really not tied to Obama being elected, just saying that between election day and Inaugural Day Iran will attack, but somehow John McCain is strong enough to deal with it. HUH?) And if Iran doesn’t attack us and Israel doesn’t attack Iran, then we’re screwed anyway because…oh NO!…European officials are afraid that if Obama engages Iran via direct diplomacy, he will somehow undercut progress with Iran.
Yes, it’s the newest flavor of FUD, custom designed to make voters be afraid…very afraid. Everyone get your worry beads out and start using them, religiously. Tonight is Uncle John and Mr. Bill’s story hour. Scoot up and let me tell you what they’re talkin’ about.
Uncle John Bolton thinks Israel will attack Iran after November 4th and before January 20th. Uncle John thinks that Big Daddy McCain is stronger than the Bush administration about handling the Iranian nuclear program.
Big Daddy Bill Kristol says that Bush might bomb Iran if he ‘thinks Senator Obama’s Going to win‘.
Waaaaait a minute. You mean Bush THINKS? I thought he just cowered in the corner while Big Dick (Cheney) hands him his latest talking points along with a stiff…something.
Comedy aside, let’s take a walk down memory lane and see what happened in 2002, before we sent our young men and women into Iraq to invade and occupy a country which, it turns out, hadn’t given us reason. Turn the time machine on, folks…moving back in time now…
August 16, 2002, George W. Bush in Crawford, TX
First of all, I am aware that some very intelligent people are expressing their opinions about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. I listen carefully to what they have to say.
There should be no doubt in anybody’s mind this man is thumbing his nose at the world, that he has gassed his own people, that he is trouble in his neighborhood, that he desires weapons of mass destruction. I will use all the latest intelligence to make informed decisions about how best to keep the world at peace, how best to defend freedom for the long run.
We’ll continue to consult. Listen, it’s a healthy debate for people to express their opinion. People should be allowed to express their opinion. But America needs to know, I’ll be making up my mind based upon the latest intelligence and how best to protect our own country plus our friends and allies.
October 7, 2002: George Bush, speaking at the Cincinnati Museum Center –
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions — its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.
September 14, 2002 (coincidentally timed around the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks):
Today this regime likely maintains stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, and is improving and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical and biological weapons. Today Saddam Hussein has the scientists and infrastructure for a nuclear weapons program, and has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should his regime acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.
And so it goes, on and on. Does any of it SOUND FAMILIAR? It’s a broken record, same song, different verse, substitute a different country this year but the timing and the message is the same.
Only, this time it’s a blatant effort on the part of the neocons to reframe the 2008 election inside everyone’s fear buttons.
If it weren’t so desperate, it might be funny. The sending of three separate surrogates out to writhe and moan over Iran’s clear intent to go on the attack is ridiculous. It doesn’t even pass the smell test.
It also defies logic. To believe what these neo-yoyos are saying, you have to believe that diplomacy is a threat to world peace.
Tragically, it seems that free and fair elections in Zimbabwe are pure fantasy. But reading the insane remarks of the “neo-fights” today makes me wonder whether we can reasonably count on the Bush/Cheney regime to: a) allow free and fair elections in our own country; and b) surrender power peacefully to the rightfully elected President on January 20, 2009. It’s clear to me from reviewing the recycled warmongering with respect to Iran and our election cycle that if the Bush regime could force an outcome to their liking, or manipulate voters into believing the reconstituted bullshit they’re serving, they would gladly do it no matter what price our democracy paid.
Sphere: Related ContentWar With Iran? No, We Can’t. Call your Representatives.
Someone really needs to tell Congress to get a grip. That someone needs to be us. This is absolutely NOT the time to be saber-rattling in a serious way with Iran, and CERTAINLY not the time to be authorizing any resolution for military action.
Over the last three weeks 77 House Democrats and 92 Republicans have agreed to cosponsor a new resolution against Iran that demands that President Bush “initiate an international effort” to impose a land, sea, and air blockade on Iran to prevent it from importing gasoline and to inspect all cargo entering or leaving Iran.
Some facts:
- Play the memory game. This is how the Iraq disaster started. By shaking our fists at a country that did not attack us, did not in any way play a role in 9/11 and wasn’t responsible for whatever problems we had.
- Iranian people, for the most part, do not agree with aggressive moves toward other countries. Remember, armies need to have troops. Successful armies need to have troops with a cause.
- Believe it or not, Israel has the means and motivation to defend themselves.
- Afghanistan is going to hell in a handbasket.
- The motives for such a resolution are about oil, not security. Stop kidding yourself.
I’m not interested in fighting anyone else over oil. I’d just as soon quit using it. The political aim of introducing a resolution into Congress to encourage aggression against Iran is simply to force a choice between offshore drilling or aggressive action against a sovereign nation who has not threatened or attacked us.
