We Don't Negotiate With Terrorists?*

Sen Mitch McConnell (KY-R) made it clear to TPM that the GOP is willing to explode the economy if Medicaid isn't cut.

"To get my vote, for me, it's going to take short term [cuts, via spending caps]... Both medium and long-term, entitlements.," McConnell said. "Medicare will be part of the solution."

To clarify, I asked "[I]f [the Biden group] comes up with big cuts, trillions of dollars worth of cuts, but without substantially addressing Medicare, it won't get your vote?"

"Correct," McConnell said.

You have to admire their dedication to ideology, which naturally leaves one wondering about Democrats...

*h/t to Balloon Juice

Got Him

The most wanted man in the world was taken by the Obama Administration in a quick clean operation in an urban setting. The patience and discipline exercised by this Admin is exceptional, this location was heavily suspected since October, in the run up to a questionable mid-term election. No hints escaped, in point of fact the theme that Osama was holed up in a border cave was not hedged.

There is this element of staying on task, despite all distraction, and keeping the consideration on the end and not the political ends. You are free to contrast this with the GWB record and more so with the Republican Party record all the way back to the "wag the dog" days of Clinton. Afghanistan stayed the steaming pile of crap it is for years while GWB and the GOP chearleaded an Iraq invasion. GWB was attacked on the basis of facts during this period while this President has been under relentless lying ... stuff like birth certificates, religion, and death panels and yet this one managed to act like an adult.

There is little I can add to the paeans of bravery and competence for the units involved, I really don't have words. As for assertions that Osama should have been taken alive - I don't know anyone who has reasonably asserted that he would not resist (and I don't mean a wrestling match). In such a situation even city cops shoot, and these guys aren't city cop shooters, huge amounts of money and time go into ensuring that they are absolutely lethal in all conditions. The outcome is not going to be a guy with eight non-lethal wounds and bullet holes all over creation. Outside some ridiculously remote condition Osama was going to die even when capture was a part of the directives.

What this will mean to international and local terrorism is unclear to me. What it will mean to the war in Afghanistan and regarding Pakistan is unclear to me. I'm pretty sure that anyone who claims insight is engaging in guessing. In the world of politics a lot is going to depend on just how stupid the GOPpers get over this. President Obama presided over this and took some real political risks in the process. An awful lot of Americans are real happy to see Osama dealt with and aren't going to be pleased with political "buzz-kill."

This doesn't fix the recession, it doesn't fix the dislocation of wealth, it doesn't fix health care (especially with the GOP dedicated to screwing it worse), it doesn't fix much of anything. It sure does draw an underline under competence in descriptions of President Obama. That is a tough one for the GOP, minimize as they will. They will.

So, If 9/11 Is Done For A Year...

Since September 11 is over and September 12 is in its waning minutes maybe we can talk about things related to it without competing with the festivities or sacredness or whatever the hell it is that seems to have happened to that date. About three thousand people died nine years ago, murdered by lunatics - and some other things seem to have died with them. What happened that day ought to have been tragedy enough and yet it has been magnified by other actors.

Somehow an entire religion has been become vilified in the minds of many thanks to the actions of a handful of its adherents. This is scarcely the first time such actions have been taken under the guise of religion and that includes other than Islam. The terrorist goal of creating social disorder is accomplished and some will try to profit politically and monetarily on that discord.

The reaction of the governing powers was predictable, increased police powers - in the face of a document deliberately designed to rein them in. How long term and practically serious the damage done continues is not known, but it shows no sign of retreating. Power surrendered to government is seldom returned and certainly not in the face of a large portion of willing populace.

The goal of inflicting economic pain has been abetted by the inclusion of a war of choice and a mismanaged one. Whatever natural outcomes of smashing those buildings and their occupants might foreseeably had on an economy unpaid wars in their name has had a huge multiplier effect.

Maybe the most unfortunate result of those deaths is the increase in jingoism. This involves uncritical support of government or political allies and the creation of enemies, both external and internal. This means that fallible political entities are treated as infallible and dissent or opposition as dangerous and deserving of repression and vitriol.

Things of stone or metal will be erected to honor or mourn the lost lives, the real monuments are much sadder - they are the harm we've done ourselves.

Our Elected Terrorists

Look two posts down and you'll see why I get upset about little things like the idjits John McPOW and his ilk are prone to saying. Goddam, it's not about politics it is about terror and the aims of terror.

The aim of terror is to influence the policy direction of a nation. Get that? The aim isn't killing people, it is to influence policy. If you change the fundamentals of your nation in response they have succeeded. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the Basic Law of the US, they are not just some ideas bruited about by the Right or the Left. I don't give a damn if the terrorism is about guns or legal process or the right to assemble or what the hell ever, you are a pissant and coward to let them win. Pissants and cowards are now trying to drive the national direction in service to political advantage available from kowtowing to terrorists and they become, in that endeavor, the fellow travelers of terrorists.

The hell with them. The hell with those who don't call them out. The hell with their supporters. Pissants and cowards - the bunch of them.

Wishing For President McCain Right Now?

Now that a Pakistani naturalized American has been caught for the Times Square bomb attempt an almost inevitable reaction sets in with certain quarters - like, say, not-President McCain.

It would have been a serious mistake to have read the suspect in the attempted Times Square car bombing his Miranda rights, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday.

McCain, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a longtime leading Republican on national security issues, said he expected the suspect in the case could face charges that might warrant a death sentence if convicted.

"Obviously that would be a serious mistake...at least until we find out as much information we have," McCain said during an appearance on "Imus in the Morning" when asked whether the suspect, 30-year-old Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen from Pakistan.

"Don't give this guy his Miranda rights until we find out what it's all about," McCain added during an appearance on the Imus show, which is broadcast by the Fox Business Network.

Do what? Evidently John McCain didn't spend anywhere near enough time in a N Vietnamese prison without the rights and protections of either US or International Law to have it figured out. The real problem is that we probably can't give him back to them and get any worse results than he proposes here or that existed with little pushback from him under good ole GWB. Let me be pretty clear to the evidently senile and unread Senator, the issue is THE LAW.

Yes, I have picked on John McCain when there are plenty of the "usual suspects" out there playing the same stupidity card. Uhuh, Pete King and Joe LIEberman have stuck their oars in the stupid pond, also.

We're All Gonna Die - Oh Noes

Do any of the bedwetters pay any attention to anything other than scaring the public spitless? Look here, I haven't heard a word from these cretins about my job and I'm more likely to get killed by my job than if I flew on a commercial airliner every damn day. Where's my news conference and GOP diaper peeing? I won't get one because that's not success for the terrorists.

If nothing else should demonstrate it, this should - it doesn't matter if the terrorists succeed in knocking a plane down or not - we'll go berserko nuts. The GOPers tell the world the President is a pussy and we're too lame to deal with pouring water out of a boot - while looking at the sole. Grown men who were elected to represent the interests of America act like little girls spooked by a spider.

Goddam, somebody is going to try to do this sort of thing. Period. No ellipses. They may or may not be Muslims or foreigners, as Eric Rudolph shows there is a white 'Christian' terrorist bloc in this country. Fifty dollars or so of junk in a guy's pants will cost this nation umpteen millions of dollars and inconveniences. I scarcely think we should throw our hands up and give up on trying to keep bad things from happening, but this squealing is stupid.

The President's speech seemed to me to hit the right keys without smacking hell out of the FEAR drum. Don't expect a lower volume level from the screechers. Assholes.

This Is Your GOP TSA

As the GOPers are losing their collective minds over the Undibomber it pays to stop and think about their reasoning. Since Sen DeMint has a hold on the TSA chief, there isn't any new regime going on - this is the BushCo TSA. Unless you want to figure the semantics of replacing the words "war on terror" as some terror enhancing feature, we're on the same track. Well, there is the little matter of treating the rest of the world as if it counts as something more than a map filler.

What you have to assume from their collective freak out is that the GOP TSA is a piece of crap and Obama hasn't fixed it quickly enough. You do understand that many people won't stop to think that the Obama Admin has scarcely made a bunch of replacements in the personel doing day to day operations. It doesn't seem there is a paper from the BushCo floating around stating, "Undibomber determined to strike." The changes made are pretty obvious, Democratic Administration.

Evidently with the lack of any domestic or foreign policy initiatives the GOP is simply back to the politics of scaring the public. They wore that rut pretty deep.

Terror Pimps Peeing Their Pants

Along with very nearly everyone in our nation; I'd prefer not to be in an airplane that explodes or gets driven into something or be where one is crashed. I suppose that seems like stating the obvious, but there are other pieces of the obvious that are entirely left out of this NW Airlines bombing attempt. Let's start out with the most distressing, if enough people try, sooner or later somebody is going to manage it, even if everyone has to fly in the nude. That is just a matter of people being ingenious. Somebody will manage to break out of jail this year, out of a group of somebodies who all the authorities rightly suspect of being motivated to do it. That doesn't mean you throw your hands in the air and give up, but it does mean being smart and also not bothering to try to scare the public spitless like, say, Rep Peter King.

"I would say, right now, we do need the full-body scan, especially when you have countries like Nigeria, which have inadequate security to begin with; then you have passengers transiting in Amsterdam and coming here," King said. "I think we have to face up to this reality, that we live in a dangerous world where Islamic terrorists want to kill us. And, yes, there is some brief violation of privacy with a full body scan. But on the other hand, if we can save thousands of lives, to me, we have to make that decision and we have to come down on the side of saving thousands of lives."

Why not take a look at Nate Silver and see just how likely you are to get scattered across some landscape. Not very damn likely.

Therefore, the odds of being on given departure which is the subject of a terrorist incident have been 1 in 10,408,947 over the past decade. By contrast, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are about 1 in 500,000. This means that you could board 20 flights per year and still be less likely to be the subject of an attempted terrorist attack than to be struck by lightning.

I'm actually subject to this analogy since I work outdoors and frequently in higher places using tools that are grounded; in effect making any of us lightning rods. If we hear thunder we start reducing the chances, but the reality is that lightning can happen before you hear any thunder or even see a reason to worry. And so?