It isn’t the job of our military or the citizens of this country to ensure that the Bush and Cheney families leave a fat oil inheritance to their families and cronies. Don’t be fooled by the absurdity of the proposal of these ‘elected officials’. Dethrone them instead.
And in the meantime, call your Representative and tell them NO WAR WITH IRAN. In fact, tell them NO MORE WAR FOR OIL.
Update The full text of the resolution is here. In the first paragraph, they mention the IAEA to bolster the claim that there is a threat. In fact, on 6/18/08, the IAEA published a communication from Iran in PDF format that indicates Iran’s willingness to address the issues around their nuclear program. The IAEA note at the end says it should be evaluated in six months. Of course, six months means Bush couldn’t shove us into war with them before the end of his presidency.
Sphere: Related ContentExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron et al Claim Victors’ Spoils
The horsemen of the apocalypse are on the hunt. Here’s the latest news on the pale horses of death: ExxonMobil, Total, Chevron, Shell, et al who have been given preferential treatment and no-bid contract opportunities to service Iraq’s oil fields. (Remember this?)
The NY Times reports:
The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.
The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.
By now there’s probably very little doubt in anyone’s mind about the evil living in the White House. But this should make us all choke on our $4.50/gallon gas.
And the Bush/McCain diversion? Offshore domestic drilling, endorsed by flip-floppers Bush and McCain.
Here’s a rhetorical question. After George W. Bush and his merry band of neocons have raped us all for the last 8 years and now do it again without the benefit of even a kiss, do you think it wise to allow them to rape our natural resources here in the US for…oh…another 50 years or so? 100 years? 1,000 years? 10,000 years?
Just like McCain’s fake gas tax holiday, the call for domestic offshore drilling is just another invitation for the American people to bend over and take it quietly.
Seriously, there is much more to say about this, but for now, just let the brazen, wanton greed of our current Administration and their chosen successor to sink in. Breathe the stench. Be as disgusted as you want, and then feel free to copy this and email it to your friends with the title “Bush/Cheney into rape and incest. Will McCain follow suit?”
Let it go viral.
Sphere: Related ContentIt’s the Constitution, Stupid!
I caught a few minutes of Dan Abrams’ broadcast on MSNBC where the heads were flapping about the differences in attitude between Barack Obama and John McCain on the recent US Supreme Court decision to restore habeas corpus to detainees held at Guantanamo. McCain even trotted out Rudy Guiliani, Mr. 9-1-1, to underscore his point.
The way they framed it was like this: “Obama would allow Bin Laden to appeal to the US Courts.”
Well, yes, provided the following circumstances existed:
- Bin Laden would have to be brought to the US
- Bin Laden would then have to be arrested in the US
- He would have to be charged under US law
Why? Because that’s how things work. If Bin Laden is caught in Afghanistan, he falls under international law.
Let’s just say the perfect Bin Laden storm exists and all of those conditions are met. Why would we rape the United States Constitution in the name of revenge? Of COURSE he’d have the right to appeal his case to the US civilian courts, because our Constitution says he has that right. And like it or not, John McCain is not going to be able to legislate this away.
In case anyone is interested in what Barack Obama (via surrogates and then again on the video below) really said, it’s this:
“The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they have those rights,” he said. “If John McCain were president, he would have to give them those rights.”
It might be worth a reminder here about what our elected officials in Washington DC (particularly the President and Vice President) swear when they are elected to office.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Maybe it’s more important what it doesn’t say.
It doesn’t say “preserve, protect and defend the PREFERRED PEOPLE of the United States”.
It doesn’t say “preserve, protect and defend the elected officials of the United States.”
It doesn’t say “this is open to interpretation depending upon who my enemies are today”.
The Founding Fathers understood this much: Binding the leaders of our country to uphold the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded and operates and holding them to a sworn oath to uphold the rule of law meant they could not act in their own self interest or in the interests of people, but were first and foremost to uphold the guiding principles upon which all other pillars are built.
John McCain should understand this well. It’s a pity that he’s selling out to the Republican hardliners instead of applying his knowledge and experience to interpret a clear-cut case of Constitutional Law.
This is one of the main reasons I’m such an ardent Obama supporter. Our constitution is supposed to be the guide by which our government operates, not something that they plot to subvert. Because if it is subverted, our democracy is doomed, and George W. Bush and his merry band of neocons have very nearly done exactly that.
Sphere: Related ContentHey, What’s this Iraq War charge on my bill?
$275 per person. That’s $1,100 per family. As of today.
Visit lessjobsmorewars.com
(h/t Jack & Jill Politics)
Sphere: Related Content