The terror pimps got their real start with 9/11, the political and media impacts weren't missed by these opportunists. In the face of pretty obvious stupidity and incompetence BushCo managed to get re-elected in 2004, mostly on the back of fear mongering. A segment of the electorate in the 2008 election was worked over on the concept that the now President was a Muslim and "palled around with terrorists." Now the collective media and Republicans are pissing their pants because a guy set his pants on fire.

How far is this going to go in the search for the unattainable? What other or more "brief violation of privacy" will satisfy Rep King when whatever more steps are taken and avoided by a terrorist? What exactly is it that the President of the United States is supposed to say on TV that would make them feel better? Let's get to the nut of this, nothing that can be said or done is going to make for absolute security - and that's the game they're playing and you're their suckers.

Robust Legal Systems Have Reasons For Existing

A McClatchy report once again points up the reason the US built a legal system with such robust protections for the accused.

A day after the emir of Kuwait sent his royal jet to fetch a citizen from Guantanamo, the Pentagon has dropped war crimes charges against the Kuwaiti Airways executive who has long claimed he was a victim of mistaken identity.

Susan Crawford, a Pentagon appointee, who has overseen military commissions since the Bush administration, on Thursday dismissed the terror charges against Fouad Rabia, 50, "without prejudice."

"Without prejudice" means charges could be refiled. I have no idea if the man did or did not do what he was held for. What I do know is that he has been held for years without coming to trial for what is a criminal matter.

What the authoritarians forget is that the reason the US system requires the government to jump through so many hoops is this - the accused faces the full might and capabilities of the most powerful entity in the world. The deck is scarcely tilted in a defendant's favor. The idea that Americans' concept of justice can be served by removing protections is ludicrous. The same whiny diaper wetters that scream about 'terrism' also make pronouncements about limited government - is there a disconnect? Isn't there always one?

The Soft War On Terrorism

One of the first things to keep in mind when talking about violence and particularly organized violence is that it exists for reasons. Particularly regarding organized violence it is not a mindless irrational happening; whether we like the rationales or not. This piece can be addressed by shooting people and blowing things up; but that tends to increase the validity of the reasons. It is beyond argument that some people and things can be best dealt with through bombs and bullets. That does not make that the only or in all circumstances best methodologies. In this Bush era it may surprise you to find that the US military is utilizing another tactic with a long term strategy.

McClatchy's William Strobel reports from Camp Bautista, Phillipines about the Special Forces taking a soft approach. While these warriors are providing the Phillipine governmental forces with intelligence, materials, and advice they are staying out of direct combat. They are allowed to defend themselves and they also seem to be minimizing that chance.

Each child's price of admission to the animated film "Robots," plus a bottle of water and a small paper bag of popcorn, is to accept a squirt of hand sanitizer — a brief lesson in basic hygiene.

Welcome to America's other war on terror.

The Mindinao region has been the focus of the government's fight with separatist group Moro Islamic Liberation Front and at one point a central point for the Al Qaida linked Abu Sayyaf, a violent terrorist organization. Abu Sayyaf has been the focal point of military action. American intelligence has helped the Phillipine troops minimize civilian casualties and pin point a fairly successful drive against that organization.

The other focus of that action is Hearts and Minds.

Secret military hardware shares cargo space on helicopters with gifts of plastic sandals emblazoned "Honor in Peace." The Filipino military uses U.S. intelligence from unmanned drones and other devices to pinpoint the enemy in a land of mountainside jungles and vast flooded marshes. Sometimes it holds its fire to avoid civilian casualties that would undermine the effort.

One recent afternoon on the nearby island of Mindanao, uniformed U.S. and Filipino military officers listened, some curious and some perplexed, as a U.S. Agency for International Development contractor briefed them on the agency's $80-million-a-year aid program for the region. He talked about taking steps to boost the local seaweed-farming industry and to help create an off-season mango harvest.

Strobel also reports from Jakarta on the Indonesian efforts against terrorism using more soft techniques. Nasir Abbas was one of the plotters in the Bali bombings which killed more than 200. Today he is something different.

His remorse over the massacre of civilians and the Indonesian police's careful handling of him transformed Abbas. From a terrorist commander he became a terrorist counselor, working with the police to try to convince other captured militants that their interpretation of Islam is wrong.

Considering that Abbas was a 15 year veteran of and a senior commander of Jemaah Islamiyah, Southeast Asia's most feared Islamic terrorist group this is something extraordinary.

Using methodical police work and programs to counter radical ideologies, Indonesian authorities have reduced Jemaah Islamiyah to a remnant of its former self. The Indonesian government has benefited from public revulsion at a string of bombings against civilians.

The outlook is not all rosy, and the author does a careful job of covering the bases. Use the links to see what something other than bombs and bullets looks like today. Journalists deserve credit for their work and to have read rather than synopsized by bloggers like me.

Pakistan, Terror - Our Ally?

John McCain very lately stated that in regard to Pakistan that he's not "going there" since it is a sovereign nation and our ally in the war against terror. Perhaps John hasn't been paying attention, speculation about the ISI (Pakistani Intelligence) has been that it supports Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as well as Pakistan. According to the NYT there's been even some more to it, like India.

American intelligence agencies have concluded that members of Pakistan’s powerful spy service helped plan the deadly July 7 bombing of India’s embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, according to United States government officials.

The opening paragraph is somewhat lacking in qualifiers, it gets a bit more detailed as they go on,

The conclusion was based on intercepted communications between Pakistani intelligence officers and militants who carried out the attack, the officials said, providing the clearest evidence to date that Pakistani intelligence officers are actively undermining American efforts to combat militants in the region.

Are you busy remembering all that stuff John McCain says he knows how to do? Or did you drift off while George II was trying to sell Americans on our Pal Mushareff and the billions of dollars we sent him to help us? Help? A Q Khan strike any memories?

Obama is ignorant?

McCain and Terror Attacks

We're going to start out with an acknowledgement that this is a distasteful subject.

Charlie Black's comments to Fortune magazine about the McCain campaign being favored by a terrorist attack in America have stirred some talk. Frank Rich in the NYT isn't so sure. I share some of his thinking. There is one issue that the BushCo have created as a definition of themselves and this is it. They banged it hard in '02, '04, and '06. It played for them in the first two elections, '06 showed real signs that it was getting pretty tired. This time out it looks as though people are more worried about their wallets than much of the rest of issues. There is also the part of this terror card that won't go away by playing it, people are burned out and see themselves as having been burned.

Rudy tried terror as his identity in the Primary, it wasn't near enough to counteract his non-base views, tack to the right as he might. John McCain is thumping of the drum of victory and war hero, his attraction at this time doesn't seem to be gaining ground. He is linked by more than the (R) to the BushCo gang and as he tries to run away from it and keeps getting yanked back by his reality seems to be stuck with it. He can make some 2000 type cases but his clone status since will keep him firmly in that camp and as Democrats make more of it he should begin to suffer from Bush III.

Americans have watched, some closely, most distantly, as BushCo has made the case over and again for its behaviors on keeping us safe. Many Americans are at least somewhat aware that Constitutional questions have arisen from their zeal. Most Americans know Iraq has been sold as a part of the war on terror and a lot of money has been spent and people killed. Almost all Americans will admit they've been told they are safer today because of the (R) brand.

So, the deal is McCain is linked to those who say we're safer thanks to the war on terror they've waged. If the safer part of the equation gets broken against the back drop of "success" in Iraq and all the domestic actions people are likely to say, "Huh?" Obama has spent quite a bit of verbiage on the idea that we are not safer thanks to BushCo and being the 'I told you so' guy isn't exactly disqualifying. John McCain has kept saying I know how to keep you safe, implicitly crediting GWB for it. Two names on the ballot and a disaster fresh in the mind...

If Charlie Black hadn't stated this pretty baldly others have been and would have. It is the kind of thing you talk about with the hope it is never more than talk, leaving one feeling slightly dirty. Fear mongering is not dead, far from it. It will be used in this context and others. It is the final refuge of those with little in the way of reason to bring to the table.

Scalia Activist Judge

The dissent filed by Antonin Scalia in Boumediene v. Bush was scathing concerning the dangers of releasing Guantanamo detainees.

"At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantánamo have returned to the battlefield."

It is flatly untrue. Seton Hall University School of Law calls Scalia's contention an "urban legend," based on misinformation provided by DoD to the Senate Minority Report of a year ago.

On December 10, 2007 The Seton Hall Center for Policy and Research issued a Report,
THE MEANING OF "BATTLEFIELD": An Analysis of the Government’s Representations of
‘Battlefield Capture’ and ‘Recidivism’ of the Guantánamo Detainees, which demonstrated that
statements asserting 30 detainees had returned to the battlefield were incorrect. Further
developments since then, including recent hearings before Congress at which more information
was provided by the Department of Defense, confirm that the 30 recidivist claim is simply
wrong and has no place in a reasoned public debate about Guantánamo.

This report is Senate Report No. 110-90, pt. 7, p. 13 (June 26, 2007), Minority Views of Sens. Kyl,
Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, and Coburn; easily the usual suspects when fear mongering is about. It wouldn't be quite so disgraceful if it had not been refuted by the same entity that made the claim initially:

First, a Department of Defense Press Release in July 2007 belied
both Mr. Dell’Orto’s testimony and the Minority Views relying on it. Second, and even more definitively, a Department of Defense document produced at a House Foreign Relations Subcommittee Hearing on May 20, 2008 abandons the claim of 30.

The actual number may be 12 although there exist acknowledged mistakes by DoD in identification. Of these released detainees not a single one was released by a federal judge or as a result of Habeas Corpus. These releases were the responsibility of and actions by DoD.

A recent suicide bombing by a former detainee, ISN220 has something to say to us, this detainee was captured as he attempted to escape to Pakistan from Tora Bora, the military identified him as having trained with Al Qaida after going AWOL from Kuwait and being issued an AK47 and ammunition by them. He acknowledged participating in Taliban fighting and that he wished to harm Americans and was committed to jihadism. The military did not wish him released and yet he was. The relevant documents are redacted concerning why and what action was taken concerning ISN220 or Al Ajmi.

What ever Scalia was on about:

“[the Court’s decision] will almost certainly cause more
Americans to be killed.”

certainly has nothing to do with Federal Court review of Habeas Corpus and may have everything to do with essentially capricious decisions by Guantanamo Bay and politicians. If making a dissent based on untrue information regarding unrelated activities by unrelated entities is a basis for corrupting one of the oldest English law traditions enshrined in our Constitution in incontrovertible language isn't Judicial Activism I'm real unsure what that term is supposed to mean. It would appear to be, in this case, whatever a Republican fear-monger wants it to mean.

Let me be clear about something, I understand that sometimes concepts become clearly radically wrong with the passage of time, such as a provision that a slave is 3/5 of a human, but addressing that wrong in the spirit of increasing liberty and rights maintains the spirit of limited government power envisioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. For the Supreme Court or a member to assert that any Constitutional provision should be abrogated to narrow personal liberty by the expansion of governmental power is plainly ludicrous.

As a document the Constitution as a whole spends little time verbiage on giving the government power, it primarily breaks that power up and severely limits it. There was a very clear understanding by the Framers that governments tend to attempt to accrue power at the expense of the citizenry and their liberty and that the tendency should be stopped at certain lines. Antonin Scalia has proven himself unworthy of the robes he wears with this dissent alone. He proposes on the basis of factually inaccurate statements to be in favor of an unlimited power of the Federal Government to hold incommunicado and rightless anyone that Government states it would. It would not matter if the statements were actually true, the establishment of tyranny should be met with determined resistance. Antonin Scalia should at the very least be denied the company of all thinking individuals and shunned by the public at large. Frankly a ride on a pole clothed in tar and feathers would be more appropriate than the dignity of robes.

The Gitmo Farce

Republicans are going crazy in response to the Supreme Court's ruling that military detainees have a right to challenge their confinement in federal court. You would think that life as we know it has ended, that the reinforcement of an ancient right of people to challenge their incarceration's validity is something new under the sun. You will die in your bed because a right a common rapist has is afforded to people swept up by the law enforcement professionals in the ranks of soldiers in foreign lands. You are to believe that because they are held that they constitute the worst of the worst. Maybe some are, but that isn't all inclusive.

McClatchy has conducted an unprecedented compilation of interviews of released detainees, foreign officials, and US officials regarding the value and risk posed by detainees. The results are stomach churning. People have been held for years and subjected to mistreatment for little more than tribal grudges or as low ranking Taliban grunts. It is a horror show of self-reinforcing attitudes and perceptions fostered by the Bush Administration and its lackeys in Congress. It is an offense against the concept of marginally civilized behavior enshrined in the Magna Carta, AD 1215. The fates of over 770 individuals became political footballs for the Republican fear machine, it is the oldest game in politics, these people are bad and a threat because it pleases us to say so and scare you into supporting us.

It is instructive to look at the case of Mohammed Akhtiar, per McClatchy whom I quote at length to make this clear:

The militants crept up behind Mohammed Akhtiar as he squatted at the spigot to wash his hands before evening prayers at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

They shouted "Allahu Akbar" — God is great — as one of them hefted a metal mop squeezer into the air, slammed it into Akhtiar's head and sent thick streams of blood running down his face.

Akhtiar was among the more than 770 terrorism suspects imprisoned at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They are the men the Bush administration described as "the worst of the worst."

But Akhtiar was no terrorist. American troops had dragged him out of his Afghanistan home in 2003 and held him in Guantanamo for three years in the belief that he was an insurgent involved in rocket attacks on U.S. forces. The Islamic radicals in Guantanamo's Camp Four who hissed "infidel" and spat at Akhtiar, however, knew something his captors didn't: The U.S. government had the wrong guy.

"He was not an enemy of the government, he was a friend of the government," a senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. Akhtiar was imprisoned at Guantanamo on the basis of false information that local anti-government insurgents fed to U.S. troops, he said.

This man spent three years in brutal conditions at the hands of the United States with no ability to do anything about it. He was not a POW taken in conflict, he was BushCo's shadow criminal, one with no rights afforded to criminals or those accused of being criminal. He was bad, simply because BushCo said so. What reaction would you expect from people held in such a manner by our government? Uncritical love? Why should the world at large or even ourselves regard us as better than common thugs?

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.

Lindsey Graham wants to amend the Constitution to protect us from this? We are protected by our government's adherence to laws and the limitations set upon it and its laws, not by kidnapping and abusing people.

One former administration official said the White House's initial policy and legal decisions "probably made instances of abuse more likely. ... My sense is that decisions taken at the top probably sent a signal that the old rules don't apply ... certainly some people read what was coming out of Washington: The gloves are off, this isn't a Geneva world anymore."

Try to wrap your head around this, no rules, just the word of a man, the President is now supposed to be the law. Even the Soviets in the Cold War made a pretense of acting under the color of law and yet George II isn't to be held to even that weak standard. The people who ratified the Constitution would have hung him from a tree. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are supposed to be a brake on the impulse of government to accrue power to itself at the expense of the people.

I am an ardent opponent of capital punishment but the actions of BushCo lead me to question that stance. The behavior of an individual acting in defiance of our laws to perpetrate horrid crimes arouses many to to blood lust, but I cannot see how that is more despicable than the behavior of these people acting under cover of governmental force to deny basic human rights to people taken at gun point in a foreign land. The fact that the people of the US have tolerated this is a blot on our national character that will be a long time stain. The fact that our legislators aided and abetted this calls into question the oaths they swore. The fact that this was a 5-4 decision says quite a bit about activist judges. Those who are not shamed by this should be shunned by all conscious individuals - fact is they'll get re-elected. We're a damn mess. A bunch of knee quaking pussies. Pah. I spit on them and George II better never get within that range of me or he'll get wet.

Actual Monster - Radio Fear America

My regular readers know I'm perfectly willing to kick the NYT on occasion and do it where it hurts. I also find things there I'd like spread to those who don't read it regularly. Radio Fear America is one of those things and for more reason than they might have intended. They put the money right in the opening paragraph:

Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia read the funnies over the radio to cheer up New Yorkers during a newspaper strike. President Franklin Roosevelt gave “fireside chats” to bolster Americans during the depression. President Bush used his radio address on Saturday to try to scare Americans into believing they have to sacrifice their rights and their values to combat terrorism.

You certainly have read here enough times that fear mongering needs to be resisted. Yes, I've implied if not outright stated that there are too many scaredy cats in this country. A little truth telling doesn't hurt:

Mr. Bush announced that he had vetoed the 2008 intelligence budget because it contains a clause barring the C.I.A. from torturing prisoners. Mr. Bush told the nation that it “would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror — the C.I.A. program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives.” That is simply not true. Nothing in the bill shuts down the C.I.A. interrogation program. It just requires the C.I.A.’s interrogators to follow the rules already contained in the Army field manual on prisoners.

So in the first two paragraphs the situation is made pretty clear. It is in this particular context and they back it up with some more facts I encourage you to peruse. If I have a problem with the Editorial Board in this one is that it stops short. It stops right at BushCo terrorism. What the NYT stops short of is addressing this in its larger context, the Bills passed or vetoed on the basis on nothing but fear mongering and not facts nor civil liberties.

Back in the bad old days of Mafia pre-eminence in crime and control of legitimate business they were backers of the RICO Act. You see, the mafia were nasty people and were misbehaving in a major way, so special tools were necessary. The problem is that such laws not only apply to Mafiosos, they apply to us all. There is real conflict with the 4th Amendment here, not only in theory, but in practice. A fear driven piece of legislation the NYT did nothing to help block.

NYC has some of the most restrictive firearms regulations in the US, what they don't have is a fall in crime or firearm violence matching their introduction. The NYT lately bemoaned the possibility that the Supreme Court might restore the 2nd Amendment in such localities. What they don't have are any facts to back up their fear mongering. New Yorkers will die in untold numbers because...well, because it's a scary prospect.

What we have is very selective outrage. These are only a few instances of the disconnect between their stands depending on whether it is their pet issue or simply one of principle. I understand the difference in immediate impact on the NYT of freedom of press and right to keep and bear, but what the NYT seems unable to do is make the connection to people of the retention of their individual rights.

Senate Leads the Way, Wiretapping

When the Framers wrote the Constitution and laid out the terms of office for the Congressional bodies they had some ideas of the consequences. They invisioned a House with short tems that was responsive to the immediate concerns of the voters and innovative in outlook. The Senate, on the other hand, with its six year terms was to be the deliberative and reflective body, the conservators of Constitutional law and source of stability. This was stood on its head this week.

The President, George II, was on the air this morning stating that the "Senate leads the way" on wiretapping and immunity and that it is critical pass this bill before it expires. There are two pieces of nonsense involved in this statement and the reporter's deferential treatment of his statements. The first is that the expiration involves no change in the underlying FISA law which allows up to 72 hours of emergency wiretapping preceding a warrant granted by a Secret Court whose level of resistance to such activities is suspect at the least. The second piece is his stated willingness to veto any bill lacking immunity for the telecoms, an extremely odd view to hold in the face of his fear mongering. The supposed financial well being of some telecoms who cooperated with the government, note that Qwest and a couple others did not, and broke long established law and privacy policies trumps the fear he's peddling. Money is more important than your "security." The President even offered to delay his African visit, he might not go on a vacation, might not if the House gets moving.

The head of BushCo claims the experts in his security apparatus all agree this is critical, a claim that was met with silent assent from reporters. There is serious evidence that what the White House and telecoms got up to was not anything like a targeted terrorist list being listened in on, rather a blanket listening program, simply sweeping up everything. This bunch that is supposed to be taken seriously on an extaordinarily sensitive issue concerning the Bill of Rights is the same group of people who authorized torture and secret prisons by the US. There are a few other balls they managed to drop while "protecting" us, Iraq WMDs, 9/11, Iran bomb research, in fact virtually every piece of fear they've touted. I'm disinclined to trust my liberties to torturers and data manipulators (um, that would be liars).

The Republicans just walked out of the House in protest of the Democrats not scrambling on the Senate version of the wiretap bill. The House had already passed a version lacking immunity. John Beohner (R-OH) is claiming a Democratic stunt, "their hands slapped away" from taking "resonsible" action. We're "at risk" and the House Republicans "will be here" until this bill is passed. Anybody know of a more partisan pol than John Boehner? Mr "Obstruct All Costs" Boehner, whose publicly leaked agenda is to block all Democratic actions, is accusing Democrats of playing politics? Less than 1/4 of our Senators give a rat's patoot about your civil liberties and commercial complicity in their violation, a whole 21 of them aren't craven traitors to their oaths to the Constitution. For some obscure reason Republicans, the supposed upholders of small limited government, have become the tools of authoritarian usurpation. In case you've missed it, their version of conservatism involves leaving the putocrats open season on the wealth of the nation and one that stomps on any behavior they find "immoral." If the NRA hadn't traded its political influence for right wing crap they'd be after our 2nd Amendment rights as hard as they're after the rest. (Republicans just walked back into the House - got their 15 minutes of camera time) Since the House has already passed a bill lacking immunity will they have the nerve to stick to their guns? With the Senate rolling over it doesn't look good, a storm of protest might...

Let's look at a couple realities regarding immunity, the BushCo claims future cooperation would be endangered by current lawsuits. What is for sure endangered is obvious violation of the law by private enities acting on the government's behest. If certain arms of the government made false representations to the telecoms there are plenty of fiscally beholden legislators to allow them suits against the goverment. If no such representations were made, if no one told the telecoms what they were getting up to was legal, they deserve to be handed their heads. This immunity process is not about protecting the telecoms, it is about protecting BushCo. Telecoms will fight tooth and nail to protect their wealth in court and if there is responsibility to be shifted on George II's regime they'll toss it overboard in a hearbeat. There may be some folks looking at actual prison time for federal felonies, that could conceiveably include the kinglet.

At some point Americans are going to have to either get along with the idea that liberty is a risky business or just give it up. BushCo is not the first to make grabs on our Rights, but they may be the most egregious offenders. I am pretty certain Americans only take this kind of thing seriously when it involves their pet Rights and by the time it does, they'll just roll over. Some won't, but they'll just be labeled loons and be ignored by lemming majority. The saving grace in this assesment is that the American Revolution was started by a cadre of loons.

Pentagon Curiousity And Waterboarding and Hartman

Someone from the Pentagon on an AF server had this curiosity going. By the time I checked the page it was 11 down from the top. So I've tagged it again in the title, get this real straight, I very much give a damn what happens to our troops and I also very much give a damn what this country stands for and I would personally spit on any government official that advocates terror in my presence.

I can almost understand the complete lack of honor within the political machinery of BushCo, what I cannot begin to understand is finding it in an officer of the USAF. I hope your curiosity is satisfied.

John Ashcroft and Immunity - Wrong, As Usual

John Ashcroft states in a NYT OpEd that granting immunity to telecoms accused of being a part of US governmental wiretapping is the proper course. He uses up a lot of words to make two points:

Longstanding principles of law hold that an American corporation is entitled to rely on assurances of legality from officials responsible for government activities. The public officials in question might be right or wrong about the advisability or legality of what they are doing, but it is their responsibility, not the company’s, to deal with the consequences if they are wrong.

The lawsuits also risk the disclosure of national security secrets that must be kept from public view if our intelligence agencies are to be able to protect us effectively. When critics of immunity are being honest, they will admit that the main reason they want the litigation to continue is the hope that it will force disclosure of information about the underlying programs — information they hope will advance their own political or ideological disputes with the administration. But that is a bad consequence, not a good one.

He engages in a lot of folderole to make the authoritarian "Daddy knows best" argument, which has the problem that US citizens and the Court system are not three year-olds sticking their tongues in light sockets. If the government takes illegal actions that does not absolve others engaging in that action, Nuremberg made a farce of the "just following orders" defense. If John Ashcroft had a particle of the competence required to be AG he would recognize that. It is a matter of Constitutional Law that the Executive branch is constrained by the Judicial and Legislative branches and finally by the citizenry - the First and Second Amendments provide for the citizenry's resistance. The case has been made that the 9/11 hijackers could have been resisted and in one case were, this is another hijacking, no less palatable or sustainable due to the lack of Arabic surnames.

One telecom, Qwest, did resist, the others just folded, whether due to the legal assurances of the DOJ & Executive or the political advantages available is a moot point. Under law they had no requirement to comply with the government's requests nor any shield for doing so. They walked off the edge of a cliff with no push and now want a parachute. As a private citizen you'd get hung for it.

There is no fear, what so ever, that classified details of techniques will dribble out, court cases have been carried through before without such problems - despite the recent Supreme Court ruling concerning rendition. Ashcroft brings forward a strawman argument based on Americans' terrorism fears. I am personally sick of the garbage brought forward predicated on some possible future terrorist act. That makes the government complicit in the terrorism and to a large extent the most active player. We have kept this country the nation it has been through adherence to law and the basic law of the land is the Constitution and Amendments. If the criminal conspirators in the Executive branch and their enablers in the Legislature and Judiciary don't like the laws they are free to propose Amendments, until that time they are simply criminals and deserve exactly that much consideration.

Make noise, stand up for yourselves and your nation, John Ashcroft may have access to the pages of the NYT, but there are a heck of a lot more of us.

Mukasey, Torture - A Question?

Michael Mukasey has refused to state plainly whether or not he views water boarding as torture and prohibited by law. He has had the technique plainly explained to him but he insists he cannot comment on a procedure he has not been briefed on. The briefing he is referring to would be one by the Bush administration containing an unknown refinement of the information he has been provided. There are two apparent problems with his problem answering, one Bush could brief him at any time - more highly classified information is regularly given to non-governmental contractors and one would assume the AG nominee was vetted; and two, the procedure is what it is, on its face regardless of circumstances, it is either torture or not - this is not a case of situational ethics unless torture is approved of.

Understand this, I am not in the least squeamish, I have shot and killed large animals and then been elbow deep in warm blood in their insides entirely without qualm. The animal had every advantage in the woods minus intellect and the ability to reach out. I can easily conceive of situations resulting in my taking a human life, but not any circumstance can convince me to torment a helpless being - animal or human. Any reasoning creature that can tolerate the idea of such a thing being perpetrated in their name is morally defective and probably mentally damaged.

If Michael Mukasey cannot discern such then he is not only unfit for AG, but should also be impeached from the bench. That such tolerance is even considered speaks volumes to the cultural degradation that has occurred over the past decades and particularly over the last 6 years. While the Republicans seem obsessed with cultural decline they seem to hold a near patent on its effects. The most noxious spouters of cultural collapse drivel seem to be most subject to its symptoms, particularly the most violent and the most sexually degrading aspects and that citation neglects greed and avarice.

The Bible stroking born again spoiled child of privilege George II is personally responsible for more death and destruction than all agents of the "axis of evil" and "Islamofascists" you can name put together. You can study the Bible until Armageddon and not find a single word quoted of Jesus Christ advocating warfare and greed but you will find extended passages referring to pacifism and supporting the poor as the path. It is Christ - ianity, not Paulism or Mosesianity, if you make claim to the title Christian then the man's words are the rule, not the damn exception. I make no such claim for myself, I don't belong to exclusive clubs, particularly where they refer to salvation, so I have no qualms about my stated stands.

Terence Hunt - AP has Bush's response to Congressional mutiny on Mukasey's nomination:

Bush later Thursday raised the stakes about Mukasey in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"It's wrong for congressional leaders to make Judge Mukasey's confirmation dependent on his willingness to go on the record about details of a classified program he has not been briefed on," Bush told his audience. "If the Senate Judiciary Committee were to block Judge Mukasey on these grounds, they would set a new standard for confirmation that could not be met by any responsible nominee for attorney general. That would guarantee that America would have no attorney general during this time of war."

There are several untruths in this statement, AG nominees have been forced to make statements previously and to promise actions - see Ruckleshouse re Nixon and secondly absent a Congressional declaration George's opinion that we are at war is just that and thirdly no briefing is needed to determine what a clearly defined action is. This man is dangerously out of touch and obsessed with personal power, he proposes to use terror as a part of a war against terror and that such a thing is not only lawful but reasonable. Crimes committed by the Commander in Chief or his minions in his name are no less criminal and no less prosecutable than a simple thief. Is this nation really so degraded that such is no longer clear? Is the nation of the Revolution so cheapened by fear that this is the best we can do? How many brave people have died to produce this result? I'm too irate to spit.

Terrorists and the Phoney War on Them

Let's get something straight, there are a fair number of people using guerrilla tactics against us in Iraq, that we don't like IEDs or lack of uniform doesn't make them terrorists, the actual terrorism in Iraq is being waged against Iraqis. Every now and then we get one or two of them and the BushCo goes off on a tear about how wonderful they're doing. There's a serious problem with calling that a war on terror. The terrorists who are a danger to the USA are somewhere else.



We have a pretty good idea where those who are a threat are hanging out, but George II has created a monster in Iraq. It's not Al Qaeda in Iraq, the second the US isn't in the way the Shiites will hunt down and slaughter them, the ones the Sunnis don't get to first. The monster he created is the perception of US troops as occupiers and "Crusaders." The way to deal with terrorist organizations is with small tightly focused and targeted operations utilizing specialists moving at high speed. What is wrong is that no Muslim nation with Iraq as an example is going to allow US troops in to conduct such an operation.

Yes, the BushCo "War on Terror" is a fake. Law enforcement had all the tools and all the information to stop 9/11 before it happened, legally. The fact that they didn't had nothing to do with spying on Americans or Habeas Corpus, it had everything to do with turf wars and incompetence. Afghanistan had everything to do with State sponsored and protected terrorism, BushCo tried it "on the cheap," and then took their eye off the ball with Iraq. If all that weren't bad enough they announced to the terrorists that they were coming and didn't use the previous resources available. (we had a lot of CIA, etc. in Afghanistan during the Soviet excursion).

We have, within the military and other, skilled, trained, and equipped people to deal with small scale terror organizations and we have the tactics. They are not utilized. What we have is George W Bush busy wrecking our military in Iraq on a mission they were neither designed for nor equipped for that has not one thing to do with terrorism. The specialized units are being misused in an environment they were not designed for and using tactics that are foreign to their function.

There are people in the world who would use terror tactics to harm the US, that is undoubted, but using them as an excuse to wage war in Iraq and on the civil liberties of Americans is criminal. Allowing them to exist unmolested for political gain is unconscionable. Using their existence for political purposes is...well, I have no polite words. BushCo and the Republicans are not tough on Terror, they take power and gain from it and do little to nothing to combat it, they are, in fact, its beneficiaries and allies.